jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Is it right that Kim Davis goes to jail but Charee Stanley gets to sue her emplo

  1. Terrex profile image80
    Terrexposted 2 years ago

    Is it right that Kim Davis goes to jail but Charee Stanley gets to sue her employer instead?

    Charee Stanley, Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol because she is muslim.
    CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her behalf.
    Can Kim Davis sue her employer in a similar manner?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12629726_f260.jpg

  2. lions44 profile image99
    lions44posted 2 years ago

    Two different issues, however I feel the same about both.  Ms. Davis took an oath as a government employee and cannot use her religion to circumvent the law.  That was decided by Garcetti (Supreme Ct) almost a decade ago. There are limits to free speech. I was a state government employee and I understood very well.  While noble to stand up for your beliefs, there is a time and place. As an elected official, I don't believe she can sue, but from what I understand Garcetti does apply.
    As for Ms. Stanley, she has no case in my opinion. She was already an employee before converting.  They have already taken accommodation as much as they could.  I hope the courts throw it out.
    I knew this was going to happen more and more.  Freedom of religion does not imposing your religion on others and that it was both these women are doing.

    1. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Couldn't agree more. The Muslim woman is simply not doing her job, she should be fired and her case should be thrown out. Kim Davis is not her doing her job AND breaking the law so is in prison.

  3. junkseller profile image83
    junksellerposted 2 years ago

    These situations are pretty different. Private employer vs. public employer, homosexuality is a protected class of people vs. alcohol drinkers who are not, etc.

    Also in Kim Davis's case, there isn't really a direct religious prohibition to sign a same-sex marriage license (that I know of). It simply offends her conscious based upon her interpretation of her religion. Muslims, however, (again, as far as I know) are directly forbidden to handle an alcohol container and take it to a person for consumption. I don't know that this really matters. A deeply held conviction is deeply held whether it is correct or even makes sense, but it still is a difference in the two cases.

    Either way, there isn't any reason that employers can't make reasonable accommodations. In Stanley's case, she did have an arrangement for other attendants to serve alcohol for her customers, until another attendant complained. Until that point, that seems like a reasonable arrangement.

    Kim Davis also had the option of simply having another employee help out same-sex couples. That may have been considered reasonable, though, due to it being a protected class, I think it would deserve closer scrutiny. Doesn't matter, because that isn't what she did. She wasn't allowing anyone in her office to issue licenses to same-sex couples. That goes beyond being reasonable.

    That would be like if Charee Stanley had been throwing the alcohol cart out the back of the plane before it took off so that no one could serve or drink alcohol.

    As for suing, I don't know who Kim Davis would sue. She IS the employer. I think at one point she filed a suit against the governor, but I don't know what happened with that. If their is a lawsuit from her, I don't see how it would be an EEOC matter. It would be something else.

 
working