SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2015, 12:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here's a thread from way back in July

http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-This-Same-Sex-Couple-Filmed-Themselves-Getting-Denied-A-Marriage-License

Many were calling for her job back then (you may want to look at post #7)

If you want to play literal, show me where I asked her to resign.

Saying she should be fired for not doing her job can (and for me it does) have the implied variable of opportunities for corrective action. To be honet, I never thought she would keep going to the SCOTUS. But she has the right to take every avenue to appeal.

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2015, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you want to play literal, show me where I asked her to resign.

Saying she should be fired for not doing her job can (and for me it does) have the implied variable of opportunities for corrective action. To be honet, I never thought she would keep going to the SCOTUS. But she has the right to take every avenue to appeal.

I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting she should voluntarily resign from her job if she cannot perform the duties.

It's a far cry from demanding her removal from office by the Kentucky State Senate. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2015, 03:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting she should voluntarily resign from her job if she cannot perform the duties.

It's a far cry from demanding her removal from office by the Kentucky State Senate. 

There isn't. I just don't have any problems with her challenging the case, that's her right. But if she is unwilling to accept the ruling then she needs to step aside.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There isn't. I just don't have any problems with her challenging the case, that's her right. But if she is unwilling to accept the ruling then she needs to step aside.

I agree with this.  She's welcome to demonstrate or take whatever legal avenues there are, but I just don't see it changing the outcome, nor should it.

People making this out to be a case of religious freedom are being ridiculous. 

I'm thinking this woman is looking for a payday, personally.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-09-2015, 03:25 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm thinking this woman is looking for a payday, personally.  

That would indicate thinking on an order higher than her capabilities.

[SteelCitySouth]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-09-2015, 03:37 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote:

[GMDino]

(09-09-2015, 03:25 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I agree with this.  She's welcome to demonstrate or take whatever legal avenues there are, but I just don't see it changing the outcome, nor should it.

People making this out to be a case of religious freedom are being ridiculous. 

I'm thinking this woman is looking for a payday, personally.  

I am in the middle of explain this to an ultra-religious friend on Facebook.  

1) Yes I do have friends.

2) Its getting nowhere fast because "you only have to obey God's laws"  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-09-2015, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am in the middle of explain this to an ultra-religious friend on Facebook.  

1) Yes I do have friends.

2) Its getting nowhere fast because "you only have to obey God's laws"  

Except when it comes to God's laws concerning divorce.  Or the Old Testament.

[Harmening]

Yep. Bigotry under the guise of religion is still bigotry.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am in the middle of explain this to an ultra-religious friend on Facebook.  

1) Yes I do have friends.

2) Its getting nowhere fast because "you only have to obey God's laws"  

This is like the lawsuit the Muslim flight attendant filed because she was "forced" to serve pork products as part of her job, which she claimed violated her freedom to practice religion.

No.  Just no. 

In either case, if you cannot perform one of the key functions of your job, quit.  Bye. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2015, 04:23 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: This is like the lawsuit the Muslim flight attendant filed because she was "forced" to serve pork products as part of her job, which she claimed violated her freedom to practice religion.

No.  Just no. 

In either case, if you cannot perform one of the key functions of your job, quit.  Bye. 

I haven't read much on that one, but wasn't it alcohol and didn't she have a written agreement about it that the airline then reneged on after another attendant complained? At least that is what my wife mentioned

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I haven't read much on that one, but wasn't it alcohol and didn't she have a written agreement about it that the airline then reneged on after another attendant complained? At least that is what my wife mentioned

That's right, it was alcohol. 

I tend not to pay much attention to those kinds of stories, because I think they're all equally ludicrous.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

(CNN)A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2015, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There isn't. I just don't have any problems with her challenging the case, that's her right. But if she is unwilling to accept the ruling then she needs to step aside.

She has the right to argue her case, but in the meantime she needs to have her deputies (or whatever they're called) give out the licenses.

Once the Supreme Court refused to hear her, she needed to either do her job or resign.

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2015, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I haven't read much on that one, but wasn't it alcohol and didn't she have a written agreement about it that the airline then reneged on after another attendant complained? At least that is what my wife mentioned

No prior arrangement: you need to do your job or quit.

Prior arrangement: you have a civil case with your employer for breaching your contract.

It's interesting that I haven't heard the prior agreement part before.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.

"It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."

[jakefromstatefarm]

I didn't see anything in the article about a written agreement. I just saw that she was told to find another employee to fulfill the alcoholic drink orders.

[Benton]

Anyone know denomination she is? I'm just curious as not too long ago a group of Baptist churches pulled out of an event in my area because the Methodists were letting women in leadership positions. Which, citing their religious belief, they couldn't participate in.

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2015, 05:24 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I didn't see anything in the article about a written agreement. I just saw that she was told to find another employee to fulfill the alcoholic drink orders.

It doesn't seem like what my wife described, but it does seem like she had a formal religious accommodation in place with the company, seeing as how they made a point of saying it was revoked. This will come down to an issue of reasonable accommodations, and I will wager that the airline will lose it.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 10:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't seem like what my wife described, but it does seem like she had a formal religious accommodation in place with the company, seeing as how they made a point of saying it was revoked. This will come down to an issue of reasonable accommodations, and I will wager that the airline will lose it.

The airline might lose it, but I don't think they should.

Serving alcoholic drinks is a key part of her job.  This would be like a deli clerk at Kroger converting to Islam and then refusing to serve any pork products. 

I don't personally see how serving a drink violates any religious beliefs regardless.  Isn't serving them different than consuming them?  I'll admit I'm not very well-versed on the Muslim faith, or any faith for that matter.