Posted on 09/03/2015 8:36:09 AM PDT by Leaning Right
While reading about that clerk, a thought occurred to me. Suppose a devout Muslim was a cook at a government cafeteria. And suppose pork chops were on the menu that day. Would the muslim be forced to handle the pork chops, or would he be excused from that particular duty?
But then I wondered...if other religious groups get exemptions, then so should she. And I'll bet other religious groups do get those exemptions.
Moderator: please fix the posting date from Sept. 1 to Sept. 3. Thanks.
"The Howitat do not carry water"
From Lawrence of Arabia
I think she should stand firm and force them to recall her. It would be hilarious if they tried to recall her and failed.
Courage of one’s convictions never used to make news.
Does not matter muslims are another protected class, laws, policy and regulations only applies to WASP’s, they will always be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the progressive liberal democrat/rino communist uni-party’s law.
My guess is the court will fine her a crazy amount per day to bankrupt her.
I hope your question about the muslim cook and pork chops is a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.
I would imagine the cook would be allowed to forego handling the pork, and would be assigned some other job that day.
But that’s not quite what’s going on here. This clerk is not only not handling marriage licenses herself, she’s preventing anyone else in the county clerk’s office from doing so.
So, a more analogous situation would be this: Suppose a devout muslim became head of a count DMV office, and had a religious belief that women should not be permitted to drive. Would it be OK if women could not obtain drivers licenses at that DMV office?
It is. And I'd hope that the clerk gets a good lawyer to represent her. That lawyer should document the many instances where non-Christians do get those exemptions, then demand that the clerk gets equal treatment under the law.
The trick, I think, is to find government employees who get the exemptions, as the clerk is a government official.
Now, that's an interesting point. And it certainly complicates the issue.
No. Let us not suppose that 2000 years of societal behavior and legal practice are the exact same thing as a Muslim cook.
Let us stop floating these nonsensical false equivalencies.
Look at it this way.
If that muzzie was permitted to DENY handling the pork products, but later told to handle them or else be fired, would he have a case?
You bet your Obama he would.
And Kim Davis has an even stronger case as he is still follow the LAW. And not some unconstitutional coirt opinion.
Well, the cook is following what he believes to be 1000 years of societal behavior, so I’m not quite sure what your point is here.
To accept that KY law now requires giving same-sex marriage licenses, one has to accept that the SCOTUS ruling did not invalidate existing KY law, but rather rewrote it.
In other words, the court acted as a legislature for the state of KY.
I don't recognize you people anymore. Why are there so many of you who focus on the command structure of this government rather than the natural law foundation of it?
We have become new Rome, and everyone is fine with Caligula appointing a Horse to the Senate. Not a one of you "do her job" types seems to recognize the ridiculousness of applying perversion to legality, nor the fact that this was done by Diktat by Kooks on the Court with absolutely no support in the legal foundations of this Nation.
They "made up" this law that all of you are so intent on getting someone to enforce.
Is the Muslim the only one who can serve food? There’s your answer.
Would he get an exemption, because otherwise no devout Muslim could ever become a manager there. Or would he be forced to resign? It's probably the latter, but in today's environment one never knows.
Given they changed the definition of marriage after she was employed, one would think she could be grandfathered in.
RE: This clerk is not only not handling marriage licenses herself, she’s preventing anyone else in the county clerk’s office from doing so.
So, what’s her problem? Is it because she has to SIGN the marriage license?
Why can’t there be a compromise that allows somebody else to sign it?
RE: This clerk is not only not handling marriage licenses herself, she’s preventing anyone else in the county clerk’s office from doing so.
So, what’s her problem? Is it because she has to SIGN the marriage license?
Why can’t there be a compromise that allows somebody else in the country office to sign it?
It’s a simple solution that could avoid litigation. All we need is a simple act of legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.