Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[Keith&Co.]

Is accommodation possible in this case?
They cannot shift her to another job. She's been elected to this position, not a pool of positions, one of which includes tasks she finds offensive.

And suppose they redefine her job duties. Say that the Clerk is given the option to refuse to sign a license. They'd also have to allow the lesser clerks in the office to refuse couples they find offensive in one way or another. Would that be fair to the rights of those seeking a license?
My marriage is interracial One of us is Catholic. One of us is an atheist. Both of us are military vets. Would it be fair to our rights if we have to shop around the various county offices to determine the office that doesn't have a troublesome number of pacifists, racists, theists, anti-theists and other opinionated people, if they can sincerely insist that they believe God won't ask them to give me a piece of paper that the state would otherwise afford me?

That's worst case scenario, but the only way to be sure it doesn't happen is to insist each office has one person willing to do the fucking job they've agreed to do, and support the oath they take. Which makes one question the point of letting anyone out of the job...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

IE, I can't do my job, so you have to change it. She is treating her BS religious based intolerance used as a shield to restrict the civil rights of others as being handicapped. Worse yet, she wants the legal designation of her job, which is established by law to change. How is that a solution? That would put the responsibility on someone else, and we are back to square one.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

It should be noted that in each of those examples, it is a matter of an operation undertaken by the individual and does not affect the civil rights of others. Davis want's her intolerance to be treated on level grounds so as to allow her to deny others rights. It doesn't work for inter-racial marriage, it won't work here.

The United States had all of these arguments back in the mid-60's with Loving v Virginia.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

The answer to your question is that public servants should not be permitted to not do their jobs while they are getting paid. Their problems of conscience should not prevent me from obtaining services.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Still, the woman is smokin' hot. There's something about her strong defiance that turns me on. Kim, I wanna be your 5th husband. (I know, 4th man but 5th hubby.) I'll let you say all the crazy shit you want.

 

[ksen]

Whatever happened to my rights ending at the tip of your nose?

Kim Davis does not have the right to exercise her religion if it harms someone else.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still, the woman is smokin' hot. There's something about her strong defiance that turns me on. Kim, I wanna be your 5th husband. (I know, 4th man but 5th hubby.) I'll let you say all the crazy shit you want.

You write those 5-star reviews on Amazon, don't you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

The religious accommodation laws should be sent to the wall without the benefit of a blindfold.

 

[jonatha]

As I pointed out in a letter to the editor in the Lexington Herald-Leader the other day, the law provisions for religious accommodation is not absolute, but permits it only if the establishment in question can do so without adversely affecting is business.

So Kim Davis should be accommodated, but only in not having to sign licenses herself. Her argument that none of her deputies can be allowed to do so cannot be accommodated.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If your religious conviction is so strong, you can not engage in certain activities under any circumstances what so ever, then certain professions will be off limits to you. That is why you don't run into many christian scientist surgeons.

 

[Ford]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

The answer to your question is that public servants should not be permitted to not do their jobs while they are getting paid. Their problems of conscience should not prevent me from obtaining services.

What's more, this woman is not just an employee. She's a government official. As a representative of the government, the "religious liberty" parts of the 1st Amendment exist not to protect her beliefs, but to protect us from her beliefs...more to the point, to protect the citizens of Rowan County from having services denied based upon the personal preferences of this woman. When she's in that office, she's not Kim Davis, private citizen. She is the County Clerk. A person filling an elected office, and the office itself does not have any "religious liberty" that needs protecting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The answer to your question is that public servants should not be permitted to not do their jobs while they are getting paid. Their problems of conscience should not prevent me from obtaining services.

What's more, this woman is not just an employee. She's a government official. As a representative of the government, the "religious liberty" parts of the 1st Amendment exist not to protect her beliefs, but to protect us from her beliefs...more to the point, to protect the citizens of Rowan County from having services denied based upon the personal preferences of this woman. When she's in that office, she's not Kim Davis, private citizen. She is the County Clerk. A person filling an elected office, and the office itself does not have any "religious liberty" that needs protecting.

That is a very valid point. She is looking for an accommodation for religious beliefs while serving in a position where such an accommodation isn't actually applicable, on those grounds alone.

 

[crazyfingers]

The answer to your question is that public servants should not be permitted to not do their jobs while they are getting paid. Their problems of conscience should not prevent me from obtaining services.

What's more, this woman is not just an employee. She's a government official. As a representative of the government, the "religious liberty" parts of the 1st Amendment exist not to protect her beliefs, but to protect us from her beliefs...more to the point, to protect the citizens of Rowan County from having services denied based upon the personal preferences of this woman. When she's in that office, she's not Kim Davis, private citizen. She is the County Clerk. A person filling an elected office, and the office itself does not have any "religious liberty" that needs protecting.

No kidding. I think I saw Fuckabee comment how it's great Kim Davis is standing by her 1st Amendment rights. Clearly he has no clue what the 1st Amendment means because she is actually breaking the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment by, when on the job as Clerk, she is government agent, imposing her religious beliefs as official for that office and thus establishing religion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But as long as Huckabee's voters think he has the right to do the same thing, it works to his benefit....

 

[Shadowy Man]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

I would think that 'religious accommodation' would apply if the assigned task or duty can be accomplished with little impact without the person who is objecting. Considering that Kim Davis was preventing the task from being done and commanding her inferiors to not do it in her stead, it's not really a 'religious accommodation' situation. Did she seek out accommodation from the State?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Did she seek out accommodation from the State?

She sought out martyrdom and fame. She succeeded.

 

[maxparrish]

Is accommodation possible in this case?
They cannot shift her to another job. She's been elected to this position, not a pool of positions, one of which includes tasks she finds offensive.

And suppose they redefine her job duties. Say that the Clerk is given the option to refuse to sign a license. They'd also have to allow the lesser clerks in the office to refuse couples they find offensive in one way or another. Would that be fair to the rights of those seeking a license?
My marriage is interracial One of us is Catholic. One of us is an atheist. Both of us are military vets. Would it be fair to our rights if we have to shop around the various county offices to determine the office that doesn't have a troublesome number of pacifists, racists, theists, anti-theists and other opinionated people, if they can sincerely insist that they believe God won't ask them to give me a piece of paper that the state would otherwise afford me?

That's worst case scenario, but the only way to be sure it doesn't happen is to insist each office has one person willing to do the fucking job they've agreed to do, and support the oath they take. Which makes one question the point of letting anyone out of the job...

My takeaways, from your comment, is that a) it should not be troublesome process to those who use the services, b) it should not be troublesome to the office/government, and c) it is questionable that anyone should be let out of the job if anyone else has to take up their workload.

I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, so far.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But as long as Huckabee's voters think he has the right to do the same thing, it works to his benefit....

Of course, we just don't "understand" the Constitution like they do.

 

[crazyfingers]

http://nationalreport.net/emi-sue-k...authorized-public-performance-song-eye-tiger/

Beautiful. Misuse of intellectual property. EMI record label may sue for their playing of "Eye of the Tiger" at the jail-release party.

“They are well within their rights to hold a public rally in support of Kim Davis, or anyone else for that matter,” explains intellectual property attorney Paul W. Steiner. “Where they broke the law was when they played that song by Survivor without the permission of the rights holder.”

Steiner alleges that he has already heard of the record company executives “taking exception” to the use of their intellectual property to “help a criminal grandstand in front of an audience”.

“Many times, a record company will look the other way in a situation like this, as it serves as free publicity for their intellectual property,” says Steiner. “Though, in this case, I believe that EMI does not want their song associated with someone like Kim Davis, or Mike Huckabee for that matter, and will most likely seek full damages for this incident.”

 

[maxparrish]

IE, I can't do my job, so you have to change it. She is treating her BS religious based intolerance used as a shield to restrict the civil rights of others as being handicapped. Worse yet, she wants the legal designation of her job, which is established by law to change. How is that a solution? That would put the responsibility on someone else, and we are back to square one.

It should be noted that in each of those examples, it is a matter of an operation undertaken by the individual and does not affect the civil rights of others. Davis want's her intolerance to be treated on level grounds so as to allow her to deny others rights. It doesn't work for inter-racial marriage, it won't work here.

My takeaway from your comments is that a) it is unreasonable to require an employer change a job that an employee says they cannot morally do b) it is unreasonable if the net purpose of their request is to restrict the civil rights of others c) it can't be a solution to legally put the responsibility of someone else.

It should be noted that in each of those examples, it is a matter of an operation undertaken by the individual and does not affect the civil rights of others. Davis want's her intolerance to be treated on level grounds so as to allow her to deny others rights. It doesn't work for inter-racial marriage, it won't work here.

So I will add:

d) the other examples of requested accommodation, it does not affect the civil rights of clients/customers or employers.


While items b) and d) might become an irrelevant concerns if the the requested accommodation is structured so it does not, in fact, harm other's civil rights, your other points of a) and c) are hard to avoid.

In both the case of Ms. Davis, and those I listed, you conclusion would be that it is unreasonable require an employer change the job on a religious/moral basis, or to put the responsibility on another.

In short: all those examples require either relief of job duties, or putting the responsibility on another. So you'd not give religious accommodation to any of them.

 

[bilby]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

Religion is voluntary. If you voluntarily choose not to do your job, you get fired.

People can have any personal beliefs they want; if those beliefs MUST be accommodated, then there cannot be any law at all.

I demand that you accommodate my religious belief that you should agree with this post. Are you going to accede to my demand?

If your religious belief requires someone else to modify anything in any way, then it is unreasonable and should not be accommodated. If you want to believe crazy shit, then believe it in your own time, and on your own dime.