Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[TLSnell1981]

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.

This thread has been a wreck, almost from the very beginning. IMO I'm astounded, over the comments being allowed by a few.

 

[daughtersrus]

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.

My comment was directed to this comment from Dinolounger "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."

I'm curious Dinolounger believes that a public school would allow a Muslim principal to order all teachers to refuse to teach girls.

Or if they think that it would be ok for a Muslim Sectretary of State to order all DMV employees to refuse drivers licenses to women.

That is what Kim Davis was doing. She was ordering her employees to abide by her religious beliefs.

 

[Gracie09]

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.

God, men a 1000 years ago writing what they believed to be edited over the years by other men to be interpreted by other men (and a few women), but hey if it's what you believe that's fine. Live it, love it, enjoy it. But don't make others adhere to your rules.

 

[Unas]

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/

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one. The Clerk was in contempt of court. The motion that lead to her incarceration was brought by the parties harmed by her refusal to comply with a series of judicial branch decisions. But fel free to incorrectly Blume the executive branch.

 

[TLSnell1981]

God, men a 1000 years ago writing what they believed to be edited over the years by other men to be interpreted by other men (and a few women), but hey if it's what you believe that's fine. Live it, love it, enjoy it. But don't make others adhere to your rules.

Just because they are ancient, doesn't mean they should be dismissed. Say for instance,
Thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, etc.

Many pick and choose which rules they abide by. It doesn't matter WHO makes them. Maybe, that's why things are in such disarray across the globe?

 

[DisneyBabies]

My comment was directed to this comment from Dinolounger "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."

I'm curious Dinolounger believes that a public school would allow a Muslim principal to order all teachers to refuse to teach girls.

Or if they think that it would be ok for a Muslim Sectretary of State to order all DMV employees to refuse drivers licenses to women.

That is what Kim Davis was doing. She was ordering her employees to abide by her religious beliefs.

I wasn't sure if you were actually asking or just asking rhetorically so I thought I'd err on the side of caution and answer. And after some of dinolounger's other responses, I didn't figure you'd get an answer. And they are legitimate questions as there are a few cases that, on the surface, look like they are comparable, but once you dig down, they are obviously not.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

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:

Nobody missed a thing. There's just no double standard. The truckers showed the company chose not to make a reasonable accommodation and the company lost. Davis was offered the chance at a reasonable accommodation for herself and not only declined to take it, but declined to allow it, and she lost too. She then defied a judge and got herself thrown in the pokey for contempt of court. She is now being given another chance. Let us hope she has the brains to know that the judge isn't playing around. By the way the Davis case was not handled by the executive branch. It was handled by the judicial branch.

Here you go... I asked you a direct question you haven't answered yet:
This was in response to your posting three "big items" (mental health, Chicago gun deaths, and debt) that no one is talking about.

A similar thing came up in another thread and she was asked a similar question. She either chose not to answer or couldn't point out any. Even if she doesn't answer. if she truly cared as much about those things as she cares about this, they would be easy to find and all over the place and you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

 

[Gracie09]

Many pick and choose which rules they abide by. It doesn't matter WHO makes them. Maybe, that's why things are in such disarray across the globe?

I would argue organized religion as a whole is the reason the world is in disarray.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I would argue organized religion as a whole is the reason the world is in disarray.

I would disagree. Although, the topic is taboo on the DIS, so it can't be discussed.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I checked this morning, the marriage equality ruling from the Supreme Court is still in effect for the United States.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Scotus 6:26:2015 still in the house!

 

[daughtersrus]

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/

dinolounger, I'm curious if you believe that a public school would allow a Muslim principal to order all teachers to refuse to teach girls.

Or if you think that it would be ok for a Muslim Sectretary of State to order all DMV employees to refuse drivers licenses to women.

That is what Kim Davis was doing. She was ordering her employees to abide by her religious beliefs.

 

[dinolounger]

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.
.

Problem is, you are ignoring the original comparison I made. So let's revisit it.

You are STILL saying it is REASONABLE for a Muslim driver to use their faith as a reason to refuse to perform their assigned duty.

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding. Even though a floral shop is a common privately owned enterprise that is in no way, shape or form a public service or accommodation (the definitional tact the Feds took when women sued private men's clubs to gain access. Said women argued not getting access to the clubs hindered their careers. So you are implying same you know whats can reasonably argue their lives will be ruined if they don't get a particular vendor for their wedding?!?)

Which in turn means you and the Justice Department say Muslims have more rights than Christians. The former can say no to a providing a service, but the latter can't and will be coerced into submission if they object.

Or put more bluntly, yes, you both hold a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

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?

Physically, the drivers & loaders take the brunt. The hassle in the office is mostly financial.


And the problem is that when a truck leaves the terminal, the driver really doesn't know where they're going to wind up. A local driver might have 20 deliveries & 20 pickups on the same day. But, none of those pickups are known when he or she heads out for the day.

A long haul guy may leave LA with 10 pallets for Phoenix & 16 for St Louis. Somewhere in the middle of the trip, his company books 8 pallets of craft beer to be picked up in Amarillo & delivered to Oklahoma City. Because he's dropped 10 pallets in Phoenix, he has room, and it's right on his way. Only makes sense he would get that load whether he wants it or not.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

You are STILL saying it is REASONABLE for a Muslim driver to use their faith as a reason to refuse to perform their assigned duty.

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding.

That's because the company can get another employee to ship the alcohol. The company receiving the shipment still get their alcohol and will likely be never aware there was an issue. The florist is discriminating against an individual by denying a service to a protective status.

The florist isn't being "unreasonable", he or she is discriminating against a client for being gay. I don't understand why this is the same thing. I don't see a double standard. If this florist was one employee of a floral shop, and another employee at that same shop sold the couple flowers, THEN we'd be talking about the same thing.

 

[bcla]

Problem is, you are ignoring the original comparison I made. So let's revisit it.

You are STILL saying it is REASONABLE for a Muslim driver to use their faith as a reason to refuse to perform their assigned duty.

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding. Even though a floral shop is a common privately owned enterprise that is in no way, shape or form a public service or accommodation (the definitional tact the Feds took when women sued private men's clubs to gain access. Said women argued not getting access to the clubs hindered their careers. So you are implying same you know whats can reasonably argue their lives will be ruined if they don't get a particular vendor for their wedding?!?)

Which in turn means you and the Justice Department say Muslims have more rights than Christians. The former can say no to a providing a service, but the latter can't and will be coerced into submission if they object.

Or put more bluntly, yes, you both hold a DOUBLE STANDARD.

No. The difference is between the employee and the business owner. A business can't discriminate based on certain grounds, but an employee can request a reasonable accommodation. The business itself can't overall reject a client based on some protected status.

 

[Gracie09]

Problem is, you are ignoring the original comparison I made. So let's revisit it.

You are STILL saying it is REASONABLE for a Muslim driver to use their faith as a reason to refuse to perform their assigned duty.

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding. Even though a floral shop is a common privately owned enterprise that is in no way, shape or form a public service or accommodation (the definitional tact the Feds took when women sued private men's clubs to gain access. Said women argued not getting access to the clubs hindered their careers. So you are implying same you know whats can reasonably argue their lives will be ruined if they don't get a particular vendor for their wedding?!?)

Which in turn means you and the Justice Department say Muslims have more rights than Christians. The former can say no to a providing a service, but the latter can't and will be coerced into submission if they object.

Or put more bluntly, yes, you both hold a DOUBLE STANDARD.

No what you're not seeing is once you hold yourself out as a place of public accommodation (hotel restaurant store etc) you have to serve everyone regardless of their race, gender, sex, disability etc. Civil Rights Act 1964 if you want to look it up. An employer (the trucking company) has a different duty to his employees. That is to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. For example, if a christian could not work on Sunday but the trucking company had routes that ran on sundays, a reasonable accommodation would be to not schedule the Christian on a Sunday route. One is dealing with the general public, the other employees.

 

[DisneyBabies]

Problem is, you are ignoring the original comparison I made. So let's revisit it.

You are STILL saying it is REASONABLE for a Muslim driver to use their faith as a reason to refuse to perform their assigned duty. Yes, because it is not a violation of anyone's civil or religious rights, they are not trying to prevent others from doing the job and the Civil Rights Act allows for reasonable accommodations to be made and the EEOC found that those drivers could have been put on a route that did not force them to transport alcohol.

But in your world (and that of the Justice Department) it is apparently UNREASONABLE for a Christian florist to to use her faith as a reason to refuse to provide flowers to a same you know what wedding. Even though a floral shop is a common privately owned enterprise that is in no way, shape or form a public service or accommodation (the definitional tact the Feds took when women sued private men's clubs to gain access. Said women argued not getting access to the clubs hindered their careers. So you are implying same you know whats can reasonably argue their lives will be ruined if they don't get a particular vendor for their wedding?!?) Yes, it is unreasonable because you can not discriminate against someone based on their religion, color or sexual preference. The florist being a Christian had nothing to do with it ... if she was a Muslim, the end result would have been the same. If you want to only serve cakes or make flower arrangements for one group of persons, you need to find a church who believes the same as you and affiliate your business with them as they are not covered the same as individuals or businesses when it comes to religious freedom. No one said those couples lives were ruined ... they said they were unlawfully discriminated against ... which is true.

Which in turn means you and the Justice Department say Muslims have more rights than Christians. The former can say no to a providing a service, but the latter can't and will be coerced into submission if they object. No, I say EVERYONE has the same rights ... everyone has the right to go to whatever church they believe suits them ... everyone has the right to reasonable accommodation if part of their job goes against their beliefs ... everyone has the right to get a marriage license if they are legally allowed.

Or put more bluntly, yes, you both hold a DOUBLE STANDARD. Again, it's not a double standard if everyone has the same right to reasonable accommodation. Whether you accept the accommodation or not has nothing to do with religion or the government playing favorites. It has everything to do with your beliefs being forced on others which is something the Constitution says you can not do.

Physically, the drivers & loaders take the brunt. The hassle in the office is mostly financial.

And the problem is that when a truck leaves the terminal, the driver really doesn't know where they're going to wind up. A local driver might have 20 deliveries & 20 pickups on the same day. But, none of those pickups are known when he or she heads out for the day.

A long haul guy may leave LA with 10 pallets for Phoenix & 16 for St Louis. Somewhere in the middle of the trip, his company books 8 pallets of craft beer to be picked up in Amarillo & delivered to Oklahoma City. Because he's dropped 10 pallets in Phoenix, he has room, and it's right on his way. Only makes sense he would get that load whether he wants it or not.

Is this why some trucking companies have a rule that you can not refuse a load; to sort of head this sort of thing off? And if that's the case, I'm assuming the company involved in this case does not have that particular rule on the books. I looked it up, but couldn't find anything one way or another.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

No what you're not seeing is once you hold yourself out as a place of public accommodation (hotel restaurant store etc) you have to serve everyone regardless of their race, gender, sex, disability etc. Civil Rights Act 1964 if you want to look it up. An employer (the trucking company) has a different duty to his employees. That is to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. For example, if a christian could not work on Sunday but the trucking company had routes that ran on sundays, a reasonable accommodation would be to not schedule the Christian on a Sunday route. One is dealing with the general public, the other employees.

You really think expecting Sundays off in a 24/7 job is a "reasonable" accommodation?

 

[JaxDad]

You really think expecting Sundays off in a 24/7 job is a "reasonable" accommodation?

"I don't roll on Shabbos!"