Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[castleview]

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

I think she does care - it sounded like she couldn't take it anymore. But maybe she'll get a little rejuvinated to go back given the applause she got from the idiots cheering her on. BTW, anyone catch one of Huckabee's flack's blocking Ted Cruz from standing near the crazy lady? It's pathetically hysterical.

 

[PlutoPony]

I think she does care - it sounded like she couldn't take it anymore. But maybe she'll get a little rejuvinated to go back given the applause she got from the idiots cheering her on.

Playing "Eye of the Tiger" as she came out of jail was a bit over the top, wasn't it?
And the guys who wrote it (from the band Survivor) are NOT happy she co-opted their song without permission, they don't agree with her stand at all. Have instructed their publisher to tell her to stop using it.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Flawed attempt at distinguishing the examples. You are saying it was OK for the Muslim truck drivers to refuse to transport alcohol (which could be called a task or service) based on the their religious faith, but it's not OK for a county clerk or a private entity to refuse to perform a task or service (which baking a cake or issuing a wedding license is) based on their religious faith.

Yes, because:
1. You are not denying service to an individual by refusing to transport alcohol.
2. There are other individuals in the company who will transport the alcohol.

If the segregated south claim that blacks weren't allowed to eat at a lunch counter because the owner of the restaurant believed as part of his religion that blacks were an inferior race, would that be ok? Did you know some people actually believed that? That Africans are "mud people" descended from Cain and shouldn't be dealt with?

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Sometimes it's just arguing for the sake of arguing. There are perfect examples all around us. Seems the process of "winning" is more important than the subject matter or the presentation. And, that's all I'm gonna say about that...

 

[Christine]

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.

Not that simple. When it comes to any business, be it private or government, the first step is EEO and reasonable accommodation. If the company can make a reasonable accommodation without causing undue hardship on the business, then they must. In the truck drivers' case:

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." Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

So, I'm guessing that, in this particular case a trucking company transports MANY, MANY things and they could easily switch these drivers to carry a truckload of anything else without causing more than a schedule change.

It's not like these guys signed up to work for Jack Daniels and then said, after being hired, oh by they way, we can't drive the truck to take your whiskey to the store. In that case, there was no reasonable accommodation to be made and the company can legally dismiss them with no issue.

Businesses must make reasonable accommodations all the time. If you work somewhere for 20 years and you are able to do all of the tasks which involve making copies, filing, lifting boxes of paper, sorting supplies, etc and you've done that with no problem THEN you hurt your back and you can no longer do the ONE TASK of lifting boxes, you can get a reasonable accommodation. If your employer has 20 other employees and 19 of them can do that task, they can have one of them lift the boxes while you take over their filing. If the employer only has one employee (YOU) then they cannot make a reasonable accommodations and you could be dismissed.

Same thing here but not the same as the clerk's issue.

 

[kamik86]

Not that simple. When it comes to any business, be it private or government, the first step is EEO and reasonable accommodation. If the company can make a reasonable accommodation without causing undue hardship on the business, then they must. In the truck drivers' case:

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." Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

So, I'm guessing that, in this particular case a trucking company transports MANY, MANY things and they could easily switch these drivers to carry a truckload of anything else without causing more than a schedule change.

It's not like these guys signed up to work for Jack Daniels and then said, after being hired, oh by they way, we can't drive the truck to take your whiskey to the store. In that case, there was no reasonable accommodation to be made and the company can legally dismiss them with no issue.

Businesses must make reasonable accommodations all the time. If you work somewhere for 20 years and you are able to do all of the tasks which involve making copies, filing, lifting boxes of paper, sorting supplies, etc and you've done that with no problem THEN you hurt your back and you can no longer do the ONE TASK of lifting boxes, you can get a reasonable accommodation. If your employer has 20 other employees and 19 of them can do that task, they can have one of them lift the boxes while you take over their filing. If the employer only has one employee (YOU) then they cannot make a reasonable accommodations and you could be dismissed.

Same thing here but not the same as the clerk's issue.

This is a bit off topic but I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this as it is something I always wondered.

Lets say that you have a warehouse in an area that has a very high Muslim population. Due to this a high percentage of your delivery guys are Muslim, not just one or two. Could a company claim undue hardship in making the accommodation then?

Or taking religion out and using your example. Say I have 20 employees that I hire at around the same time when I start. My area has a really bad economy and I pay well so 30 years from now most of them still work for me... but now they are in their mid 50s and not one but multiple start having back problems. The ones that don't are claiming they are afraid that having to do so much lifting will cause them back problems... Can I claim undue hardship? I could easily get buy with 1 or 2 having an accommodation but as more and more need one but can't be let go how do I get my boxes moved?

 

[Tiggeroo]

In the case of the truckdriver I don't think it's that simple. If you set a precedent it can get complicated. Suppose your religion is opposed to birth control and you won't handle trucks of condoms. Suppose we are talking about pork products or food that is not kosher. The list can go on. I think in a small business with a few employees where occasionally something comes up and a co-worker says, hey I'll handle that then fine. If a move to another division can be requested and granted, also good. But you really can't accommodate all of the religions in our society today.

This is all you need to know. You either believe it or not.


22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

I really should just ignore this. We can't debate the bible endlessly here. But what do you think of all of these other sins that people who are not homosexuals commit on this list and are not illegal. This woman didn't care about the fornicators who were getting divorced and remarried or marrying the woman they left their wife for. Are weapons that kill people evil? So if you work anywhere near that you are helping inventors of evil. I have committed at least a half dozen of these sins and nobody interfered with my way of life. If you want to see what a mess religious law can create look at the middle east. See where women are stoned or where they must completely cover themselves. Don't try to enforce old testament law unless you want to follow it perfectly yourself. Law is one thing. Your personal decisions made by your relationship with God are another.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

Yep. Or you work it out ahead of time when you are being hired. Although, again, EEO does dictate "reasonable accommodation". Assuming there's other stuff you can transport, the business has to work with you.

If someone doesn't agree with same sex marriage, they should not be in a business that sells wedding cakes.

 

[kamik86]

Another question... what if anything does the law say needs to be true to say something is a relgion?

My husband as a kid decided to make his own religion one day. He made up rules for it as a game with some friends. Now he has never tried to claim anything based on this relgion its more of a running joke... but could someone?

My husband's religion is a video gaming religion. Worship is performed by playing games and when your doing poorly at them it is because you angered his god... he had a name I can't remember it off hand though... in some way. It came complete with Holy days etc as the joke continued.

At what point can anyone that doesn't like one aspect of a job they otherwise like claim that task is against their religion ____.

 

[Gracie09]

In the case of the truckdriver I don't think it's that simple. If you set a precedent it can get complicated. Suppose your religion is opposed to birth control and you won't handle trucks of condoms. Suppose we are talking about pork products or food that is not kosher. The list can go on. I think in a small business with a few employees where occasionally something comes up and a co-worker says, hey I'll handle that then fine. If a move to another division can be requested and granted, also good. But you really can't accommodate all of the religions in our society today.

I really should just ignore this. We can't debate the bible endlessly here. But what do you think of all of these other sins that people who are not homosexuals commit on this list and are not illegal. This woman didn't care about the fornicators who were getting divorced and remarried or marrying the woman they left their wife for. Are weapons that kill people evil? So if you work anywhere near that you are helping inventors of evil. I have committed at least a half dozen of these sins and nobody interfered with my way of life. If you want to see what a mess religious law can create look at the middle east. See where women are stoned or where they must completely cover themselves. Don't try to enforce old testament law unless you want to follow it perfectly yourself. Law is one thing. Your personal decisions made by your relationship with God are another.

but you can't pick and choose which ones you do accommodate.

Here is a article that explains it nicely. Its not cut and dry and takes into account hardships faced by the employer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

 

[daughtersrus]

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.

Are you saying that Muslim teachers would be allowed to refuse to educate girls because it violates their religious beliefs to do so?

Or that women could be refused a drivers license because it violates the DMV workers religion to allow women to drive?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

If Kim Davis saw a same sex couple and had someone else in her office help them, nobody would bat an eyelash. Heck, it's possible nobody would notice. That's what is happening with the Muslim truck drivers. Somebody else takes the load. Same thing happens when a Jewish employee has off for Yom Kippur. Nobody is refused service; somebody else works that day.

 

[robinb]

This is all you need to know. You either believe it or not.


22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

It doesn't matter which chapter and verse she's using to rationalize her actions. I literally couldn't care less and my eyes crossed reading it. If she believes it as part of her religious convictions and I think it's ok that she request a reasonable accommodation because of it. But she still can't dictate that her staff do the same ... Which is what I think she's relying on.

 

[Christine]

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.

That would be a case-by-case basis. It could certainly be an issue as you identified and it that case the company has grounds not to keep the employee. In this case, the company could not prove that it was a hardship so they lost on this one. It really depends on how the large the trucking company is.

 

[gwynne]

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

I agree. I also think she's had a taste of celebrity. It's addicting to some. She may need to keep stirring the pot to keep the attention coming. She's this years Joe the Plumber. Yawn.

 

[dinolounger]

Seems the process of "winning" is more important than the subject matter or the presentation.

Precisely. People here are getting all worked up into a tizzy because a handful of people who represent less than 3% of the population decided their marriage had to be a global political statement and consequently ran into delays because of that decision (yes, everyone has their heart set on getting married in backwater, KY). Meanwhile,

• Our mental health system is crumbling because of a critical shortage of psychiatrists: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150907/us-psychiatrist-shortage-5addbabd7b.html
• Chicago just had the largest number of gun homicides on a single day in over a decade: http://homicides.suntimes.com/
• U.S. Corporations have taken on record debt and the risk of defaults due to rising interest rates is quickly increasing http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25f138ce-5636-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3lFZ1gEoC

Interesting to see where our priorities are.....

 

[sam_gordon]

Precisely. People here are getting all worked up into a tizzy because a handful of people who represent less than 3% of the population decided their marriage had to be a global political statement and consequently ran into delays because of that decision (yes, everyone has their heart set on getting married in backwater, KY). Meanwhile,

• Our mental health system is crumbling because of a critical shortage of psychiatrists: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150907/us-psychiatrist-shortage-5addbabd7b.html
• Chicago just had the largest number of gun homicides on a single day in over a decade: http://homicides.suntimes.com/
• U.S. Corporations have taken on record debt and the risk of defaults due to rising interest rates is quickly increasing http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25f138ce-5636-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3lFZ1gEoC

Interesting to see where our priorities are.....

Since you care about these other items so much, can you provide links to the threads you've started to discuss them?

 

[Bec3b1g]

This is a bit off topic but I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this as it is something I always wondered.

Lets say that you have a warehouse in an area that has a very high Muslim population. Due to this a high percentage of your delivery guys are Muslim, not just one or two. Could a company claim undue hardship in making the accommodation then?

Or taking religion out and using your example. Say I have 20 employees that I hire at around the same time when I start. My area has a really bad economy and I pay well so 30 years from now most of them still work for me... but now they are in their mid 50s and not one but multiple start having back problems. The ones that don't are claiming they are afraid that having to do so much lifting will cause them back problems... Can I claim undue hardship? I could easily get buy with 1 or 2 having an accommodation but as more and more need one but can't be let go how do I get my boxes moved?

I am a small business owner in an at will state. I had to seek the advice of a lawyer in a somewhat similar situation. It is against labor laws to fire someone in retaliation for an on the job injury. In a small business, an injured worker who is not able to perform their job duties can be fired rather than accommodated if the business cannot function without this key employee or it creates financial hardship. It's all in the documentation and whether or not you want to risk a lawsuit. Large corporations have different labor rules. Not sure about them.

 

[Christine]

This is a bit off topic but I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this as it is something I always wondered.

Lets say that you have a warehouse in an area that has a very high Muslim population. Due to this a high percentage of your delivery guys are Muslim, not just one or two. Could a company claim undue hardship in making the accommodation then?

Or taking religion out and using your example. Say I have 20 employees that I hire at around the same time when I start. My area has a really bad economy and I pay well so 30 years from now most of them still work for me... but now they are in their mid 50s and not one but multiple start having back problems. The ones that don't are claiming they are afraid that having to do so much lifting will cause them back problems... Can I claim undue hardship? I could easily get buy with 1 or 2 having an accommodation but as more and more need one but can't be let go how do I get my boxes moved?

I would say, yes, in both scenarios, if you can prove undue hardship, you would be justified in letting them go. As long as you can show that making accommodations for them impacts your productivity, you win.

 

[Gracie09]

Precisely. People here are getting all worked up into a tizzy because a handful of people who represent less than 3% of the population decided their marriage had to be a global political statement and consequently ran into delays because of that decision (yes, everyone has their heart set on getting married in backwater, KY). Meanwhile,

• Our mental health system is crumbling because of a critical shortage of psychiatrists: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150907/us-psychiatrist-shortage-5addbabd7b.html
• Chicago just had the largest number of gun homicides on a single day in over a decade: http://homicides.suntimes.com/
• U.S. Corporations have taken on record debt and the risk of defaults due to rising interest rates is quickly increasing http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25f138ce-5636-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3lFZ1gEoC

Interesting to see where our priorities are.....

If you were one of the 3% (although it is actually a larger percent but I'll go with your number) whose civil rights are being violated you would care. The two same sex couples who received licenses the first day lived in this backwater area, so they should be permitted to have access to the same services as other citizens. The role of government is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

And just because someone is passionate about one topic does not mean they don't care about others. I'm an intelligent person. I have hold many opinions and concerns at the same time.