General Question

flo's avatar

What catagory does the Kim Davis' marriage licence case fall under?

Asked by flo (13200points) September 3rd, 2015

http://goo.gl/yP5DW7
or
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-who-refuses-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-faces-court.html

Does it fall under civil disobedience? If not, why not?

By the way, the title of the article says “gay marriage license”, when it is all marriage license she refused to issue.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

filmfann's avatar

Well, she has taken it upon herself to decide not to perform the duties of her job. She has denied a court order. You’re probably safe with noncompliance of a court order.

jerv's avatar

I concur; it’s a simple case of failure to perform the duties assigned to her by her employer.

The difference between her and a McDonalds employee who refuses to work the fryolator is that her employer is the government. As an elected official, she cannot be fired the way most people can, but most people don’t have their job description codifed by legislature to have the force of law either.

As for her refusal to issue any marriage licenses at all even to opposite-sex couples, that was merely a PR backpedal to “prove” that she isn’t anti-gay. It started with her issuing licenses to “traditional” couples and merely refusing service to those who “violated her personal beliefs”, to which most people in their right mind would respond with, “Why did you take a job that may put you in a position where your beliefs interfere with your ability to perform your duties?”. In fact, with jobs so plentiful and easy to get, she could easily resign, get out of jail as she would no longer be derelict in her duties as County Clerk, and she could get a better job. Well, assuming that those who are inclined to agree with her are also correct about the economy…

stanleybmanly's avatar

You can characterize her behavior as civil disobedience. Hers is a nonviolent decision to violate what she considers an unjust law. But the irony is that SHE is the one committing the civil rights violations. And her behavior is a clear cut open and shut case of everything from malfeasance of office to denial of due process. She is an elected official who deliberately and flagrantly violated her oath of office, and the state by its failure to act is likely to be held financially culpable for facilitating her behavior.

jca's avatar

She’s in jail now, so it falls under the category of “idiot.”

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Thought I heard on the news she would not a get a “Free Get of Jail” until she complied to the issuing of marriage licenses, so . . . she may be in jail for a while.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The legislature will send her into forced retirement. I wonder how many couples this woman turned back?

chyna's avatar

I like what the judge said to her. To paraphrase he said that he too had religious convictions that he had to put aside in order to do his duties as a judge.

filmfann's avatar

@chyna I agree.
I think Kim Davis is completely wrong here, as Romans 13 points out that she should obey the law here.
I also think that criticism of her for her marriages, divorces, and outside wedlock children as hypocrisy is unfair since she became a Christian only 4 years ago.

jerv's avatar

@stanleybmanly Possibly, but I doubt it. The fact that she has been convicted of a criminal offense may be grounds for impeachment, which would involve a different severance package that is less generous than retirement.

@chyna That judge understands the conflict between duty and conscience that his job entails and chose whether to take the position based on whether he felt he could perform his duties without staining his soul. One of the articles I’ve read about this whole thing gave the impression that part of her refusal to resign has to do with her needing some sort of secular power in order to carry out God’s will.

In fact, that leads to one very important point that proves that this is not civil disobedience; Kim Davis is an elected official. As part of the government, her actions are not civil actions, but government actions. Civil disobedience would be picketing outside and blocking same-sex couples from entering the premises to even apply for a license.

That isn’t what happened here though. Instead of acting as a citizen to protest, she acted as a county clerk to exercise her powers in an abusive manner that is contrary to the express orders of superior authorities, the rulings of higher courts, and legislature that was passed into law and signed by those with far more executive power.

Kardamom's avatar

I wonder how she would feel if someone in power above her, say someone that was divorced 3 times and decided to become an Allah worshiping Muslim after the divorces, told her that she couldn’t work at all, because in his religious beliefs, women are not allowed to be county clerks. Would she think that is something valuable, since it was his God that told him what to believe? Would she think that he should be a martyr too?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

The category would be Four Time Loser.

Bill1939's avatar

If marriage was the solely a religious right, then atheists could not marry. However, marriage is a civil right. Civil law determines who the state may marry. Religious law determines who the church may marry, but only when civil law has issued a licence.

LostInParadise's avatar

It is definitely civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a form of protest and can apply to unworthy as well as worthy objectives. For any action that civil disobedience is used to bring about, civil disobedience can be used to bring about the exact opposite. If you had a bunch of white supremacists holding a sit-in in a restaurant protesting integration that would be civil disobedience.

Pachy's avatar

The irony is, she wasn’t marrying anybody. Her job is/was simply to issue a civil licence.

jerv's avatar

@LostInParadise As I said above, I would agree if she were a civilian. She isn’t; she is an agent of the government. The fact that she went rogue and is now being punished by her boss does not counter the fact that she was acting as a government entity rather than as a citizen. To my eyes, that is malfeasance, not civil disobedience.

flo's avatar

So, if everything remains the same but if this were during the 60’s and she were working against white supremacists, then what?

jerv's avatar

@flo You can replace the gay couples with any other protected class and still get the same result; a city clerk refusing to do their job despite court orders to do so, jailing them for contempt since fines wouldn’t work… pretty much the same thing we have now.

flo's avatar

@flo So, was/is it considered, reported as civil disobedience at that time?

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s civil disobedience, but so is drunken driving. I don’t understand what you’re getting at!

flo's avatar

@stanleybmanly I’m just following my wife/husband friend, washing machine designer…scam or not…?

flo's avatar

@jerv omg, I meant to address you I ended up addressing myself in my post before last.

jerv's avatar

@flo It happens.

And no, it wasn’t. The non-office-holding people (civilians) who picketed/marched and disobeyed orders from the police to disperse were doing the civil disobedience thing. But once one holds office or otherwise obtain more power in government than merely voting, the line gets murky and things that would be “civil disobedience” from you or I would be “abuse of power” and/or “dereliction of duty”.

Expressing one’s views by failing to perform the duties one was appointed/elected to perform even in the face of court orders pressing the issue is a little different than expressing a view as a mere citizen.

flo's avatar

@jerv I’m thinking….

flo's avatar

I don’t get it.

chyna's avatar

@flo What don’t you get?

jca's avatar

I just read online that there’s a judge in Marion County, Oregon who is refusing to marry same sex couples, despite the Supreme Court ruling.

jerv's avatar

@flo Basically, civil disobedience is done by civilians; people with no attachment to the government. Once you get elected/appointed/hired to perform a public duty and start drawing a paycheck at taxpayer expense, like becoming a County Clerk or a police officer, it’s a whole different ballgame.

@jca Is that judge allowing their subordinates to fulfill that duty through delegated power, or is she actively obstructing her underlings from adhering to the SCOTUS ruling?

jerv's avatar

@jca That’s a bit softer stance than Kim Davis has taken. Worth noting;

“Judges in Marion County are not required to perform marriages, and Marion County’s website lists five active judges and one retired judge who are available for marriage ceremonies.”

As there are six other people in the same courthouse that are able (and presumably willing) to do what Judge Day refuses to do himself, he is able to recuse himself in adherence to his personal beliefs without undue inconvenience to the public. I see that as an acceptable compromise, not appreciably different from an underage cashier asking one of their over-21 coworkers to bag someone’s alcohol purchase. Well, aside from the other small detail about him not being required to marry anyone at all in the first place. His actions are more in-line with the compromise measure that Kim Davis soundly rejected and thus I see no real issues there. If ever there was a tasteful way to discriminate, Judge Day’s actions would be an example.

LostInParadise's avatar

@flo, Why does it matter if the act can be considered civil disobedience? Does that name make it seem like it is some kind of hippy protest from the 60’s?

On reconsidering, the main reason that I would not consider what Davis did as civil disobedience is that civil disobedience is done as a tactic for gumming up the system. The idea is that if enough people get arrested, the jails will overflow and the law can no longer be enforced. Davis is not deliberately setting out to break the law. She is simply refusing to do something that she is opposed to.

flo's avatar

In both cases the anti supremacists elected official or the marriage license etc. issuing official are both refusing to do what they consider to be wrong.

Once you become an elected official or any government employee you have to act like a robot? You lose your right to refuse to do something and make noise the way she is doing? If she just resigned no one would notice. That is what I’m not getting.
@LostInParadise I thought someone is going to ask me something like “Why does it matter if the act can be considered civil disobedience? Does that name make it seem like it is some kind of hippy protest from the 60’s” By the way I just brought up the 60’s thing as an example. No I don’t care about the term necessarily.

chyna's avatar

@flo Part of her job as an elected official is to issue marriage licenses. If you call that a robotic act, then you don’t really understand job descriptions.
If she just resigned no one would notice. Is that her point? To get noticed?

jca's avatar

@flo: if she didn’t want to do the work of a County Clerk (which includes following the laws that County Clerks follow) then she should not have run for that office.

flo's avatar

@chyna and @jca See the 1st paragraph in my last post.

@jca ”...then she should not have run for that office.” What about when things come up that they never expected after they took office? This is not just about K.D necessarily.

flo's avatar

@chyna ”.... Is that her point? To get noticed?” Aren’t all civil disobedience acts about getting noticed (getting heard or seen)?

jca's avatar

@flo: Anybody who works for government or is familiar with the workings of government (as I suppose this woman would have been since she was elected), knows that laws do change, and they don’t always change to our liking.

jerv's avatar

@flo “What about when things come up that they never expected after they took office? This is not just about K.D necessarily.”

That is why resignation is an option. It could be worse. In the military, you have more restrictions but quitting isn’t an option and your more likely to get thrown in the brig than “fired”. And yes, government employees do give up some of their rights as terms of their employment.

Did you know that those in the armed forces are not protected by the Constitution that they are sworn to support, uphold and defend? True! The UCMJ lists certain rights, that those in the military have, but it’s a shorter, more restricted list than civilians enjoy. While there are limits on what your CO can do, pretty much anything that up to and including half-pay for two months, 45 days confinement, 45 days of extra duty (basically working a couple extra hours a day) and a one-step reduction in rank can be doled out by fiat with absolutely zero recourse available; things like due process, evidence and appeals only apply if you make your way to a Court Martial.

Then again, look at the benefits package. You think those pensions are given because the government loves it’s employees? Nope; it’s compensation for the freedom you give up by letting Uncle Sam sign your paycheck. Hell, I had to fight to get an absentee ballot from my home state one election year as there were some in my chain of command who felt that choosing one’s boss was a conflict of interest and therefore servicemen could not vote!

And yes, it’s all about “Look at me! I’m a martyr! Liberals hate God!”. As soon as she said she could not guarantee that she would comply with court orders, she guaranteed that many eye would be on her, not the least of which being the eye of the law. If not for all the media attention, she probably would’ve just resigned or accepted the compromise measure offered and never made the news, but she didn’t want that; she is on a mission to enforce God’s Law and making a spectacle of herself draws attention to her cause.

flo's avatar

@jerv I’m not sure the response to my:
“In both cases the anti supremacists elected official or the marriage license etc. issuing official are both refusing to do what they consider to be wrong.” is in your post.

flo's avatar

By the way why is “no bail” necessary in this case?

jca's avatar

Not every prisoner gets the privilege of bail, @flo.

flo's avatar

No bail for contempt of court. Okay.

flo's avatar

@jca ”... familiar with the workings of government (as I suppose this woman would have been since she was elected), knows that laws do change,...”
If you go by that, then no one would ever run for election. That is not practical.

@jervIs the anti white supremacist official who decides to choose jail is a idiot as @jca called er above?

LostInParadise's avatar

According to the definition of civil disobedience, the protest must ” for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy”. In order to be civil disobedience, the act must be done as part of a cohesive plan to bring about change. Davis was doing what she thought was right, but it would be a stretch to say that she intended to influence government policy through her act. I doubt that she was even aware of the publicity she would get, and even if she were, there is simply no way that she is going to change government policy.

jerv's avatar

@flo I haven’t addressed it explicitly, simply because you already know the answer.

“Once you become an elected official or any government employee you have to act like a robot? You lose your right to refuse to do something and make noise the way she is doing?”

Change those question marks to periods and you’re pretty close to the truth. It’s also why I relayed a little something about my own time on Uncle Sam’s payroll. But lets see what Kentucky state law has to say

22.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly:
. .(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
. .(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or
. .(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

A civil servant refusing to perform their duty due to personal beliefs IS an explicitly codified criminal offense that is punishable by law. Once you take the job, you forfeit any and all right to say, “I won’t do this because it conflicts with my beliefs.” as a condition of your employment. I could probably say that a few dozen other ways as well just to drive the point home, but I think I’ve made it clear enough to understand on an intellectual level that working for the government deprives you of some off your freedoms and rights.

And it’s not that those rights are taken from you either; you willingly agreed to the terms and conditions of employment when you took the job. Hell, you requested it by filling out the application! And unlike civilian jobs, the duties, obligations, and restrictions are outlined quite well in a publicly accessible manner. I am just a regular citizen yet I managed to pull up a statute from Kentucky State Law in about four seconds of Googling.

“If you go by that, then no one would ever run for election. That is not practical.”

Firemen also know that getting burned to death in the line of duty happens. Not every time, but often enough to be considered a potential risk inherent in the job. People also get hit by trucks, but many of us still cross streets and use sidewalks despite that inherent risk.

Also, the compensation packages tend to be pretty decent. A County Clerk in Rowan County has an $80,000/yr salary. Given what many jobs pay, I think it worth a little risk to pull in that sort of dough. I mean, that’s more than most dual-income households earn, so it seems practical to want that if you are willing to live with the conditions of employment that warrant such generosity.

When Kim Davis said, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage.”, she proved herself to be an idiot with no knowledge of history or government, and the fact that she got elected despite that makes me wonder about Kentucky. Just as firemen get burned and machinists get metal chips in their clothing, the long and well-publicized push for same-sex marriages along with the growing number of states passing legislature to allow it points to a risk that Kentucky and/or the feds could change the laws in a way that Davis found objectionable.

Anyone who has been exposed to any sort of journalism or mass media in this country in the last decade or so has seen/heard quite a bit about same-sex marriage. They have also heard that certain states have changed their laws to allow it. Anyone politically savvy enough to win an election (or pass 10th grade Social Studies) knows that when certain cases are appealed high enough to reach the Supreme Court, that can lead to changes in federal law as well.

The risk was foreseeable. If Davis did not foresee it herself, that is of no consequence; all that matters is that she could have, just as I could’ve foreseen my soda spilling on the rug when my cat jumped up on the table. It may not be something you think about, but it’s something that shouldn’t be a surprise when it happens unless you have both no memory and no concept of cause-and-effect.

Maybe the risk is only actually seen in hindsight, but that does not mean that lack of due diligence beforehand is a legitimate defense. That damp spot on my floor isn’t because my cat is a malicious little bastard; it’s because I didn’t think my cat would wake up from his nap and jump up on the table. Likewise, if Kim Davis been concerned over the possibility that she may be asked to do things she found objectionable if she became County Clerk, she could’ve done a little research into what duties were expected of a County Clerk and what her rights were. Just as I inspect and test drive every car I buy before I actually buy it, a little “look before you leap” can save you from a metaphorical pair of broken legs.

jerv's avatar

In related news, a Muslim flight attendant was recently suspended for refusing to serve alcohol due to her religious beliefs. In the past, and at the “suggestion” of her employer, she had one of her coworkers serve alcohol instead and thus caused no real inconvenience, but one of her coworkers complained and now it’s in the news.

According to some source, the same coworker complained about her headdress and a book of “foreign writings” though, so it’s possible that it’s all just harassment.

Being a civilian working for a non-government entity makes this case a bit different from the Kim Davis case, but I somehow suspect that those who support Kim Davis’ religious right to refuse service would not extend the same support here because it involves a Muslim instead of a Christian. If they truly were outraged about religious freedom, this story would be right up there with Kim Davis, but it isn’t so I’m guessing there are other motives in play.

LostInParadise's avatar

In line with what @jerv has been saying, here is a well written article by Kareem Abdul Jabbar arguing against the notion that Davis is engaging in civil disobedience.

jca's avatar

@jerv: The inconvenience in the case of the airline attendants was to the coworker who had to pick up the slack due to the Muslim worker not doing part of her job. The coworker maybe had none of her other duties slashed (or maybe she did, who knows), so was then doing more than her share. Just hypothesizing.

flo's avatar

@jerv part of my last post was _’’@jervl ’‘the anti white supremacist official who decides to choose jail is a idiot as @jca called er above?’’

jerv's avatar

@jca It’s hard to say. Are handicapped people expected to work harder and/or for less pay due to the expense of installing wheelchair ramps and accessible bathrooms?

@flo Becoming a public/government official comes with restrictions that would be uncovered if one practices due diligence. Failure to perform said due diligence implies a certain lack of cognitive ability.

Also, sitting in jail after a failed attempt at gumming up the system, is far less effective than keeping your criminal record clean, disqualifying yourself from prosecution for some combination of malfeasance and dereliction, and exercising one’s rights as a citizen to peaceably assemble and seek redress of grievances. She is getting no sympathy except from those who were ready canonize her for her antisocial-to-the-point-of-illegal behavior. She would serve her anti-LGBT movement better by doing what a decent, rational human would do instead of by discreditting her cause and costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.

And honestly, I think the citizens of Kentucky should file a civil suit to recoup the costs she has incurred. In fact, not doing so smacks of favoritism; I know many places in that region make prisoners pay for their confinement, but that seems to only happen to low-income prisoners, usually those with a bit more skin pigmentation than Davis.

I wouldn’t say “idiot” so much as “sociopathic twat-waffle”.

flo's avatar

This OP is not about “which position is right pro or against gay marriage?” the same way my detail part of my OP:
“By the way, the title of the article says “gay marriage license”, when it is all marriage license she refused to issue.” is not about as you @jerv put it …“merely a PR backpedal to “prove” that she isn’t anti-gay.” but about the misinformation, of the title in the article.

jca's avatar

@jerv:: I’m a little lost by what you just wrote. If I have a job and you have a job, and I can’t do part of my job, are your duties lessened so that you’re freed up to do part of mine? Or do you have the same amount of work, plus my work, while I have less to do? I don’t see how that equates to paying for a handicapped ramp.

jerv's avatar

@jca There are certain classes that are protected. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against someone due to their race, color, religion or gender. Subsequent acts made it illegal to discriminate based on other factors such as pregnancy, veteran status, and other factors.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on handicap and requires all public areas (including businesses that serve the public) that can reasonably be renovated to accommodate the handicapped must do so. When it comes to enforcing that, there is some case-by-case examination to determine whether such renovation is readily achievable, but in general, solutions that cost the employer nothing are considered “reasonable accommodation” far more often than solutions that would incur undue financial harm.

Both religion and handicap status are specifically and explicitly protected by many pages of federal law. Islam is internationally recognized as a legitimate religion, just as being in a wheelchair is considered a legitimate handicap. When if comes to crutches and Qurans, if reasonable accommodations can be made then they MUST be made. To do otherwise is, for legal purposes, no different than saying, “We don’t hire no niggers here!”; a violation of law is a violation of law, whether it’s violated for racism, religious zeal, or whatever.

“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.”

Apparently her employer was perfectly fine with the arrangements she made, as were most of the people she worked with. Hell, for all we know, she did swap duties and perform extra work in order to balance out having her coworker serve drinks. Many times in my job, I’ve asked a coworker for a minor task and been asked to do a minor task in return. That sort of quid pro quo is so common that you probably can’t even see it.

The fact that this flight attendant performed her duties for years without incident until winding up with a coworker who, at first glance, has Islamophobic tendencies anyways tells me that there was no problem with her not serving alcohol; the problem was a bigoted coworker. Her employer made reasonable accommodations until that one person complained, and are now caught in the unenviable position between complying with federal law (and earning the ire of a large number of Americans, with the potential financial repercussions that involves) or coming across as anti-Islamic (with all of the potential legal entanglements and bad PR that entails). ExpressJet is trying to do the right thing, and the flight attendant just wants to do as much of her job as she is able to do.

So it seems that the crux of the matter is whether those who are intolerant of others be considered a protected class of their own or whether depriving people of rights arbitrarily is something that should be criminalized. The answer seems to be “whichever is most advantageous to WASPs”, especially amongst who that think Obama was born outside the US but Ted Cruz wasn’t. I would like to see some evidence that it’s not actually that way, but the weight of the evidence I’ve seen thusfar has led me to the conclusion that that is how it is.

flo's avatar

@jerv Do you remember the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants case?
Without bringing up the wheelchair ramp etc. could you answer the question?

flo's avatar

@jca‘s question: “If I have a job and you have a job, and I can’t do part of my job, are your duties lessened so that you’re freed up to do part of mine? Or do you have the same amount of work, plus my work, while I have less to do?” That is a straight forward question, and based on your posts above, your answer could only be something like:
Your (or the coworker of the Moslim attendant) duties attendant) should be lessened so that you’re freed up to do…” or you knew the list of the duties, you shouldn’t have applied for the job, just like Kim Davis knew or that she should have known that she would have to perform duties she may not want to ...”

And “The fact that this flight attendant performed her duties for years without incident until winding up with a coworker who, at first glance, has Islamophobic tendencies anyways tells me that there was no problem with her not serving alcohol; the problem was a bigoted coworker.” I don’t know that for sure.

flo's avatar

…That post is addressing @jerv

“That is a straight forward question, @jerv and based on your posts above, your answer could only be something like: ...”

jca's avatar

I’m thinking maybe the coworker got tired of doing 1½ jobs, if that is the case (which we don’t know for sure if it is or isn’t).

jerv's avatar

@flo The “hot coffee” case? I fail to see the applicability of that case as that was about product liability rather than discrimination, and was a civil matter rather than a criminal case.

As for guessing how I would answer, you got it right on the second guess… kind of. But as usual you miss a key difference; that flight attendant never interfered with any of her coworkers serving alcohol. When did that flight attendant refuse to let alcohol be served at all then call the airline unclean because they sell something that Allah forbids the faithful from touching?

How about another difference; she did not threaten her coworkers with prosecution or termination; Kim Davis has made such threats.

Also, you seem to have missed that whole thing about informal quid pro quo. Are you telling me that never, ever in your life have you swapped tasks with someone to avoid something you were either unable or unwilling to do? At one of my previous jobs, there were times where one of my coworkers would be on the computer that tracked our orders/jobs and I would be halfway across the shop. But instead of putting my machine on Feed Hold, stopping production, and walking across the shop myself, I’d just yell (machine shops are loud) and ask if they would clock me in/out on a job I was starting/finishing. Is that me passing my work on to them? Given the number of times I was the one at the computer and they asked the same from me, I’d say it balanced out.

How about trading favors? Or, and this was a big one from my Navy days, taking turns buying rounds? Instead of flooding the bartender with multiple orders every 10–20 minutes, one of us would buy the whole round in a single transaction. Now, you might think that that is a way to drink for free but it isn’t. The reason why was whoever bought that round wasn’t buying another round until everyone in the group had bought a round, and if Last Call came before we had each bought equal numbers of rounds, whoever “got off lucky” would wind up buying first round the next time we went out.

To put it in terms you might be able to understand better, imagine that you have a dozen donuts and I have a dozen donuts. If I offer you one of my jelly-filled for one of your Bavarian Cream and you accept my offer, which of us has more donuts after the trade?

Regarding this flight attendant, none of her other coworkers complained or anything, so it’s safe to assume that it’s at least possible that the reason her fellow flight attendants didn’t complain about serving alcohol (basically doing part of her job in addition to their own) was because that quid pro quo got them out of some of their duties.

Of course, by law, that is not actually required; it’s merely common decency. When I had my car accident and hurt my back pretty bad, I was no longer able to lift 50+ pound parts from the floor to the table of a CNC mill. “Reasonable accommodation” was having an able-bodied coworker do the lifting for me, but I was not required to perform any part of any of their jobs as payback. Given the choice between that, remaining on paid disability, or risking legal trouble by terminating my employment, they opted for “reasonable accommodation”, in part because I was still capable of doing 80% of my job.

Now for a counter-question; if it’s okay to fire a Muslim for refusing to serve alcohol, is it okay to impeach Kim Davis? Let us disregard Kentucky state law regarding what conduct civil servants are prohibited from and tell me whether it is only okay to ask someone to violate their belief system if they are non-Christian. Just tell me straight-up whether Christians and Muslims deserve the same treatment, and if not, then explain why non-Christians are exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

Oh, your answer also reflects your opinion on whether or not those under 21 can bag groceries or whether our youth should be barred from working in supermarkets period because they cannot touch alcohol either.

flo's avatar

@jerv, Why did I bring up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
1)According to you because I see similarity/ies between that case and the court cases in this thread. See?

2)Long, long, long, long, posts that go all over the place (to put it mildly) but the answer. See?

3)“To put it in terms you might be able to understand better,...” See?

4)Sounding like defending oneself for having imposed not balanced)on co-workers. See?

jerv's avatar

@flo Yeah, I see that you have no interest in having answers explained.

FYI, most of my opinions are formed from a rather large body of information. Issues I have an interest in generally lead to be viewing enough sources that the bibliography alone would be considerably longer than my previous post.

If you want more concise answers then you have to prove to me that you already know what I know, thus negating any need for explanation. However, it has been proven time and time and time and time and time and time again that you don’t see at least 90% of what I see. You don’t remember studying nuclear physics, or sailing on an aircraft carrier, but I do. And until you remember Ohm’s Law and the OBD1 codes for fifth-gen Civics (the ones with the D-series engines), you’re just going to have to put up with me using a lot of words and going in what seems to you to be a lot of irrelevant directions.

Some of my seeming digressions, like this paragraph, are either examples or analogies put forth for purposes of clarification. Would I be correct in assuming that if you took up skydiving you would consider physics irrelevant? I mean, it’s not like gravity or wind resistance have anything to do with skydiving, right? If that assumption is incorrect, then maybe you just have a bit of tunnel vision; possibly too much for effective communications between us to be possible due to a severe mismatch in knowledge.

I still fail to see the connection between a product liability case and a misconduct case, especially as there is no law against spilling coffee. Are you claiming that scalding hot coffee is part of McDonalds’ religion? Or are you ignoring the existence of Kentucky statute 522.020 Section 1 subsection B? Or are you claiming that spilling coffee is a civil rights issue? I scratched your back, so either scratch mine by explaining yourself or don’t and give the impression that you won’t (maybe can’t) conform with society’s expectations of informal reciprocity.

I may be a little rambling and long-winded, but at least I make an attempt to explain myself.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther