compare and contrast

Case 1:

A federal judge has ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her deputies to appear in his courtroom Thursday and explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.

In a brief but tense encounter between Davis and a couple dozen marriage-equality demonstrators who crowded into her office, the clerk repeatedly refused to comply with the court order.

“Under whose authority are you not issuing marriage licenses?” someone in the crowd asked Davis.

“Under God’s authority,” she responded. [story]

Cases 2 and subsequent:

A Muslim flight attendant has filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEO) claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol

Why would a devout Muslim want to be a flight attendant when half your job is serving alcohol.

This is just like the devout Muslim who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie and Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab.

The EEOC is suing Star Transport for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers don’t want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn’t have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It’s that simple. [story]

Interesting, eh?

Not entirely sure why an objection must be religious to be legitimate, though.
Don’t see why other strongly held principles shouldn’t be allowed to govern one’s choice of clientele.

I beat ‘em to it. I agree that the job’s the job. If you don’t want to do what they’re payin’ you for, they shouldn’t have to pay you. Private business owners, on the other hand, should be able to make their own rules (e.g. wedding cakes). Transactions are either voluntary and mutually agreeable, or they’re coerced (see also: theft, slavery, tyranny).

Question still remains: Why are only religious convictions considered relevant?
It’s like pundits and newsies don’t know how to deal with individuals any more. They only deal in readily identifiable groups. Not sure whether to chalk this up to Progthink or laziness.
(What? Nah, not the same. You ever try to think like a Prog? Man, it’s exhausting. Kind’a like a Twister™ marathon.)


  1. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted September 1, 2015 at 9:07 pm |

    I don’t know what recourse Rowan County or state of Kentucky has against an elected official, but I suspect she will be forced to resign for non-performance of her job, as she “…swore an oath to support the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky… ” her lawyers wrote in an August court filing.

    The courts have made it clear what the law she swore to uphold is.

    I hope she she comes out well for her courageous stand. In fact, I hope the whole state of Kentucky tells Uhbama and SCOTUS to go to hell.
    It’s time.

  2. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted September 1, 2015 at 9:54 pm |

    ^ Unless the Kentucky Legislature passed a law making queer “marriage” public policy, then there is no law to uphold. Courts don’t make laws.

    And she absolutely must NOT resign. Make the bastards fire her. Never, never, never concede anything.

    (One of the rules to be found here.)

  3. staghounds
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 5:04 am |

    Since she’s an elected, she’ll have to be impeached to remove her unless Ky. has some special procedure.

    The Court can find her in contempt and jail her until she follows the law, though.

  4. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 6:35 am |

    Maybe so, stag. But Christ went to the Cross. To a genuine Christian, jail is… meh …..

  5. mech
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 12:44 pm |

    She was elected under one set of laws as her responsibility and someone on an appointed court changed the scope to something previously unknown in the Western world.

  6. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted September 3, 2015 at 2:06 pm |

    Why are only religious convictions considered relevant
    1st Amendment?

  7. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted September 3, 2015 at 10:11 pm |

    Why are only religious convictions considered relevant?

    Because religious convictions still come from *someone else* — a G-d[s], a church, a priest[s], a book; depending on particulars cited.

    Respecting the convictions of an Individual in the same way would mean that The Individual — and the individual — are also meaningful entities and equally sacrosanct.

  8. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted September 3, 2015 at 10:22 pm |

    I admire someone standing up for their convictions. And I don’t think those couples I saw on the news were from that community. Accents were worng.

    Lord of the Fleas@2 made a most interesting point:

    Courts don’t make laws.

    One which I think we need to sort out, since the proposition in CA – the vote of The People – was overturned by the courts.

    “They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won’t accept our beliefs and our ways.”
    * Davis


    Another argument for states’ rights.

  9. Abernathy Cranston III
    Posted September 4, 2015 at 9:19 am |

    Anyone who can’t see the difference between those two cases is not using their God given intellect.

    The Supreme Court did not make a law. They interpreted the law, which is their job. They found that laws preventing same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

    Kim Davis has been married four times.

    No one is going to Kim Davis’ church and demanding that she marry them. They are going to a government office seeking a marriage license in a country in which gay couples can legally obtain said license.

    Kim Davis is failing to keep her oath to uphold the constitution.

    Kim Davis should resign.