Notably, the flight attendant in question is perfectly happy to do all the rest of her job *and* to direct you to other flight attendants who don't have her restriction *and* to do *their* job while *they* serve you alcohol
( ... )
I thought there were clerks who under Davis who *could* sign the marriage licenses, but they were afraid of retribution from their boss. Am I mistaken?
You're exactly right, in two ways. "Reasonable accommodations" are required by law - federal and very often state. What's nuts about the flight attendant case is that the airline basically served up the perfect lawsuit - first creating the accommodation and then revoking it after another attendant complained. If you want to win an accommodation case, as an employer, you need to be able to prove that you can't do so without taking on a substantial burden. It's hard to do that when you've figured out a perfectly workable solution previously.
But the second way in which you're right is that all of the people clamoring for "accommodations" really want to create a safe space in which to flatly deny services. That's what this is really all about - not getting another pharmacist to deliver Plan B, say, but to effectively prevent people from getting Plan B anywhere. They want Kim Davis, personally, to be "free" to say "no," as a means towards ensuring that no one gets a "yes
( ... )
I would take issue with the "all of the people" part of the statement "all of the people clamoring for "accommodations" really want to create a safe space in which to flatly deny services". For example, the flight attendant in the linked post doesn't want people to not receive alcohol, she wants them to receive alcohol *but not from her* and she specifically and proactively arranged, in advance, for that to happen.
It's the false "religious freedom" crusaders who are working to ensure that *nobody* does their job, not the people seeking reasonable accommodation so that their job still gets done but without conflict for them,
( ... )
Reply
But it won't.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Right To Work, is a state by state thing, but that's about cutting back how much Unions can collect in union dues, thereby chopping them at the knees.
But all employment is at-will employment, unless a contract gets signed.
As I understand it. I too am not a lawyer. Tho I know some.
Reply
Reply
But the second way in which you're right is that all of the people clamoring for "accommodations" really want to create a safe space in which to flatly deny services. That's what this is really all about - not getting another pharmacist to deliver Plan B, say, but to effectively prevent people from getting Plan B anywhere. They want Kim Davis, personally, to be "free" to say "no," as a means towards ensuring that no one gets a "yes ( ... )
Reply
It's the false "religious freedom" crusaders who are working to ensure that *nobody* does their job, not the people seeking reasonable accommodation so that their job still gets done but without conflict for them,
Reply
Leave a comment