Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[dinolounger]

You're the one who brought up the Muslim truckers and Christian bakers and said there was a double standard. If you want religious exempts for Christians shouldn't there be exemptions for every religion? But by your non-answer, I think you have answered it.

With all due respect, I already addressed that issue in my previous posts on that subject, pointing out the Justice Department (which I'm increasingly tempted to refer to with the prefix "so-called ") has established an unfair double standard. Which I de facto implied was wrong, given all faiths should be treated equally.

And in other relevant news that everyone here has apparently missed, lo and behold David is going to be back at work next Friday or Monday:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/...marriage-licenses-goes-back-to-work/21233435/

 

[Uncle Remus]

With all due respect, I already addressed that issue in my previous posts on that subject, pointing out the Justice Department (which I'm increasingly tempted to refer to with the prefix "so-called ") has established an unfair double standard. Which I de facto implied was wrong, given all faiths should be treated equally.

And in other relevant news that everyone here has apparently missed, lo and behold David is going to be back at work next Friday or Monday:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/...marriage-licenses-goes-back-to-work/21233435/

And this will make it very interesting:

MOREHEAD, KENTUCKY–Brian Mason, a deputy for Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that he would issue marriage licenses even if Davis instructs him not to when she returns to the office.

“I would issue licenses,” Mason told BuzzFeed News. Asked to confirm he would issue licenses even if Davis says he is not allowed upon her return to work after several days in jail, Mason said, “Yes.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichold...-defy-kim-davis-and-issue-marriage#.yqd09rx8V

 

[Gracie09]

With all due respect, I already addressed that issue in my previous posts on that subject, pointing out the Justice Department (which I'm increasingly tempted to refer to with the prefix "so-called ") has established an unfair double standard. Which I de facto implied was wrong, given all faiths should be treated equally.

And in other relevant news that everyone here has apparently missed, lo and behold David is going to be back at work next Friday or Monday:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/...marriage-licenses-goes-back-to-work/21233435/

I don't think any one has missed it. It is just a nonissue unless she refuses to allow licenses to be issued. I fact there was a discussion about how she could do that. I think she will try to interfere in someway as she wants her 15 minutes extended.

 

[bcla]

If these issues are being faced by the company they can make the case for an undue hardship. The company in the case that was linked did this and the judge sided that there was not an undue hardship. So they have to accommodate... if the find it really is still a hardship they can appeal I'm sure.

It doesn't sound as if the case has been judged yet. A complaint has been filed by the EEOC.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

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.

If the business is disrupted such that another driver would have to drive hundreds of miles out of their way to cover, that would not be considered a reasonable accommodation and the drivers in question allowed to be terminated. To use another example, if it was grocery store chain that sold booze at all it's locations and it went out on most loads. It would not be deemed a reasonable accommodation not to deliver beer. To make said accommodation would disrupt the business.

 

[DisneyBabies]

With all due respect, I already addressed that issue in my previous posts on that subject, pointing out the Justice Department (which I'm increasingly tempted to refer to with the prefix "so-called ") has established an unfair double standard. Which I de facto implied was wrong, given all faiths should be treated equally.


And in other relevant news that everyone here has apparently missed, lo and behold David is going to be back at work next Friday or Monday:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/...marriage-licenses-goes-back-to-work/21233435/

Except that it's not a double standard. Had those drivers been Christian, Jewish or pink with purple polka dots , they would have had the right to reasonable accommodation under the Civil Rights Act as well. That is what the Justice Department was explaining; no matter what their religion, government job or no, everyone has the right to reasonable accommodation. The key word is REASONABLE.

Kim Davis' reasonable accommodation in this case is that she would not be physically responsible for giving these licenses, someone else in her office could do it. That was not good enough for her. It doesn't matter what religion she is, she wouldn't accept reasonable accommodation and she actively violated the civil rights of many couples, gay and straight, who simply wanted what the rule of law granted them. She is using religion as her get-out-of-jail-free card (yes, I do see the pun there ), but her actual religion has nothing to do with any of this.

And I for one didn't miss the news, I just figure she won't be able to help herself and she'll start interfering again and be right back in the hell we call a women's prison.

 

[eliza61]

I don't think any one has missed it. It is just a nonissue unless she refuses to allow licenses to be issued. I fact there was a discussion about how she could do that. I think she will try to interfere in someway as she wants her 15 minutes extended.

I hope she does, the judge has already told her if she does she'll sit there until late January when the legislature comes back into session after the Christmas break. 3 months and missing christmas in the slammer.

 

[DisneyBabies]

If the business is disrupted such that another driver would have to drive hundreds of miles out of their way to cover, that would not be considered a reasonable accommodation and the drivers in question allowed to be terminated. To use another example, if it was grocery store chain that sold booze at all it's locations and it went out on most loads. It would not be deemed a reasonable accommodation not to deliver beer. To make said accommodation would disrupt the business.

Exactly ... only REASONABLE accommodation is (or should be) guaranteed. In your example, you are exactly right that the accommodation that would need to be made was nowhere near reasonable and therefore termination would be legal.

But, from what I read, that is not the case for the trucking company in question. It was simply a matter of knowing that if a shipment of alcohol comes in, you can't assign it to those two employees.

 

[bcla]

Kim Davis' reasonable accommodation in this case is that she would not be physically responsible for giving these licenses, someone else in her office could do it. That was not good enough for her. It doesn't matter what religion she is, she wouldn't accept reasonable accommodation and she actively violated the civil rights of many couples, gay and straight, who simply wanted what the rule of law granted them. She is using religion as her get-out-of-jail-free card (yes, I do see the pun there ), but her actual religion has nothing to do with any of this.

She's been fighting this over all sorts of grounds. One was that her name would be on the license, but the office was advised that the name of the county could be used instead. Then she claimed that they weren't valid as a result, but the state AG says that's wrong.

 

[gwynne]

She's been fighting this over all sorts of grounds. One was that her name would be on the license, but the office was advised that the name of the county could be used instead. Then she claimed that they weren't valid as a result, but the state AG says that's wrong.

Stay tuned! I'm sure she can make up some more reasons to be personally offended by doing her job.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Stay tuned! I'm sure she can make up some more reasons to be personally offended by doing her job.

That made me laugh out loud!!!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I am throwing my response to several of your posts together to save time because it all comes down to one point: Civil Rights.

Period.

The Muslim truck drivers were not refusing to allow the company to transport the alcohol at all, they simply couldn't deliver it themselves. They didn't try to prevent anyone else from doing the job, so reasonable accommodation through the Civil Rights act applied in this case.

Those signs are a total joke (except the nakedness one - cause I believe that's sort of a state ordinance or something EVERYWHERE) because they are not really enforceable legally. And I'd love for you to explain to me how Disney (or any other company ... and you can't use a church or church based business as an example) refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle". Oh, and you can't use the Plan-B example either as it falls under reasonable accommodation and does not interfere with others Civil Rights.

And as for your last quote, that is only applicable if reasonable accommodation can be offered AND it doesn't violate the Civil Rights of the public they are meant to serve.

Kim Davis has NEVER been looking for REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ... She wants to refuse to do the job she was elected to do as well as prevent others in her office from doing so which violates the CIVIL RIGHTS of the public she is meant to serve. And her new game of asking to be sent to another position can not happen because she was elected to the position she has and unless she resigns or is impeached, that job is still hers.



Agreed, only if the only goods being transported were alcohol. But in this case, the trucking company delivered all types of goods and they could and should have made accommodations to make sure those two employees did not have to transport alcohol. According to the info I found on the case, it was simply a matter of putting one of the men on one truck and putting another employee on the alcohol truck. Reasonable accommodation.



I just have to say I love the movie Forrest Gump!



No, because in those cases, their religious beliefs violate the Civil Rights of others. The Muslim teacher could work at an all boys school which would satisfy his religious objections and also would not violate a girl's right to learn. And if he worked at the DMV, he could be placed in an area that deals with anything except issuing licences which, again, satisfies his religious objections but also does not refuse a drivers license to anyone who has a legal right to one.


So many people are drowning themselves in the belief that religious freedom trumps everything in this world and it does not. You can allow it to trump everything in YOUR world, but you don't get to force that on me.

If you don't want to issue a marriage license, fine ... but you can not then refuse to allow someone else to do so ... my civil rights matter. If you don't want to deliver alcohol, no problem ... as long as someone else delivers the vodka to my local ABC store where I can pick it up, you are not forcing your beliefs on me and we can all go about our merry little lives ... me (possibly) a little tipsier than before and you stone cold sober (Go us!). You want to teach my son, but not my daughter; eh, your choice ... but it's also my choice not to send my son to that all boys school ... Again, your religion is observed and my daughter's rights are intact. And I certainly don't mind you not reissuing my driver's license; there are plenty of other things you can do in that office.

Religious freedom allows you to believe what you want, not force everyone around you to believe the same.

Sorry, as someone who's been in logistics for 26 years, I can assure you switching drivers & loads around IS a big deal - one that costs dollars, not just headaches. It's not at all like asking a waitress to bring a drink to someone else's table.

 

[dinolounger]

I wonder what the percentage is of those not willing to disclose the info

Excellent point. I haven't seen the questionnaire that Gallup uses (nor has anyone else outside the firm, since it's proprietary), so I can't address how they deal with the very real challenge of asking people deeply personal questions in a way that gets consistently honest responses. As far as the sample and fieldwork methodology, their summary of it is below.

On the one hand, it shows they definitely do a proper at getting to a representative sample. On the other hand, again without seeing the survey instrument (or detailed tabs of results, which again are proprietary and not available) it is impossible to make an assessment of how effectively they deal with the risk of refusal or erroneous response. That doesn't mean they don't or don't try to address that; it just means we don't how effectively. IMHO, given the sensitivity of the subject matter and the focus Gallup has on maintaining it's Tiffany-like reputation, I highly, highly doubt they would be publishing these results if they weren't very confident about their accuracy.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey June 1-Sept. 30, 2012, with a random sample of 121,290 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of [national adults/registered voters], one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is <±1 percentage point.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

 

[DisneyBabies]

@dinolounger Another poster asked if you were going to answer their question and you replied that you did not feel like wading back though and finding out what the question was, but I really would like an answer to the question I asked you, so I waded back through and found the question for you.

And I'd love for you to explain to me how Disney (or any other company ... and you can't use a church or church based business as an example) refuse to sell products or provide services based on "lifesyle". Oh, and you can't use the Plan-B example either as it falls under reasonable accommodation and does not interfere with others Civil Rights.

 

[sam_gordon]

Answer what? It's not worth diving back into the increasingly tangential and complex trucking discussion (every element there worth bringing up has already been raised). And no, I'm not going to fall for the bait some are hanging out here to tempt others into a religious debate.

Here you go... I asked you a direct question you haven't answered yet:

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

This was in response to your posting three "big items" (mental health, Chicago gun deaths, and debt) that no one is talking about.

 

[ariel71]

With all due respect, I already addressed that issue in my previous posts on that subject, pointing out the Justice Department (which I'm increasingly tempted to refer to with the prefix "so-called ") has established an unfair double standard. Which I de facto implied was wrong, given all faiths should be treated equally.

And in other relevant news that everyone here has apparently missed, lo and behold David is going to be back at work next Friday or Monday:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/...marriage-licenses-goes-back-to-work/21233435/

Actually, considering the merits of that case are very different than this one, no you didn't. But I'm sure you've been following this thread quite closely and only jumped in when you thought you had used your Google powers to find some pseudo-intellectual Seinfeld-esque bizzaroworld trump card.

In terms of the 3% (you really like to bring that up), what it comes down to is "who cares"? Since when did civil rights become based on the percentage of the population involved? The percentage of the adult population who is visually impaired seems to hover around 2-3% as well. Glad there aren't religions discriminating against blind people since they must not matter either. If anything, the smaller the percentage, the louder they need to yell to be heard or the more they need court intervention - tyranny of the majority and all.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

And now we're successfully, once again, back in debate forum territory. I wonder how/why that keeps happening? It seems as if we should look at what our constant variable(s) is/are that continue to make this happen again and again and again and again and again and again...

hmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

 

[tigger2002]

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.

This if from the New Testament not the old. You are right, they are not illegal by man's laws, just acts that God has defined as sins. So, by your own admission you have committed a half dozen of these sins and will not have to answer to the United States law, just God.

 

[DisneyBabies]

Sorry, as someone who's been in logistics for 26 years, I can assure you switching drivers & loads around IS a big deal - one that costs dollars, not just headaches. It's not at all like asking a waitress to bring a drink to someone else's table.

Thanks for this info. I have two bil's that are truckers (one local and one long haul) and neither of them have many issues with switching loads. The long haul has had things switch more often (whether it's this kind of issue or some other I don't know) but he said it's only been really far off once and they had to redo all of his loads for that half of the trip. It seems as if the accommodation causes more problems for the "office" side than the actual haulers. I wonder if they consider it reasonable because they feel it only affects the job of the driver?

 

[Christine]

Thanks for this info. I have two bil's that are truckers (one local and one long haul) and neither of them have many issues with switching loads. The long haul has had things switch more often (whether it's this kind of issue or some other I don't know) but he said it's only been really far off once and they had to redo all of his loads for that half of the trip. It seems as if the accommodation causes more problems for the "office" side than the actual haulers. I wonder if they consider it reasonable because they feel it only affects the job of the driver?

EEOC will rule unreasonable if the accommodation causes a company to lose money or to put unacceptable stress on other employees. In Gumbo's example, it might be undue hardship. In your example, it may not be. Not all trucking companies are equal. Gumbo's experiences may be the same in 9 out of 10 trucking companies. Each case will be ruled on separately. STAR TRANSPORT may have been very much like your company. I really do not believe that EEOC rulings are out to deliberately hurt business owners. Sure, it may cause some turmoil in the paperwork, but I still have faith that they can step in when it truly hurts a company. It is a balancing act to determine if a business owner (who might be like this clerk) is just disgusted with having to deal with religious accommodations and won't try anything at all.