Religion Should employees be allowed to use religion to not do job duties?

Should employees be allowed to use religion to not do job duties?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Maybe (explain in response)

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
Should employees be allowed to use their personal religious beliefs as an excuse to not perform their assigned job duties?

For anybody following US news lately, the name "Kim Davis" has been in the news a lot lately. The reason being that she is a Kentucky court clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of the US Supreme Court ruling. For her actions she is currently sitting in a jail cell. She is a recently "born again" Christian who is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage that she is currently on her fourth marriage.

Ky. same-sex marriage battle: Who is clerk Kim Davis? - CNN.com

Now comes news this week of a flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol to passengers. She is also a recent convert to her chosen religion who previously had no problems serving alcohol.

Muslim flight attendent claims discrimination - CNN.com

So the question is pretty straight forward... should people be allowed to not do certain duties of their job if they object on grounds of their personal religious beliefs?
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
If the job is based in religion then yes but those examples are not of religion based jobs. One is public service and the other is customer service.

There is a mandate in HR that protects employees religious rights. I once hired a man to work on trucks and he specified that he could not work Thursdays because of his religious obligations. As an Equal opportunity employer I had to make allowances for his religious beliefs, I scheduled him to work his 5th day on Saturdays.

I can't understand why the clerk was put in jail tho? If anything she should have been moved to a different position. If she signed a work agreement on taking the job, or if the job description was fully written out and she applied for it then she could quit or she would be in breach of contract.

As for the serving of alcohol on airlines, If the airline offers alcohol then it should be served unless a specific person abuses the alcohol by causing a ruckus. I have been denied alcohol on my flight to boot camp - I was hammered. It was responsible attending on their part.

In The United States of America we have the right to our own beliefs. When anyone inhibits those beliefs or imposes their beliefs upon you it is a violation of your constitutional rights as a citizen. If the airline is owned and operated under the national charter for the USA the attendant is wrong. The clerk is wrong because she is responsible for processing a legal agreement according to that states laws.

I don't think jail is needed but they should be looking for a different job.
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
I can't understand why the clerk was put in jail tho?
It gets a bit murky because her position is a public office that she was voted into. At it's simplest she is being held for civil contempt of court after being ordered by a judge that she had to issues the marriage certificates following the decision of the US Supreme Court.

In the case of the stewardess it is a bit more cut & dry because she took a job with an employer, was performing the functions of that job, and then one day told her employer she couldn't do the functions of the job anymore. In the case of the county clerk, the job she was voted into changed after she was already in the position.
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
The way I look at this is simple:

I am personally indifferent about gay marriage, but don't swing that way, period end of story.

To me, it's relatively easy in a situation like this to separate 'me' from 'others' when making statements to my body and mind, and in that profession, I'd have no problem issuing others a certificate to do something I myself would not do.

However. As a programmer, you wont catch me programming in Python. It's a language I have absolutely no desire to learn for reasons I wont get into.

There are Doctors who absolutely refuse to prescribe anti depressants. Despite being authorized to do so.

There are lawyers who absolutely refuse to take pro bono work. Despite being morally obligated to do so.

And with a clerk who doesn't want to issue certificates to something she herself wholly disagrees with.

Now if there are other clerks, particularly those who will do this.

What is wrong with a little organizational support and allowing her to say 'I cant help you - but that man over there can'?

However, if there are NO other clerks and she's the only one doing what she does.

Houston, we gots ourselves a problem.

Jailing is rough. That's like beating her into compliance.

The other viable alternative is for the organization to hire a clerk who will do what she wont.

"Invest in your people, and they will invest in you"
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
contempt of court after being ordered by a judge
She could have quit her job and pursued the legal rammifications for a lawsuit under discrimination. But she didn't quit and flat refused the court order so yes she should be in jail.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
People must understand that she is in jail for not compling with a court order not for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses.
I know that if my job had asked me to do something that was legal but against my own personal beliefs I would look for another job and take it as an experience.

The Oath of Office for Civil Service Employees - Source
Federal employees take the same oath of office as Congress, by which they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 U.S.C. §3331

The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees – “to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
However, if there are NO other clerks and she's the only one doing what she does.
In Kentucky the clerk must sign the certificate. While she is in jail the court deputy clerks have started issuing certificates. It is being debated whether those certificates are now valid without her signature.
The other viable alternative is for the organization to hire a clerk who will do what she wont.
It is a public office position that she was voted into, not a simple employee who just happens to work at the court.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
It is a public office position that she was voted into, not a simple employee who just happens to work at the court.
This is what is wrong with our Nation. We need to start impeaching those not doing their jobs if in public office.
The felgercarb that these 'Officials' pull gets debated and muggled till the situation is out of control.
In public office there is no room for 3 strikes thinking. One strike and you are out - PERIOD
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
It is a public office position that she was voted into, not a simple employee who just happens to work at the court.
The vote and change occurred after she had taken office.

In my opinion, anyone deserves the right to say no if the moral and ethical conditions of their office or position change to violate the personal integrity of the individual.

Admittedly, this might be an inconvenience to those around her.

But still.

There are alternative options to punishment but instead the system - you - seem more engaged and content to make this all a modern day witch hunt.

Kevin, Tom already knows this about me, but I worked for the NSA for 8 years, having sold them a company and IP for an 8 year deferred payment contract. During my employment, in the the last several years of that I was repeatedly asked to do nasty things to good people which I refused to do.

Ultimately, this led to me parting ways from the NSA at the same time as my former classmate Edward Snowden, and a complete seizure of all my personal assets (about $3 million USD) as well as a complete refusal to pay me the $8 million for the technology and Intellectual Property I sold to them before taking an 8 year contract with them to support the technology they licensed from me.

Ms Davis is in a similar position as myself.

The government treated me - a citizen of this country I worked faithfully to support - by publicly discrediting me amongst my peers, by seizing my personal assets and refusing to pay me what was owed, and leaving me with $140k in debt I can't pay - which has led me to be homeless (yes, even when you have money you still carry debt load to maintain credit worthiness).

Do you know I was denied a state subsidized free cell phone because of my credit score?

So while Ms Davis sits in a jail cell.

After 8 years of working my butt off to protect this country and do the right thing for her...

I am now sleeping in a tent in Hollywood and eat maybe once a day.

I have lost all my friends and haven't talked to my family in three years because there's something wrong with me?

And somehow, people like Ms Davis and I did this to ourselves by choosing to live and make decisions by our own individual moral and ethical code?

This is your government now.

Fix it.

As I am done trying.
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
I have an extra bedroom if you can find your way here.
I expect 1/2 on all the bills including my internet but I am open and I will help.
You are never alone my friend.
Tom, I have no income source, and refuse to get legitimate jobs because my tax money is being put to poor use, not only that but I'd be garnished almost instantly and that's if I was allowed to open up a bank account, which I am not with my abysmal (37) credit score, and even if I was, it's quite likely I would have those assets seized.

I'm just staying away from focusing on anything financial for personal health's sake.

The financial system and me are not currently getting along, and since everyone thinks money is God, I don't have any other options because I don't have God (Money) in my life.

Without 'God' in my life, I'm alone, Tom, and can't pay for my friends or for someone else's 'help'.

In any case, I am looking into Doctoral Programs for Theoretical Physics - which would actually provide subsistence allowances and get me off the street. With a Bachelors and Master's degree and thirty years of Information Technology experience, Pile it higher and Deeper, right? (PhD). This is really the only option I am presented with at this time which may mean a few more years on the street before being considered for a program like this.

That or I've been considering becoming a professional thief.

I suppose 'they won' after all and I have no choice but to violate my integrity and morals in order to live, right?

How's that for free will?
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
I suppose 'they won' after all
I found that living my life as to my own expectations, I always win.
My conscious is clear.
I don't really care about "them", meaning anyone other than me. I don't really care about you either but I understand the "hard" life. I would help but it seems you have a plan for 'You'.
I wish ya luck, hope it all works out for ya.

Hopefully our Clerk finds her ... "life"
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
I found that living my life as to my own expectations, I always win.
My conscious is clear.
I don't really care about "them", meaning anyone other than me. I don't really care about you either but I understand the "hard" life. I would help but it seems you have a plan for 'You'.
I wish ya luck, hope it all works out for ya.

Hopefully our Clerk finds her ... "life"
My 'plan' is contingent on you 'the universe' figuring out 'our' relationship and understanding how and why I need to be offered better places to 'fit' than where I have been placed.

I live life by my own expectations. but I also enjoy relationships, and respect the need that sometimes others have to come to terms with terms like balance and collaboration.

I as an individual live 'in a form of a yin/yang balance' with my environment, but not at the same time.

When it's not, from an external perspective it may appear to look more like an addiction than it does of benefit.
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
The vote and change occurred after she had taken office.
Yep, as noted above. ;)

In my opinion, anyone deserves the right to say no if the moral and ethical conditions of their office or position change to violate the personal integrity of the individual.
...
There are alternative options to punishment but instead the system - you - seem more engaged and content to make this all a modern day witch hunt.
Me? :cautious: Anyway, nobody is on a "witch hunt", the problem with Davis is not that she is trying to do something that she believes in, the problem is that she is trying to use her position to force others to align with the way that she thinks in defiance of a judge's order. As noted above, in Kentucky the court clerk must sign marriage certificates so the certificates that are being issued by others right now are in contention as to whether they are valid without Davis's signature. That little factoid is something that Davis, through her lawyer, has been quick to emphasis. Prior to being found in contempt of court she has flat out refused to do her job functions without proposing alternatives. That's a problem.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
the problem is that she is trying to use her position to force others to align with the way that she thinks
Thus is why I am not sympathetic to her predicament. Freedom of religion also has to protect others from being forced to another's beliefs, especially when stamped by a government seal.
Don't get me wrong, Sometimes morals intercede with an individuals beliefs. Lets not start killing women that show their faces in public when not married. But the vote has been cast and gay marriage is now an option there. The government says it is legal and binding. Whats next? People over 60 can't have a drivers license because the clerk thinks their grandmother is inept?

The Pussification of America continues...
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
Whats next? People over 60 can't have a drivers license because the clerk thinks their grandmother is inept?
It's a good thing restaurant workers can't do the same thing or else I'd have problems.

"I'm a vegan, no hamburger for you!" :cow:
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Yep, as noted above. ;)

Me? :cautious: Anyway, nobody is on a "witch hunt", the problem with Davis is not that she is trying to do something that she believes in, the problem is that she is trying to use her position to force others to align with the way that she thinks in defiance of a judge's order. As noted above, in Kentucky the court clerk must sign marriage certificates so the certificates that are being issued by others right now are in contention as to whether they are valid without Davis's signature. That little factoid is something that Davis, through her lawyer, has been quick to emphasis. Prior to being found in contempt of court she has flat out refused to do her job functions without proposing alternatives. That's a problem.
It's difficult to say, I see both sides here.

Let's say the higher courts had passed a law that allowed you to 'Put down (kill) children under the age of 16 who had demonstrated they would become a tax burden to society'.

Monstrous, right?

But using your logic, if she resisted this ruling the high courts had passed, she would be a bad person for refusing to carry out these orders.

Can you say "Heil, Hitler!"

My point is this: Ms Davis believes in something you or I both do not necessarily align with.

In my opinion, she's bastardizing Christianity and spinning it to suit her personal beliefs.

Which is utter felgercarb.

But let's be real.

As a leader. it's her job to lead, to understand and implement public policy, and to question what she's told to do when it doesn't feel right. Last I checked we're not a militaristic society, and as a civilian public service representative, it's her MORAL obligation to society to NOT blindly take orders from her superiors and to represent those she was elected to represent.

It's a difficult balance to attain, where city and state and federal rules and laws are constantly changing and being put to test, California's having the same problem with Marijuana laws and resistance to Federal law.

In my opinion, Ms Davis was elected to represent and she is doing precisely that.

On January 7, 2019, Ms Davis tenure in office will be over.

Which logically, the County Clerk could offer Ms Davis a simple alternative: "We institute the marriage policy then, and if you run for re-election, then you will be bound with having to implement this."

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

You can't just railroad leaders for not being obedient in a free election society. They are not managers, managing people, they are elected representatives, leading on behalf of the constituency they represent.

However, the law is the law, and you have to respect that as well.

But law is rarely immediate. Nor is it always consistently applied.

So what are the options?

Being real.

Do you punish those who choose to serve you yet make decisions contrary to yours?

What sense does that make?

Or do you respect them for their choices, and implement a plan to appeal to both the courts and those standing up for what they believe in?

Be realistic about this.

Jail is idiocy.

She stood up for what she believed in.

So you're gonna beat her until she submits?
 

Guest50131

Scout
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
It's a good thing restaurant workers can't do the same thing or else I'd have problems.

"I'm a vegan, no hamburger for you!" :cow:
Jesus. That's about as stupid as a restaurant throwing away good food because it's expired but turning around saying to a homeless person:

"I cant give you any of this because I'd have to give it to everyone else"

No. I'm homeless. In a different position than everyone else around me. If you opened up your freakin eyes and got to know me as an individual, you'd understand that maybe some exceptions to rules are warranted and necessary in order for society to be functional.

In the case of the restaurant above.

Hire accordingly.

There's employment contracts and training prior to taking jobs at restaurants, and typically a 90 day period where employers and employees can 'test the relationship'.

That's where you find out if they're going to be a good fit or not.

But SOMETIMES the person who runs the restaurant may hire a Vegan who wont serve hamburgers just to toss things up and steer people to the Vegan menu.

Company owners are notoriously weird (and oftentimes fun) like that.
 
Top Bottom