Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[bcla]

If you are a truck driver who works for a company that delivers alcohol, you deliver alcohol. If your religion forbids it, work somewhere else.

Depends. If you're specifically working for Anheuser-Busch as a delivery driver, then there's probably not going to be a reasonable accommodation. However, if it's a general delivery company, then there's going to be plenty of room for reasonable accommodation to deliver loads that don't contain alcohol. A waiter might need to take an order but not have to bring out any alcohol to the table. However, a government official can't really stop her employees from doing something required by the office if she doesn't like it. Heck - she could cite her religion as a reason why she won't issue a marriage license to someone who is divorced.

 

[bcla]

Oh thank God, Gumbo. I thought I was the only one who was thinking it. I would have more respect for this woman if she resigned due to a conflict of religious belief but that's not what she's doing. Basically she's saying I will break the law and you have to let me because I'm a Christian.

Slap her back in jail. Period.

Again - there's reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs including giving other assignments. However, one doesn't stop everyone else in the company from doing things that violate a personal belief.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Depends. If you're specifically working for Anheuser-Busch as a delivery driver, then there's probably not going to be a reasonable accommodation. However, if it's a general delivery company, then there's going to be plenty of room for reasonable accommodation to deliver loads that don't contain alcohol. A waiter might need to take an order but not have to bring out any alcohol to the table. However, a government official can't really stop her employees from doing something required by the office if she doesn't like it. Heck - she could cite her religion as a reason why she won't issue a marriage license to someone who is divorced.

Agree on the official, disagree on the truck driver. A delivery company could potentially have to send another driver hundreds of miles to cover for a driver who refuses a load. Not reasonable.

 

[dinolounger]

What your missing is that Kim Davis not only refused to serve individuals, but refused to allow others to serve them. The Muslim truck drivers did not refuse to allow others to drive the alcohol. Also marriage is a civil right. Transporting alcohol is not. Different standard apply.

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

 

[bcla]

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no constitutional right to be able to demand products or services from any private enterprise. Private enterprises -- including Disney -- can refuse to sell products or provide services to whomever they decide and do that all the time:

Not really. No shirts, no shoes, no service is a reasonable request. Refusing Muslim customers is illegal according to the federal Civil Rights Act. And the "private property" might not work in many states with coastal access laws.

 

[bcla]

Agree on the official, disagree on the truck driver. A delivery company could potentially have to send another driver hundreds of miles to cover for a driver who refuses a load. Not reasonable.

Here's the EEOC release:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."
​

I found the actual complaint:

http://ia601705.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267/gov.uscourts.ilcd.58267.1.0.pdf

 

[sunshinehighway]

Agree on the official, disagree on the truck driver. A delivery company could potentially have to send another driver hundreds of miles to cover for a driver who refuses a load. Not reasonable.

The key is whether the accommodation is reasonable.

 

[bcla]

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

There are reasonable accommodations for employees. However, there's no reasonable accommodation for the head of a government office who blocks otherwise legal activity from happening at all in her office. I mean - what if she was against divorce (although that's up for debate) and blocked any of her deputies from issuing a marriage license to someone who was divorced.

I mean - if a Christian specifically requested a specific holiday off or perhaps Sundays off, that would be a reasonable accommodation. Observant Jewish employees can reasonably request time off on the Sabbath.

 

[bcla]

The key is whether the accommodation is reasonable.

The EEOC claims that they would have had no issues complying with the requests. The company had 15 employees at the time.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no constitutional right to be able to demand products or services from any private enterprise. Private enterprises -- including Disney -- can refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle" and do that all the time:

1. Huge difference between refusing service because someone walks in naked and refusing to issue a marriage license because someone is gay. Naked is not a basis for protection from discrimination under the law. Same sex marriage is now the law of the land.
2. That sign is seen in many a business. But it has already been established that a business cannot refuse service on the basis of race, creed, etc.
3. Again huge difference between refusing service because someone is not properly attired and refusing to issue marriage licenses Same sex marriage is now the law of the land. Running around naked or with ones pants waist at the ankles isn't.
4. That one is a joke and also runs counter to the law in many states. The price charged must be the price advertised.

None of these things prove the Poster you answered wrong.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

Nobody is trying to obscure anything. And no, there is no double standard at all. In the case of the Muslim truck drivers, it was proven a reasonable accommodation could be made. If Christian truck drivers made the same complaint in the same situation, the ruling would have been the same. If this Kimberly Davis were Muslim, and did the exact same thing, the result would have been the same. Again, no double standard at all. Nor is it a fact the government says anything of the sort that you allege.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Which I disagree with.
All this has done, and will do, is to extend this woman's platform and her 15 minutes of fame.
I would want to find a way that she could never step into that public office ever again.

Is there such a thing as 'Unfit to serve...'

Yes, however, the judge doesn't have the power to remove her from her office. And even if the Kentucky legislature were to impeach her and remove her, she could run again. And she's from a legacy family in that county from what I read so it's likely they'd vote her right back in again. I can't fault the judge for giving her one more chance. We'll see if she takes it or she instructs her deputies not to issue them.

How does she stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses, especially since they have orders from a judge to do so and report their activities to him bi-weekly?
If she takes that approach, doesn't that really put the deputies between a rock and a hard place?

I'm not sure who has the firing and hiring power around that office. If she has it, they're really between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Gracie09]

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no constitutional right to be able to demand products or services from any private enterprise. Private enterprises -- including Disney -- can refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle" and do that all the time:

The ussc has ruled that places of public accommodation cannot refuse to serve people due to race, gender, now sexual orientation, disability, religion etc. those signs that say they can refuse service to anyone are not worth the paper they are printed on. If you open your business to the public. You have to serve the public that enters your business with some limited exceptions ie they are drunk or high or threatening you

 

[Gracie09]

How does she stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses, especially since they have orders from a judge to do so and report their activities to him bi-weekly?
If she takes that approach, doesn't that really put the deputies between a rock and a hard place?

She closes the office. She threatens to fire them (although they would probably have a good case against her and the state for unlawful termination). She makes it yells at them at makes it difficult for them to complete the work.

 

[Gracie09]

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

Of course they can. If a Christian had a belief that their religion means they canNot serve alcohol they are entitled to an accommodation. If their office is open on Sunday's and they can't work on Sunday's, they can ask and probably receive an accommodation. When I worked at a university in nyc we had a few Orthodox Jews who left on Fridays two or three hours early to be home for sundown. They had a religious accommodation. Did it occasionally make my life slightly harder, yes because I could get busy at times but they were entitled to an accommodation (they also came in early or worked late other days so I often benefited from that). But when you are a government official and your job is to uphold the law and provide people basic civil rights afforded them by the constitution, your rights stop where the other persons right start. Besides Kim isn't performing weddings. She is simply looking at paperwork and saying yes you met the legal requirements (legal not religious) to get married.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

When I was a claims adjudicator for a medical insurance company, we had a catholic employee who refused to process abortion claims. So I did it.

It's called reasonable accommodation and is not a huge hairy deal.

 

[kamik86]

For the reasonable accommodations for employees, employers are allowed to remove someone if they deem the accommodation isn't reasonable and then that battle gets fought in court.

So if your a delivery driver for a beer company and suddenly decide to start practicing a religion that can't transport alcohol they would have a REALLY good case to fire you.

If you work for the post office however they may just need to make a reasonable accommodation (if possible... would the post office even know if I was mailing a package if it contained alcohol? However that may have to do with how undue of a burden is placed on the company due to this action


Now on to the things like a marriage licence or a cake. The problem is that the people had no problem with baking a cake (the action) they had a problem with who they were doing it FOR. It wasn't the action that was the problem but the client. Same with marriage licences. Issuing licences was fine until she had to do it to another type of client.

Now if a Muslim was saying they can ONLY deliver alcohol to white people but not to other muslim's Yeah that would be a problem. But they are saying they can't do the task, no matter who is requesting it. Very different.

 

[PlutoPony]

She closes the office. She threatens to fire them (although they would probably have a good case against her and the state for unlawful termination). She makes it yells at them at makes it difficult for them to complete the work.

Don't see how she fires them as that would very clearly be seen as imposing HER religious beliefs on her staff, as well as going against a judge's very specific order.

I'm curious to see how she goes forward while keeping her name (and case) in the news. Don't get the sense that she or her attorneys are ready to relinquish their time in the spotlight. But her options are rather limited if she wants to stay out of jail for a longer stretch.

 

[Gracie09]

Don't see how she fires them as that would very clearly be seen as imposing HER religious beliefs on her staff, as well as going against a judge's very specific order.

I'm curious to see how she goes forward while keeping her name (and case) in the news. Don't get the sense that she or her attorneys are ready to relinquish their time in the spotlight. But her options are rather limited if she wants to stay out of jail for a longer stretch.

You're assuming she will act logically. I believe the deputies are not elected officials so at will employees. She probably has the authority to fire them but that doesn't mean they can't come back a sue her and the state for unlawful termination.
They won't issue the licenses and she gets to keep her name in the papers. Maybe she will have another few days in jail. I don't think she really cares

 

[castleview]

And what you are missing (or possibly trying to obscure because of the blatant, obvious and embarrassing double standard) is the fact the Federal Government says Muslims can refuse to perform duties when employed by the government or private enterprise based on their faith, but Christians can't.

Wah wah wah! It's one thing to make reasonable accommodations; it's another to allow someone to break the law. I'm sorry, but this woman is a horribly under educated crazy person who is being enabled to live in an alternate universe. Her sect of Christianity attracts people with low self esteem who try and control other people to make up for their extremely bad life choices. As a Christian, I have no love for bigots or their apologists and no tolerance for those whining they are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to discriminate. Get a life.