Compare this story to the Kim Davis story

[Skylar]

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

The constitution says th

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

Er..no, she wasn't.

Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.

Yes, she was. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

What is section 228 of the Constitution?

 

[Seawytch]

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

The constitution says th

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

Er..no, she wasn't.

Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.

Yes, she was. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

What is section 228 of the Constitution?

KY Constitution


Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

Section_228

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

 

[Skylar]

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

The constitution says th

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

Er..no, she wasn't.

Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.

Yes, she was. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

What is section 228 of the Constitution?

KY Constitution


Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

Section_228

You win. She swore to uphold the Constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

Dunno the paticulars about the trucking company, but if they haul a lot of booze it's reasonable they coulda guessed it'd come up.

 

[jillian]

2 Muslim drivers win $240K judgment in discrimination suit

they shouldn't have won.

kim davis is still scum who violated a court order and violated the rights of her fellow americans.

but you do seem to have things a bit backwards.

 

[jillian]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim; you can't be an ob/gyn and refuse to learn how to terminate a pregnancy. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

 

[jillian]

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

The constitution says th

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

Er..no, she wasn't.

Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.

good to know you're still delusional.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.

The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim; you can't be an ob/gyn and refuse to learn how to terminate a pregnancy. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

I think reasonable accommodations should be made. If a judge isn't comfortable performing gay marraiges but other judges are, game on.

But if a judge forbid all the OTHER judges from performing marriages, we have a problem.

And that's exactly what Kim Davis did. She forbid OTHERS from issuing marriage licenses. Meaning she imposed her views rather than tried to protect her own.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.

The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.

Have a problem with such examples. If only out of concern about blowback. If you have flight attendants refusing to serve alcohol, and it becoms as hassle switchining attendants in aand out to do their job, hiring those people becomes ill-advised. Only hruting themselves then taking such jobs in the first place.

Morer religious people can't function within the existing system demanding these kinds of special rights (hehe) more it's gonna cause resentment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.

I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.

They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.

Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".

There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.

my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.

The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.

Have a problem with such examples. If only out of concern about blowback. If you have flight attendants refusing to serve alcohol, and it becoms as hassle switchining attendants in aand out to do their job, hiring those people becomes ill-advised. Only hruting themselves then taking such jobs in the first place.

Morer religious people can't function within the existing system demanding these kinds of special rights (hehe) more it's gonna cause resentment.

I don't think the examples are very good either, because in both cases a compelling argument could be made that refusing to serve alcohol or birth control are not "reasonable accommodations" for a pharmacist or flight attendant to ask for.

But those were the examples given, and honestly as long as it puts no undue burden on the customer, I don't really care that much.

 

[bodecea]

2 Muslim drivers win $240K judgment in discrimination suit

Only difference I see is one case was an elected Government official versus employees of a private company. But I am of the opinion that if they cannot do the job they are paid to do, fire them.

 

[Stephanie]

One gets rewarded and the other gets thrown in jail

seems something pretty screwed up about that one

 

[Skylar]

2 Muslim drivers win $240K judgment in discrimination suit

Only difference I see is one case was an elected Government official versus employees of a private company. But I am of the opinion that if they cannot do the job they are paid to do, fire them.

There are two significant differences.

First, no one has a constitutional right to have beer delivered. But they do have a constitutional right to the issuance of a marriage license. Davis in her role as a government employee was using the State to force people to abide her religion. That's a 1st amendment violation.

Second, Davis made *other* clerks deny the issuance of those licenses. So it wasn't merely a matter of her accomidation. She insisted she had the right to force others to abide her religion as well...folks inside her own office.

 

[Skylar]

One gets rewarded and the other gets thrown in jail

seems something pretty screwed up about that one

If Christians would have sued in similar circumstances, the EEOC would have sued on their behalf as well.

As none of these folks are wielding the State power. Nor swore to uphold the Constitution as part of their job. Nor are defying a court order.

Davis did all those things.

 

[ogibillm]

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

The constitution says th

I'll compare

Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution

Er..no, she wasn't.

Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.

er... yes, she was. she had to take an oath of office that included that promise. she also promised not to participate in duels.

so the thing is, these guys could have been accommodated by allowing them to trade assignments, something the company allowed its drivers to routinely do. the trucks would have still made their deliveries, nobody would have been hurt.
kim davis did not allow anyone to issue marriage licenses. she was breaking her oath of office an denying warranted services to the citizens of her county. she was causing harm, and refused accommodation.

 

[Arianrhod]

One gets rewarded and the other gets thrown in jail...

Obviously there's no point in trying to explain to some people that there's a difference between driving a truck and working for the state government, much less the nuance that unless the drivers' contracts specifically said "must drive a beer truck," as compared to Davis' contract, which stated that her duty was to issue marriage licenses, they were within their right to refuse.

Would I have awarded them damages (it is "awarded," not "rewarded")? Probably not, but in today's litigious society, there are more egregious lawsuits daily.

As for the sainted Kim Davis, stop making it sound as if she's still in jail and doing hard time. She was released a day later, has since become an Instant Celebrity, and is "writing" a book that's due out by Christmas. Better preorder your copy now.

 

[Skylar]

One gets rewarded and the other gets thrown in jail...

Obviously there's no point in trying to explain to some people that there's a difference between driving a truck and working for the state government, much less the nuance that unless the drivers' contracts specifically said "must drive a beer truck," as compared to Davis' contract, which stated that her duty was to issue marriage licenses, they were within their right to refuse.

Would I have awarded them damages (it is "awarded," not "rewarded")? Probably not, but in today's litigious society, there are more egregious lawsuits daily.

As for the sainted Kim Davis, stop making it sound as if she's still in jail and doing hard time. She was released a day later, has since become an Instant Celebrity, and is "writing" a book that's due out by Christmas. Better preorder your copy now.

5 days later. But close enough on the 'hard time'.