It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Religious Liberty Apply to Muslims?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And KY can easily change the law to accommodate this.


How easy is it to change the law? Does it require a special meeting of the legislature? What committee or board has to decide that this is the right thing to do? What is a compelling reason to change a law? Once the law is changed, if a Treasurer decides that he has a religious objection to ANOTHER law, do they meet again to take care of HIS objection? I think there's more to it than easily changing a law... How much will it cost?



Unfortunately, no one was willing to wait and see if this remedy would be applied.


Wait for what? The legislature meets in January. Do you expect people to wait for their marriage licenses until then? Why should they?




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It doesn't matter how long a belief is held or if the company changes its policies. If your religion and job duties aren't compatible, at any time and for whatever reason, you don't have the right to demand special treatment. Especially if it puts a burden on the business, coworkers or the employer.

It wouldn't be discriminatory for them to fire her, because they're not firing her because of her religion, they're firing her because she cannot perform the required tasks. They would do that to anyone who refused to do their job.
edit on 9/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Yes, it would be descrimination. One would be set on with the job description and one would sign a contract of employment with those descriptions in mind. But for the employer to alter or change any job description would invalidate the former contract which would leave them open to prosecution.
A new contract would have to be agreed on by the employer and the employee, so to alter the job description without the employees agreement could be construed as constructive dismissal. ie discrimination and another case for prosecution.


edit on 10-9-2015 by crayzeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Why wouldn't it be?

What if the company had more than one employee with her particular belief set when they change and rather than accommodate, they fire them?

If the only reason they fire those employees is because they hold a particular belief that is not compatible with the new policy, then those people are indeed being discriminated against for their religion which is expressly against the law.

Now the company can sunset those employees, meaning they can offer them a reasonable accommodation and then make it clear that any new employees must be compatible with company policy. Thus, ensuring that eventually the only employees they have are comfortable with their policy going forward, but if they suddenly offload a bunch of Muslims for no other reason than their religious beliefs ... it is discrimination.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: lucifershiningone

It's my responsibility to not take a job that conflicts with my beliefs, just as it is for anyone else.

A person can't say they did not know that flight attendants serve drinks before they applied. Waiting until after they already have the job to then make demands is dishonest at best.

I don't see the similarity at all, even though I also think that Clerk was wrong and should have allowed others to issue the licenses. This Clerk was an elected official and the law changed after they were in office. They did not run for the office knowing up front they had to issue the licenses.

That's a terrible article.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually not much.

What she wants is to have the form altered to have all personal references to the clerk's name removed.

Federal Law doesn't allow for it, but Kentucky law could do it easily and the forms wouldn't take much to alter.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lucifershiningone

Religious freedom doesn't not extend to pursuing a field that has aspects of the job in conflict with your views. You don't become an abortion doctor with your medical training if your religious beliefs get in the way of performing said job.

Now if the airline previously didn't serve alcohol and then now required her to do so, that would be different. She took the job knowing it involved serving alcohol. The airline made an accommodation but it ended up not working. She needs to do her job duties or find another job. Theres a reason you don't find many Jews or Muslims in the Pig farming/processing biz.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

and if it's state law that requires the clerk's identity to be on it?? then we are back to waiting till january before any marriage licenses are issued...
which is an undue burden!



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

I personally think the clerk should not be forced to issue them, but should have other people in the office do it.


Government job. Marriage licenses. Not straight marriage licenses.

You adhere to law --- not your personal beliefs.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Job descriptions change all the time. For everyone in every industry. Trust me when I say NEVER does management survey the workforce to make sure everyone is ok with the change. You either do the new job or go down the road. That's just the way it is.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Why wouldn't it be?


Discrimination is unfair treatment of someone because they're Hindu, white, a woman, gay, or disabled (etc.).

Discrimination is NOT firing someone because they can't or won't do the job (for whatever reason). That's just good business practices.



What if the company had more than one employee with her particular belief set when they change and rather than accommodate, they fire them?


It makes no difference. If ALL of the employees refuse to do a task, for whatever reason, it's not discrimination to fire them and hire people who WILL do the job.



If the only reason they fire those employees is because they hold a particular belief that is not compatible with the new policy, then those people are indeed being discriminated against for their religion which is expressly against the law.


No, they aren't. They can be religious all day long. But they're not being fired for being religious, they're being fired because they don't do the job. If I work in a vegetarian restaurant and they decide to start serving meat, including pork, to increase their business profit, and I hold a belief that, as a Muslim, I can't touch pork, the business is under NO obligation to accommodate me. They can accommodate me if they want, but they don't have to at all. It's not discrimination. Anyone who refused to serve pork would be fired, religious or not. If an atheist refused to serve pork, they'd be fired.

Legally, it would be discrimination to fire someone BECAUSE they're a Christian or black or whatever. But ANYONE who refused to do the job would be fired. ANYONE. So, it's not discrimination. It would only be discrimination if the company made accommodations for one Christian, but refused the same accommodation for another. That's UNFAIR treatment. That's what discrimination is.

Imagine a black girl works at a place where all the employees are black and she hates white people. One day the employer hires a white guy that she has to work with. She has a deeply held belief about white people and refuses to work with him... She gets fired, NOT because she's black, but because she refuses to work with the new employee.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Federal Law doesn't allow for it, but Kentucky law could do it easily and the forms wouldn't take much to alter.


Well, they can do that if they want, but they're under no obligation to do so. In any case, the law can't be changed until the next meeting of the legislature in January. She can't just go in with white-out and change the law without going through the proper process.

I'm sure we'll find out what they plan to do to resolve the situation in the next weeks. As it stands, the law says the clerk's name must be on the form. If she obstructs the process, she'll be in contempt again. They may continue to hand out licenses without her name, not knowing if they'll be considered valid or not. I don't know... But we'll see.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I've always been of the mind that you do your job. Period.

If part of that job is objectionable to your personal beliefs, get another job. I've done it. I've objected to parts of a job before, and I moved on. Not a big deal.

Sorry, but religious freedom means the freedom to practice your religion. That, IMO, does not include practicing it at work. At home, on your personal time, but not at work.

For instance, I've said before that I worked with and for muslims for 5 years. They got to stop and pray, leave to go to mosque on Fridays, etc. Now, mind you stopping to pray isn't a stop, close your eyes and pray. No, they have to stop, go to the washroom, and wash face, hands, and feet. I watched them stop and say a prayer before they got on their prayer rug (which was 10 feet from my workstation) then, kneel down for their prayers. Some would stay there for a few minutes afterwards, some went right back to work, it was all in all about a 10-15 minute thing. Every day, at least twice a day. Really, to be honest, no big deal they were simply using their two 15 minute break. Except is WAS a big deal, because we "kafars" were not allowed to take our two 15 minute breaks.

Same with leaving for the mosque on Friday, they left, and we had to stay. They got paid for it too.

I had enough, and I moved on. I could have caused a stink, but they ended up going out of business two months after I left.

That kind of religious freedom is not right.

But go to whatever place of warship you want, or don't. Pray to the Devil himself at home if you choose. I don't care.

I just don't think anyone should have to deal with religious rituals or symbols at work.

Wear a cross, or whatever, under your shirt out of site. No headscarves, no burkas, no turban around the heads of Sikhs. NOTHING.



Work is work.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana

No, but if the change is going to conflict with someone in such a way as to be discriminatory for one of the legally protected reasons, then the employer is obligated to offer a reasonable accommodation. Now the employer and employee may differ on what that is and then part ways, but in order to cover their legal bases, reasonable accommodation must be offered to existing employees otherwise you will run the risk of having a bunch of employees you let go for reasons that amount to conflict with religion, gender, physical disability, etc.

All of those are no-nos and the employees entered into employment with you and you hired them in good faith.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

I wouldn't take a job that caused problems from the outset and then demand accommodation. But the question is what happens when the policy changes while you are working somewhere and it now conflicts.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But they did offer accommodations to her and she refused. She had her list of what she wanted that she presented them. They said they would agree that she didn't have to issue them as long as her deputy clerks would do it. Since someone in the office had to issue them. But she didn't agree to that. So they did offer, she just didn't like the deal.

Also, this whole thing about it changing after she was hired. She worked in that office for 20 something years and was elected to run it this past year. You can't tell me she didn't see it coming. It wasn't final yet, but everyone knows it's been in the works for years now, especially someone who's job it will effect. So even though it hadn't yet changed when she was elected, she absolutely had to know it was likely to happen.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: lucifershiningone
wow so let me get this straight you can't get a drink in muslim run countries right thats complete bull. this lady was hired and i am sure told serving drinks was part of her job that she did for 3 years then all of a sudden decided it was ahggainst her faith wow



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Again, we can go back to the fact, and it is fact no matter how much you may not like it, that she was sworn to uphold a different set of laws.

There currently is no new set.

All the SCOTUS can do is strike down part of the law as invalid. They do not have the power to rewrite law. So Kentucky and many other states are in legal limbo until legislatures act. Additionally, in the private sector, when accommodation is offered and refused, an employee is simply fired, not thrown in jail to attempt to compel compliance.

The state overstepped its authority.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


But the question is what happens when the policy changes while you are working somewhere and it now conflicts.

You either leave, or suck it up.
This conversation was held here on ATS already....several of us testified that we have left jobs - walked off of jobs - when the policies changed and did not align with our moral compasses.

Need a link to that thread??



edit on 9/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But they didn't change any laws. They just ruled that Equal Rights applied to Gay's who want to marry. The same as they apply to everyone. That law they site for this is the 14th Amendment so nothing has changed. It's just been determined that up until that ruling people have not been following it.

So her oath, when she took it, actually included her upholding the law equally for Gay couples too, even if she didn't realize it at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join