More on Davis

[ricflair4LIFE]

The latest on Ms Davis.

It turns out she may have tampered with official documents. When she returned to her job, it appears she took her name off of licenses for gays applying to be married. According to an article on AOL this may be against the law. An investigation is pending.

 

[NCPitt]

The latest on Ms Davis.

It turns out she may have tampered with official documents. When she returned to her job, it appears she took her name off of licenses for gays applying to be married. According to an article on AOL this may be against the law. An investigation is pending.

Of course, its against the law. The governor hasn't agreed to either an executive order or special session to enact a change to the form yet.

 

[BPKY]

Well played.

 

[HailtoPitt]

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

LOL. Well done.

 

[NCPitt]

Not a religion and not subject to the 1st amendment protections.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Not a religion and not subject to the 1st amendment protections.

She is buddhist.

 

[NCPitt]

She is buddhist.

Since when does buddhism teach that one's faith prevents supporting others from eating fish?

You're desperate.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Buddhism does not need to explicitly state that its members practice as vegans, one only needs to sincerely hold the belief that the practice of veganism is part of their religion.

Since when does buddhism teach that one's faith prevents supporting others from eating fish?

You're desperate.

 

[deepelemblues]

So she's doing on her own what would have caused this controversy to not be a controversy if the Democrat governor had got off his ass and signed an order doing it or called the legislature back into session to pass a law doing it.

But he saw political hay in not doing either of those things so here we are. This entire thing could have been avoided and homosexuals could have been getting marriage licenses in Rowan County this whole time. But no. Because it's more politically useful to have it become a Serious Issue.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

You make no sense. She cannot act on her own, and she does not have the authority to change the law. She swore an oath and needs to follow that oath or abandon her post. The entire thing could have been avoided if this hillbilly didn't overstep her position.

So she's doing on her own what would have caused this controversy to not be a controversy if the Democrat governor had got off his ass and signed an order doing it or called the legislature back into session to pass a law doing it.

But he saw political hay in not doing either of those things so here we are. This entire thing could have been avoided and homosexuals could have been getting marriage licenses in Rowan County this whole time. But no. Because it's more politically useful to have it become a Serious Issue.

 

[NCPitt]

Buddhism does not need to explicitly state that its members practice as vegans, one only needs to sincerely hold the belief that the practice of veganism is part of their religion.

In order for buddhists to preclude approval of fishing licenses through religion, their belief system must include that they will be in violation of their religion if they support others eating fish.

Such a tenant is not part of Buddhism.

 

[NCPitt]

You make no sense. She cannot act on her own, and she does not have the authority to change the law. She swore an oath and needs to follow that oath or abandon her post. The entire thing could have been avoided if this hillbilly didn't overstep her position.

There is obviously a third option you fail to mention.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Wrong.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm

In order for buddhists to preclude approval of fishing licenses through religion, their belief system must include that they will be in violation of their religion if they support others eating fish.

Such a tenant is not part of Buddhism.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Start a gofundme campaign and wait for the other dumb hillbilly contributions to rain down?

There is obviously a third option you fail to mention.

 

[deepelemblues]

You make no sense. She cannot act on her own, and she does not have the authority to change the law. She swore an oath and needs to follow that oath or abandon her post. The entire thing could have been avoided if this hillbilly didn't overstep her position.

America isn't supposed to be the kind of country where the government refuses to make small and simple accommodations that would give everyone what they want just because you are a bigot against 'hillbillies.'

Davis could have had her name and title off the licenses and homosexuals could have been not having her refuse them a while ago. But no. What good reason is there that that is not what happened? Because 'hillbillies' need to get punished until they think the way you want? Or what? Who cares what people think. Behavior is what matters. And a lot of the time when you change behavior the thinking follows suit sooner or later. Kim Davis could have been put in a position where she kept her job (which she still has anyway, bet that steams you huh) and not have had the opportunity to deny marriage licenses to homosexuals. Problem solved. But no. For whatever reason the adult solution was not an option. Instead we must break her in the name of tolerance or whatever dumb reason it is. All this has accomplished is making this dumb-looking Kentucky Democrat county official into a martyr for fundamentalist Christians. Oh, and it put homosexuals in Rowan County through months of emotional distress until they could finally get their marriage licenses. When it should have taken about a week after Davis refused the first time.

Just give her what she wants, it's a joke that someone didn't smile patronizingly at her, say "Sure, Kim," and get her name and title taken off all future Rowan County marriage licenses. No muss, no fuss. They get their licenses, she stops having a problem with it.

A rare solution in politics, no one has to lose anything to get what they want. But again no. That was not allowed I guess.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Because calling the legislature back into session and changing the freaking law of Kentucky is more than a simple accommodation. Look up "undue hardship" and then explain to me how calling the legislature into session is a minimal cost. I thought you conservatives were for spending less money on the government?

America isn't supposed to be the kind of country where the government refuses to make small and simple accommodations that would give everyone what they want just because you are a bigot against 'hillbillies.'

Davis could have had her name off the licenses and homosexuals could have been not having her refuse them a while ago. But no. What good reason is there that that is not what happened? Because 'hillbillies' need to get punished until they think the way you want? Or what?

 

[HailtoPitt]

In order for buddhists to preclude approval of fishing licenses through religion, their belief system must include that they will be in violation of their religion if they support others eating fish.

Such a tenant is not part of Buddhism.

They don't support taking a life, including animals. A Buddhist could decide not to issue a fishing license to anyone who would kill those fish. Of course, the same folks who are supporting Davis would be outraged.

 

[NCPitt]

Wrong.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm

So now you agree with the Christian county clerk. Glad to see you've come around.

 

[NCPitt]

They don't support taking a life, including animals. A Buddhist could decide not to issue a fishing license to anyone who would kill those fish. Of course, the same folks who are supporting Davis would be outraged.

Catch and release?

I know next to nothing of Buddhism, so I'll accept your premise about their beliefs. It doesn't change my position on this issue at all.

I've said that reasonable accommodations can be made to keep the clerk in her job...by removing her name from the marriage license. If there is no reasonable accommodation available, then she is subject to the law. Is there a reasonable accommodation to the buddhist issuing fishing licenses?

 

[HailtoPitt]

Catch and release?

I know next to nothing of Buddhism, so I'll accept your premise about their beliefs. It doesn't change my position on this issue at all.

I've said that reasonable accommodations can be made to keep the clerk in her job...by removing her name from the marriage license. If there is no reasonable accommodation available, then she is subject to the law. Is there a reasonable accommodation to the buddhist issuing fishing licenses?

A reasonable accommodation is adding a magnification screen to a worker's computer monitor because they have trouble seeing text. Taking her name off of the marriage license and having a different person do her job, is not a reasonable accommodation.

 

[NCPitt]

A reasonable accommodation is adding a magnification screen to a worker's computer monitor because they have trouble seeing text. Taking her name off of the marriage license and having a different person do her job, is not a reasonable accommodation.

Says you. Only those with a political agenda to have everyone concede to their acceptance of gay marriage agree.

Removal of a name from a form is not unreasonable.

The same people do the job. There is no change in that.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

If not for that pesky "undue hardship" piece...

So now you agree with the Christian county clerk. Glad to see you've come around.

 

[NCPitt]

If not for that pesky "undue hardship" piece...

I repeat.

Removal of a name from a form is not unreasonable...nor undue hardship.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Then she should pursue that angle. The fact that they are not changing the form leads me to believe that they see it as an undue hardship. Until they do or do not make the change, she should do her job and fight the battle in parallel in court.

I repeat.

Removal of a name from a form is not unreasonable...nor undue hardship.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Removal of a name from a form is not unreasonable.

Yes, it is unreasonable. That seems like a pretty big change to make for one person.

 

[NTOP]

Yes, it is unreasonable. That seems like a pretty big change to make for one person.

But she's a Democrat.....we've crippled America for you guys.

 

[NCPitt]

Then she should pursue that angle. The fact that they are not changing the form leads me to believe that they see it as an undue hardship. Until they do or do not make the change, she should do her job and fight the battle in parallel in court.

She did. Her attorney specifically discussed it.

The fact that the governor has taken no action leads me to believe that he is using the issue for political reasons.

She should not have to set aside her 1st amendment rights.

But lets step back and now see where we are. You now acknowledge the "hillbilly's" right to challenge the ruling based on religious grounds. It now is ONLY an issue of whether removal of her name is reasonable accommodation in your view. You've come a long ways. Congratulations.

 

[NCPitt]

Yes, it is unreasonable. That seems like a pretty big change to make for one person.

Again, only in your mind. Most reasonable people would disagree.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

I never said otherwise. However, until that decision is made, she cannot refuse to do her job. She did and was held in contempt for failure to obey a court order and was imprisoned. Like that lady said, where's the beef? I have no problem with how the situation unfolded. I even appreciate the civil disobedience (except for the surprise and outrage at being imprisoned by all of the dumb hillbillies).

She did. Her attorney specifically discussed it.

The fact that the governor has taken no action leads me to believe that he is using the issue for political reasons.

She should not have to set aside her 1st amendment rights.

But lets step back and now see where we are. You now acknowledge the "hillbilly's" right to challenge the ruling based on religious grounds. It now is ONLY an issue of whether removal of her name is reasonable accommodation in your view. You've come a long ways. Congratulations.

 

[NCPitt]

I never said otherwise. However, until that decision is made, she cannot refuse to do her job. She did and was held in contempt for failure to obey a court order and was imprisoned. Like that lady said, where's the beef? I have no problem with how the situation unfolded. I even appreciate the civil disobedience (except for the surprise and outrage at being imprisoned by all of the dumb hillbillies).

All you lefties look alike...in type.

 

[DyingOnPrinciple]

Thanks.

All you lefties look alike...in type.