ADVERTISEMENT

So let me see if I got this right

kim Davis was offered the same accommodation that these guys were supposed to have been offered. She refused it to make a political statement.
 
The Rumor said:
kim Davis was offered the same accommodation that these guys were supposed to have been offered. She refused it to make a political statement.
Click to expand...

What accommodation exactly, are you referring to, Rumor ?
 
Let others do the job. She was told to let her deputy clerks do it not her. She refused that option. If she had let the deputies do their job and not interfered she wouldn't have been in jail. They weren't forcing her to do the work; they were telling her she couldn't deny a reasonable accommodation to private citizens

The case law says you have to respect the rights of religion especially when there are reasonable accommodations like this that don't disadvantage the business or the customer. granted there is some difference when you're acting on behalf of the govt versus acting as a private citizen.
 
The Rumor said:
Let others do the job. She was told to let her deputy clerks do it not her. She refused that option. If she had let the deputies do their job and not interfered she wouldn't have been in jail. They weren't forcing her to do the work; they were telling her she couldn't deny a reasonable accommodation to private citizens

The case law says you have to respect the rights of religion especially when there are reasonable accommodations like this that don't disadvantage the business or the customer. granted there is some difference when you're acting on behalf of the govt versus acting as a private citizen.
Click to expand...

She refused to do her job..gets thrown in jail..the libs applaud
Truckers refuse to do their job..get $240,000.. the libs applaud

Simple enough
 
ag-man said:
She refused to do her job..gets thrown in jail..the libs applaud
Truckers refuse to do their job..get $240,000.. the libs applaud

Simple enough
Click to expand...

Who are these libs and how do you determine that?
It's law son. Don't like it, elect people to 'fix' it.
 
ag-man said:
She refused to do her job..gets thrown in jail..the libs applaud
Truckers refuse to do their job..get $240,000.. the libs applaud

Simple enough
Click to expand...
She refuse to allow others to do their job. You are missing the point. They court did not force her to process gay marriage licenses. It granted her an accommodation that her co workers could do so instead of her due to her religious belief. That is the exact same accommodation the business was expected to have made by the court.

There is literally no difference between the solution that got Kim Davis out of jail and the solution expected of this private business.
 
Veer2Eternity said:
Who are these libs and how do you determine that?
It's law son. Don't like it, elect people to 'fix' it.
Click to expand...
Fwiw his post is a really good example of how religious conservatives often do not actually support freedom of religion - it's about supporting freedom of evangelical Christianity to do whatever it wants and not caring about supporting other minority religions.
 
Neutron Monster said:
Fwiw his post is a really good example of how religious conservatives often do not actually support freedom of religion - it's about supporting freedom of evangelical Christianity to do whatever it wants and not caring about supporting other minority religions.
Click to expand...

How is that?

It is amazing you cannot see the hypocrisy in these two tales.

Why is it when the Christian refuses to do their job, they get fired or thrown in jail.

When someone from a "minority religion" does it, they get rewarded.
 
I hope, for your sake, you don't ever run a business where anyone does this, because the nuance you are missing could cost you an awful lot of money.

Both people received accommodations for their faith for their personal actions. One chose to impose her faith requirements on her staff as well. That was the problem.

No one stopped Kim Davis from exercising her faith. They stopped her from forcing others to exercise her faith as well. No one is forcing Kim Davis to register the marriages of gay couples even now. What they are requiring her to do is to not stop her staff from doing so because that denies services to government customers with no readily available alternative.

Plus, there is a difference between acting as an employee and caring out the duty of the government as an elected official. They are different roles which different levels of expected responsibility.
 
Last edited:
ag-man said:
How is that?

It is amazing you cannot see the hypocrisy in these two tales.

Why is it when the Christian refuses to do their job, they get fired or thrown in jail.

When someone from a "minority religion" does it, they get rewarded.
Click to expand...
You are deliberately ignoring the obvious difference, or you don't understand it. Neither are a good look for you.
 
Neutron Monster said:
I hope, for your sake, you don't ever run a business where anyone does this, because the nuance you are missing could cost you an awful lot of money.

Both people received accommodations for their faith for their personal actions. One chose to impose her faith requirements on her staff as well. That was the problem.

No one stopped Kim Davis from exercising her faith. They stopped her from forcing others to exercise her faith as well. No one is forcing Kim Davis to register the marriages of gay couples even now. What they are requiring her to do is to not stop her staff from doing so because that denies services to government customers with no readily available alternative.

Plus, there is a difference between acting as an employee and caring out the duty of the government as an elected official. They are different roles which different levels of expected responsibility.
Click to expand...

I understand the Davis situation, and agree.

Evidently you have more information on the truck drivers story than I do. Why were they rewarded for not doing their job ?
 
ag-man said:
I understand the Davis situation, and agree.

Evidently you have more information on the truck drivers story than I do. Why were they rewarded for not doing their job ?
Click to expand...
They said we believe it is against our religion to do this job, and others were readily available to do the job. The company tried to force them to do it anyway. They claimed it violated their religion and won because they could prove their

Basically, not swapping driver A for driver B when it doesn't cost a company anything to do so was the problem. That was the solution to the Kim Davis thing as well - sub another clerk in for her.
 
Neutron Monster said:
They said we believe it is against our religion to do this job, and others were readily available to do the job. The company tried to force them to do it anyway. They claimed it violated their religion and won because they could prove their

Basically, not swapping driver A for driver B when it doesn't cost a company anything to do so was the problem. That was the solution to the Kim Davis thing as well - sub another clerk in for her.
Click to expand...

My research had not uncovered such.
 
FWIW their employer admitted in court that they could have accommodated their views without significant cost but chose not to. I wonder what their lawyer thought when that admission occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back