Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[Wishing on a star]

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.

AMEN!!!!!

 

[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.....

and you also haven't answered the question whether you would be okay with a Muslim DMV clerk not issuing licenses to woman because according to their beliefs woman shouldn't drive. Or a Muslim teacher who refuses to educate girls.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

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.

Size is immaterial. Trucking companies that employ thousands of drivers still have BIG routes that get covered by a single driver.

Switching drivers on routes isn't as easy as it sounds, even if both drivers & both loads are based out of the same terminal. It's all but impossible to do this without incurring SOME cost.

Besides, it's not like they're "serving" alcohol. They're driving a truck. Drivers don't even load or unload their own freight.

And if you allow them to refuse to deliver, what happens when an unexpected pickup of alcohol occurs on their route? The whole thing sets a bad precedent.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

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.....

Yes, my father-in-law is a psychiatrist and just retired, and we witnessed the lack of mental health professionals in detail. I generally spend my time in a much more personal way in trying to make change in the mental health environment of our country. I don't find it to be a subject matter I need to win or shove down peoples throats. I guess we all pick our priorities and how we choose to present ourselves. I realize people can claim that they don't do the things they do on purpose and/or their intention was genuine, but I think we can all agree that a duck is a duck, and repetition of actions create a theme. You know it. I know it. Own it.

 

[kamik86]

Size is immaterial. Trucking companies that employ thousands of drivers still have BIG routes that get covered by a single driver.

Switching drivers on routes isn't as easy as it sounds, even if both drivers & both loads are based out of the same terminal. It's all but impossible to do this without incurring SOME cost.

Besides, it's not like they're "serving" alcohol. They're driving a truck. Drivers don't even load or unload their own freight.

And if you allow them to refuse to deliver, what happens when an unexpected pickup of alcohol occurs on their route? The whole thing sets a bad precedent.

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.

 

[mnrose]

Size is immaterial. Trucking companies that employ thousands of drivers still have BIG routes that get covered by a single driver.

Switching drivers on routes isn't as easy as it sounds, even if both drivers & both loads are based out of the same terminal. It's all but impossible to do this without incurring SOME cost.

Besides, it's not like they're "serving" alcohol. They're driving a truck. Drivers don't even load or unload their own freight.

And if you allow them to refuse to deliver, what happens when an unexpected pickup of alcohol occurs on their route? The whole thing sets a bad precedent.

Not always true. My Dad was an over the road trucker for MANY years, and unloaded his freight, or assisted personally in the unloading of that freight, many times.

 

[Christine]

Size is immaterial. Trucking companies that employ thousands of drivers still have BIG routes that get covered by a single driver.

Switching drivers on routes isn't as easy as it sounds, even if both drivers & both loads are based out of the same terminal. It's all but impossible to do this without incurring SOME cost.

Besides, it's not like they're "serving" alcohol. They're driving a truck. Drivers don't even load or unload their own freight.

And if you allow them to refuse to deliver, what happens when an unexpected pickup of alcohol occurs on their route? The whole thing sets a bad precedent.

Again, this is all going to be an individual thing. Some companies will be able to easily accommodate, and some companies won't by nature of how they do business. There isn't a precedent that would be set because it will never apply one way, across the board, to various different businesses. This is how EEO has worked for a LONG time. No doubt that it's a burden on business owners to prove it, but it is legitimately a hardship, the business prevails. But it's got to be more than "it's a pain for me to figure this out." You have to prove how this will impact your business.

 

[Uncle Remus]

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.....

Some of us know how to multi-task and deal with multiple issues.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Some of us know how to multi-task and deal with multiple issues.

And, I try really hard not to shove my thoughts, opinions and ideas down everyone's throat. Flies, honey, vinegar and all that.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

While some drivers help with loading & unloading, it's rarely a requirement unless it's a home delivery. If it's dock to dock, it's typically done with a forklift & drivers aren't insured on their customers' forklifts.

As for the "hassle" of changing routes, it's much more than that. If I (as a dispatcher) send John to do Bob's route, and Bob to do John's route, neither of them will do it as efficiently as they would their own route. I'll be paying them both overtime, and there's at least a 50/50 chance one or both of them will fail to make all their scheduled deliveries and/or pickups. That's not just a hassle, that's a cost.

 

[dinolounger]

If you were one of the 3% (although it is actually a larger percent.

Actually, it isn't. According to Gallup -- the only credible, established research firm that has ever fielded proper surveys on this subject, using large (almost 60,000 respondents), scientifically designed random samples -- the number of Americans who identify as having a same you know what orientation is 3.8%. Interestingly. Gallup also found the average American significantly over-estimates what the real percentage is, explaining why that goes on here frequently.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

 

[luvsJack]

To the trucking companies, many companies have a policy that a driver cannot refuse a load. In companies where the drivers are paid by a percentage of what the load pays, they have a problem with drivers refusing the lower paying loads so they don't let them refuse loads. And there usually aren't two or three trucks in the same area so having one truck in a place with alcohol as the load and he can't haul it, would make a hardship on the company. They would either have to turn down the load or dead-head someone from another area to get it. Which either drives up the cost of hauling it or drives down the money made by the company. Either way, makes for prices to go up.

Now, what can happen is that the company can certainly turn that hardship around on the driver. In an area where the load to get is alcohol? Ok, we'll put Joe on that load and you can wait for another one. Dispatchers can make or break a trucker and the guy may find himself doing a whole lot of sitting. So, I would have to wonder if he would bring another lawsuit then? It would be hard to prove that it was done on purpose.

 

[Unas]

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 ____.

Sure, anyone can create their own religion. Get some followers and you are in business. There are at least couple of guys that set things in motion here in the USA with really imaginative tales. A book made of gold pages translated by a guy while wearing a hat over his face . . . Invaders from outer space tossing beings into a volcano. A sci-fi type religion based on video games ought to cut it IF hubby is a good enough snake oil salesman.

 

[Christine]

While some drivers help with loading & unloading, it's rarely a requirement unless it's a home delivery. If it's dock to dock, it's typically done with a forklift & drivers aren't insured on their customers' forklifts.

As for the "hassle" of changing routes, it's much more than that. If I (as a dispatcher) send John to do Bob's route, and Bob to do John's route, neither of them will do it as efficiently as they would their own route. I'll be paying them both overtime, and there's at least a 50/50 chance one or both of them will fail to make all their scheduled deliveries and/or pickups. That's not just a hassle, that's a cost.

And as long as you can quantify that, it would not be a reasonable accommodation.

 

[Gracie09]

Actually, it isn't. According to Gallup -- the only credible, established research firm that has ever fielded proper surveys on this subject, using large (almost 60,000 respondents), scientifically designed random samples -- the number of Americans who identify as having a same you know what orientation is 3.8%. Interestingly. Gallup also found the average American significantly over-estimates what the real percentage is, explaining why that goes on here frequently.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

I'll concede the gallup poll but you are still ignoring the other statements and questions. Or is there a reason you don't want to answer?

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Actually, it isn't. According to Gallup -- the only credible, established research firm that has ever fielded proper surveys on this subject, using large (almost 60,000 respondents), scientifically designed random samples -- the number of Americans who identify as having a same you know what orientation is 3.8%. Interestingly. Gallup also found the average American significantly over-estimates what the real percentage is, explaining why that goes on here frequently.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

I wonder what the percentage is of those not willing to disclose the info based also on what goes on here frequently?

 

[DisneyBabies]

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.

So you support a double standard where one faith is granted priority over the other, plain and simple. And don't even try to say the distinction has to do with public vs. private enterprise. When the Justice Department sued the trucking company, the company tried to defend itself based on being a private enterprise that offered employment at will and the Justice Department said that was irrelevant, because if the Muslim Drivers had been government employees the same legal standard would have applied (they could refuse to perform a task or provide a service based on their religious faith As long as doing so does not violate someone else's Civil Rights).

So we are in a realm where the Federal Government discriminates based on religious denomination. And some people actually support that.

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:

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 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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

 

[dinolounger]

I'll concede the gallup poll but you are still ignoring the other statements and questions. Or is there a reason you don't want to answer?

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.

 

[Gracie09]

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.

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.

 

[DisneyBabies]

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.....

That "handful of people" are just that ... people. Those people didn't WANT to be a global political statement ... they WANTED to be freely and rightly granted the same civil rights that YOU enjoy. They BECAME a global political statement because OTHERS declared that their religious freedom was more important. And the bottom line is that they NEVER should have had to face those delays beyond a day or two to get forms rewritten. YOUR (general 'your') religion DOES NOT overrule MY civil rights ... especially in a civil matter, which marriage is.

Marriage is not Holy Matrimony ... lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

Wrong ... any comment made on this thread has religious connotations simply because of the subject matter and naturally lends itself to debate which I think we have all handled appropriately.

I've honestly been amazed at what I've learned of other dissers on this thread; some I've agreed with on other threads, I haven't agreed with here and vice versa. It's nice to see an added layer of how others see things that may not have occurred to you otherwise.