Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[bilby]

Religion is not based on reason; so it can never alone be a valid reason for anything. If you want to be irrational, that's fine; but if you want me or anyone else to join in, or to tolerate being inconvenienced in even the smallest way, you can fuck off.

If a Muslim working at a deli refuses to serve me ham, because of his religion, then he is in the wrong.

Of course, he might refuse to serve ham for some genuine reason: There is no ham left, or the ham has not been properly refrigerated and is not fit to eat, for example. But then that has nothing at all to do with Islam, and would apply equally if he was an atheist, Christian or Buddhist. If religion is the ONLY reason for something, then there is no reason at all for that thing.

 

[Metaphor]

Religion is not based on reason; so it can never alone be a valid reason for anything.

The first part is definitely correct, but I think I'd alter the second part to it can't be a valid reason that deserves more consideration than other reasons.

For example, if I want Friday off because I want to party or sleep all day, my reason is just as valid as someone who wants Friday off because it's a holy day, or something.

Universities are notorious for this deference at exam scheduling. The way I've read some examination protocols, you can reschedule an exam if it occurs during a 'holy day' for your religion, but you can't reschedule an exam even if it's to attend your mother's funeral.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

I was President of a public employee Union for a few years, and am quite familiar with the rights of employees.

The first amendment exists to protect everyone's right to express belief and exercise religion. She is a government employee (an "official" or "officer" being a superfluous term) and all government employees have the right of free speech, as long as such speech is to address public-political issues (e.g. an employee is not free to bad mouth his employer or use speech to create a hostile work environment). The denial of services of Rowan County residents is not a violation of the first amendment (people can complain all they like about her closure of marriage licences), it was a violation of a lawful requirement of her job. It may also have been illegal discrimination under the color of claimed equal treatment (although I find this argument weaker).

None the less, as an employee, under State law, she is entitled to protection of her freedom of conscience and entitled to religious accommodation (if it is not unduly burdensome or harmful to her office's mission). IF she were a federal employee (official), then she would be entitled to the same under federal law.

So should accommodation be made on a moral and/or legal basis? Should it be (or have been) made for the examples I proffered?

 

[maxparrish]

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?

She is seeking accommodation now. And from the reports I have read, her staff was one her side so she didn't need to prevent anyone. They are all fundi-Christians and the judge had to order her staff (over their protests and tears) to restart marriage license processing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Religion is not based on reason; so it can never alone be a valid reason for anything. If you want to be irrational, that's fine; but if you want me or anyone else to join in, or to tolerate being inconvenienced in even the smallest way, you can fuck off.

If a Muslim working at a deli refuses to serve me ham, because of his religion, then he is in the wrong.

Of course, he might refuse to serve ham for some genuine reason: There is no ham left, or the ham has not been properly refrigerated and is not fit to eat, for example. But then that has nothing at all to do with Islam, and would apply equally if he was an atheist, Christian or Buddhist. If religion is the ONLY reason for something, then there is no reason at all for that thing.

But here's the thing. A practicing muslim would not work in deli that sold ham. If when the deli open, they did not sell ham and then the deli changed policy later and started selling ham, a practicing muslim would quit. if your faith is important to you, you will not do certain things, including engaging in activities that be definition are against your religion.

Davis is refusing to do her job, AND refusing to practice her faith WHICH is the reason she is refusing to do her job! The BULLSHIT surrounding this woman could fertilize all of IDAHO!!

 

[rousseau]

We're in the awkward period where it's too socially taboo to straight out call religious people delusional. Courtesy forces us to wait until everyone figures it out themselves, or we're able to finagle laws that take away their power

 

[maxparrish]

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.

For nearly all the examples I listed, I agree. While I changed the religion for some, each of them were (or are) real cases and except for the Muslim flight attendant (whose case is pending) the government EEOC required that the public and employers make accommodation. The truck company had to change cargo allocation to avoid alcohol on the Mormon's (actually Muslim's) truck. The Vegan bus driver was exempted from giving his riders promotions with meat and dairy products; the postal workers were granted relief from processing or delivering any mail with draft registrations; and the Muslim (actually Jehovah Witness) were relieved from flag raising.

Others were expected to do part of their job, and their employers were expected to incorporate new management procedures to avoid forcing them to "offend" their religious/moral beliefs.

My own moral view is that private employers can "offend" all they like; you don't want to serve ham (as you suggested) then don't work in a deli. And public employers (all of us are their employers) should respect private beliefs, as long as the accommodation is insignificant (e.g. wearing a yarmulke).

 

[maxparrish]

Actually no. Once people realize they have the power to force accommodation, they do work at these jobs. The "Mormon" (actually Muslim) Truck Driver and Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol didn't quit, they sued.

 

[blastula]

Legally, individuals should get accommodations when the law allows it, but if the law were fair and reasonable there should be no laws to require special religious accommodations or exemptions at all.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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?

She is seeking accommodation now.

Only after being jailed for contempt of court. Why did she not seek accommodation when the first marriage license to a gay couple was being asked for? She did more than just want to protect her personal beliefs, she wanted to project her personal beliefs, thus denying other people of their legal rights. If she really wanted accommodation, then she would have asked to be excused from that particular aspect of her job and allowed some other way for the county to issue the marriage licenses as required by law. Is this what happened?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually no. Once people realize they have the power to force accommodation, they do work at these jobs. The "Mormon" (actually Muslim) Truck Driver and Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol didn't quit, they sued.

The Muslim flight attendant did seek accommodation and was actually afforded accommodation, which worked for a few months until another employee decided to complain about it. Only then did they fire her. Also, she didn't want to prevent passengers from drinking alcohol at all, she just didn't want to be the one who served it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I was President of a public employee Union for a few years, and am quite familiar with the rights of employees.

The first amendment exists to protect everyone's right to express belief and exercise religion. She is a government employee (an "official" or "officer" being a superfluous term) and all government employees have the right of free speech, as long as such speech is to address public-political issues (e.g. an employee is not free to bad mouth his employer or use speech to create a hostile work environment). The denial of services of Rowan County residents is not a violation of the first amendment (people can complain all they like about her closure of marriage licences), it was a violation of a lawful requirement of her job. It may also have been illegal discrimination under the color of claimed equal treatment (although I find this argument weaker).

None the less, as an employee, under State law, she is entitled to protection of her freedom of conscience and entitled to religious accommodation (if it is not unduly burdensome or harmful to her office's mission). IF she were a federal employee (official), then she would be entitled to the same under federal law.

So should accommodation be made on a moral and/or legal basis? Should it be (or have been) made for the examples I proffered?

Her right to freedom of expression ends at herself. She wanted to restrict the Constitutionally backed Civil Rights of gays. You can't accommodate that without passing the buck. More importantly, her office is issuing marriage licenses to gays, therefore, her involvement is minimalistic if she wants it to be. So this talk about accommodation is shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

You could, you'd need to be trolling.

b) it is unreasonable if the net purpose of their request is to restrict the civil rights of others

"net purpose"? The sole purpose! She wants to have religious edicts at her Government Office. The First Amendment expressly forbids that!

c) it can't be a solution to legally put the responsibility of someone else.

That is called "passing the buck". It doesn't solve the problem we have here.

 

[bilby]

Religion is not based on reason; so it can never alone be a valid reason for anything. If you want to be irrational, that's fine; but if you want me or anyone else to join in, or to tolerate being inconvenienced in even the smallest way, you can fuck off.

If a Muslim working at a deli refuses to serve me ham, because of his religion, then he is in the wrong.

Of course, he might refuse to serve ham for some genuine reason: There is no ham left, or the ham has not been properly refrigerated and is not fit to eat, for example. But then that has nothing at all to do with Islam, and would apply equally if he was an atheist, Christian or Buddhist. If religion is the ONLY reason for something, then there is no reason at all for that thing.

But here's the thing. A practicing muslim would not work in deli that sold ham.

Not necessarily. Religion is personal; most believers pick and choose what religious edicts they want to follow. Not all Jews refuse to work on Saturday; Not all Christians refuse to work on Christmas Day; and not all Muslims refuse to handle pork. This lack of consistency is yet another strong indication that 'belief' and 'reason' are antonyms, and that belief alone can never be a good reason for anything.

If when the deli open, they did not sell ham and then the deli changed policy later and started selling ham, a practicing muslim would quit. if your faith is important to you, you will not do certain things, including engaging in activities that be definition are against your religion.

Davis is refusing to do her job, AND refusing to practice her faith WHICH is the reason she is refusing to do her job! The BULLSHIT surrounding this woman could fertilize all of IDAHO!!

With plenty left over for Oregon and Wyoming.

 

[atrib]

None the less, as an employee, under State law, she is entitled to protection of her freedom of conscience and entitled to religious accommodation (if it is not unduly burdensome or harmful to her office's mission). IF she were a federal employee (official), then she would be entitled to the same under federal law.

Ms Davis' actions were harmful to the mission of the office she served. It prevented gay people (and also straight people for that matter) from exercising their legal right to get married in the county. Therefore, a religious accommodation should not be made to protect Ms Davis' personal beliefs in this matter. Her rights end when they impact the rights of others.

So should accommodation be made on a moral and/or legal basis? Should it be (or have been) made for the examples I proffered?

Each case should be evaluated on the merits its circumstances. If an accommodation can be made without placing an undue burden on the employer, and without impacting the rights of others, then it should considered.

 

[Metaphor]

The Muslim flight attendant did seek accommodation and was actually afforded accommodation, which worked for a few months until another employee decided to complain about it. Only then did they fire her. Also, she didn't want to prevent passengers from drinking alcohol at all, she just didn't want to be the one who served it.

The Muslim flight attendant should never have had that accommodation made for her: serving passengers what they want is an integral and essential part of her job. (Similar cases in the UK include Muslim register operators who refuise to scan (or even touch) alcohol and pork products).

However, if she were willing to trade her reduction in duties and the inconvenience she causes by doing something to replace it (e.g. in exchange for not serving alcohol, she has to clean the toilets) and everybody agreed, then she could be accommodated.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Muslim flight attendant did seek accommodation and was actually afforded accommodation, which worked for a few months until another employee decided to complain about it. Only then did they fire her. Also, she didn't want to prevent passengers from drinking alcohol at all, she just didn't want to be the one who served it.

The Muslim flight attendant should never have had that accommodation made for her: serving passengers what they want is an integral and essential part of her job. (Similar cases in the UK include Muslim register operators who refuise to scan (or even touch) alcohol and pork products).

It does seem odd, not to be able to touch containerized alcohol and pork. Wouldn't expect a devout Muslim to work in a meat shop and sell pork, but if it is in a package...? Reminds me of the Woman who says they can't even touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[crazyfingers]

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.

I was President of a public employee Union for a few years, and am quite familiar with the rights of employees.

The first amendment exists to protect everyone's right to express belief and exercise religion. She is a government employee (an "official" or "officer" being a superfluous term) and all government employees have the right of free speech, as long as such speech is to address public-political issues (e.g. an employee is not free to bad mouth his employer or use speech to create a hostile work environment). The denial of services of Rowan County residents is not a violation of the first amendment (people can complain all they like about her closure of marriage licences), it was a violation of a lawful requirement of her job. It may also have been illegal discrimination under the color of claimed equal treatment (although I find this argument weaker).

None the less, as an employee, under State law, she is entitled to protection of her freedom of conscience and entitled to religious accommodation (if it is not unduly burdensome or harmful to her office's mission). IF she were a federal employee (official), then she would be entitled to the same under federal law.

So should accommodation be made on a moral and/or legal basis? Should it be (or have been) made for the examples I proffered?

Her acting to refuse to follow the law and to order her staff to refuse to to follow the law, refusing constitutional rights to citizens, on account of her religion is just as much a violation of the Establishment clause as it is the high school football coach who organizes a baptism for his players.

Her actions established her religious rules in that county clerk office.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The Muslim flight attendant should never have had that accommodation made for her: serving passengers what they want is an integral and essential part of her job. (Similar cases in the UK include Muslim register operators who refuise to scan (or even touch) alcohol and pork products).

It does seem odd, not to be able to touch containerized alcohol and pork. Wouldn't expect a devout Muslim to work in a meat shop and sell pork, but if it is in a package...? Reminds me of the Woman who says they can't even touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Years ago I bought some pig ears for my dog and the Muslim cashier just used a rag to push them down onto the belt. Life went on.

 

[maxparrish]

Legally, individuals should get accommodations when the law allows it, but if the law were fair and reasonable there should be no laws to require special religious accommodations or exemptions at all.

There should be no laws for private employers. There should be minimal laws for public employers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Legally, individuals should get accommodations when the law allows it, but if the law were fair and reasonable there should be no laws to require special religious accommodations or exemptions at all.

There should be no laws for private employers. There should be minimal laws for public employers.

So I can force my employees to undergo anal stretching rituals because I am their boss. Sweet.