Okla Drops National Guard Benefits For All Couples To Avoid Serving Same-Sex Couples

[Plasmaball]

time to move the guard out of OK, and for that matter any Military there. Seeing how they hate the troops, this would be the best course of action.

 

[Jughead]

Nope, I work in HR. We change Job Descriptions all the time. Just because the duties of your job change, if you refuse, that is cause for termination (unless of course you want to voluntarily resign).

Now, if you are working under a contract (much different then a Job Description) which specifies your duties and does not include a general clause such as "and other duties as assigned" you might have a case for the period of that contract only which will normally be renewed annually. Once that contract period is over, then you are offered a new contract which you can accept or decline. If the contract contains the "other duties as assigned provision" or adds "perform all legal Civil Marriages as required", then there would not be legal protections for that.

Now if your contract specifically said, "The performance of a Civil Marriage is not considered an essential function of the job." Then you could refuse to perform all marriages or choose to not perform any marriages, however Public Accommodation laws would prohibit you from doing some but not others.

Finally for public sector jobs, there are no guarantees that the legislature will not change the nature of the job and that is perfectly legal. If in good conscience you can't perform the duties, find a new job. I was in the military for 20 years, my enlistment contracts contained a provision putting me on notice that Congress could change the conditions of my contract after the fact and there wasn't a thing I could do about it. Just the way the cookie crumbles.


>>>>

I'm not sure. Looks like this is a gray area here.

With all do respect it's not as gray as you believe.



You mean like refusing to perform the duties of the job?



Yes they are.

For example, if a strict Jewish person is hired by a meat processing plant that processes beef. They switch to processing pork and the individual refuses to perform such work, they can be terminated.

For another a Muslim cab is employed by a company to take fars between locations. They refuse to carry passengers that have alcohol in their possession, appear to be under the influence of alcohol, have a dog with them (pet or service animal) - they can be terminated for failure to perform the essential functions of the job.

For another, a pharmacy hires a Christian to dispense all legal prescriptions, the pharmacist refuses to fill routine contraceptives, emergency contraceptives (morning after pill), or abortion pills. They can be terminated for failure to fill the essential functions of the position.

In addition, the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, with the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Such restriction don't apply to employees that refuse to perform the essential functions of the job. Individual are free to practice their religion, there is not a requirement for employers to maintain employees on the payroll who will not do their job.

Now with that said, organizations can be required to make reasonable accommodations of religious beliefs, that usually tough does not extend to unique or required duties. Lets say a country clerk office is staffed by 3 assistants, if one objects and the other don't have an issue with treating same-sex couple they can make a reasonable accommodation. However if there is only a single country clerk, the failure to perform essential duties is a termination cause.

I guess anyone who is fired because of their faith can simply claim the 1st amendment in court in order to get their job back.

They can claim anything they want, that doesn't mean the job is protected.

>>>>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Here's an exerpt that I found in regards to the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment:

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.

Free Exercise Clause | LII / Legal Information Institute


It appears that those of us who may have been terminated from a job due to not being able to perform newly assigned duties that are in conflict with our faith may indeed have legal recourse. I guess a lawyer or judge who's handled cases involving the constitution could better answer this question.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It appears that those of us who may have been terminated from a job due to not being able to perform newly assigned duties that are in conflict with our faith may indeed have legal recourse. I guess a lawyer or judge who's handled cases involving the constitution could better answer this question.

And again here is the information form the US EEOC on the issue:

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation

The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Discrimination​

It depends on if the employer can provide a reasonable accommodation without more than minimal burden on operations. You are trying to play it like any employee can refuse any duties simply by claiming a conflict with their religion and that the employers is (a) required to keep them on the payroll, and (b) change operations around the wishes of the employee.

That is simply not true. Employers are required to make accommodations where it is fairly easy, if it provides burdens to their operations, then they are not. Continued refusal to perform the essential functions of the job are then grounds for termination.

Employment law is a fairly large and complex portion of the legal profession with lawyers that specialize in just that aspect of the law. If you think though that any person can refuse to perform routine/essential duties and claim religious protections and then be exempt from termination. You are incorrect.


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation

The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Discrimination​

For an IRS Auditor, the answer is not absolute, it depends on if the employer can make a "reasonable accommodation". If the case of an IRS office with multiple auditors, a reasonable accommodation can include a case swap with another auditor.

In the case of a Justice of the Peace or a County Clerk in a small office where there are no other personnel to provide the same services, then there is no reasonable accommodation without impacting the operations of the office, in such a case an accommodation would not be required.

>>>>

Yep. It's not black and white. If an accommodation cannot be made, then termination is a possibility. I'll bet though that in most cases, management would ensure that other workers help out so no one is fired. This would be especially true for a seasoned government worker. Management definitely does not want to go to court for these types of issues.

 

[Plasmaball]

Hat's off to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin. Oklahoma as a state has every right to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of us, gay marriage is in direct conflict with our faith. We should not be forced to acknowledge gay marriage if it interferes with our religious beliefs. Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

I'd likely still be living in Tulsa if it were not for the twisters.

that was gods way of trying to kill you off for being a retard

 

[Jughead]

It appears that those of us who may have been terminated from a job due to not being able to perform newly assigned duties that are in conflict with our faith may indeed have legal recourse. I guess a lawyer or judge who's handled cases involving the constitution could better answer this question.

And again here is the information form the US EEOC on the issue:

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation

The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Discrimination​

It depends on if the employer can provide a reasonable accommodation without more than minimal burden on operations. You are trying to play it like any employee can refuse any duties simply by claiming a conflict with their religion and that the employers is (a) required to keep them on the payroll, and (b) change operations around the wishes of the employee.

That is simply not true. Employers are required to make accommodations where it is fairly easy, if it provides burdens to their operations, then they are not. Continued refusal to perform the essential functions of the job are then grounds for termination.

Employment law is a fairly large and complex portion of the legal profession with lawyers that specialize in just that aspect of the law. If you think though that any person can refuse to perform routine/essential duties and claim religious protections and then be exempt from termination. You are incorrect.

>>>>

So it would be up to the employer to prove in court that an employee's actions to not perform his "newly" assigned duties because they are in conflict with his faith pose a substantial burden to the company. So if the burden would be minimal, it should be fine. This would obviously need to be assessed on a case by case basis. For instance, assigning joint tax returns from gay couples to another individual would likely be considered as minimal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation

The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Discrimination​

For an IRS Auditor, the answer is not absolute, it depends on if the employer can make a "reasonable accommodation". If the case of an IRS office with multiple auditors, a reasonable accommodation can include a case swap with another auditor.

In the case of a Justice of the Peace or a County Clerk in a small office where there are no other personnel to provide the same services, then there is no reasonable accommodation without impacting the operations of the office, in such a case an accommodation would not be required.

>>>>

Yep. It's not black and white. If an accommodation cannot be made, then termination is a possibility. I'll bet though that in most cases, management would ensure that other workers help out so no one is fired. This would be especially true for a seasoned government worker. Management definitely does not want to go to court for these types of issues.

Depends on the job, in some places there are not other workers to help out. A rural JOP is a singular individual. In many rural towns the country clerk works alone. In larger offices staffed by multiple people, there is more flexibility.


>>>>

 

[rdean]

cut

off

nose

to

spite

face

 

[Katzndogz]

What a loon. Forcing a GOVERNMENT official to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

You are free to abstain from government service if you don't like gay marriage.

Oklahoma is treating all couples equally. Gays have no gripe coming. They wanted to be treated just like normal couples. Now they are.

 

[Jughead]

Hat's off to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin. Oklahoma as a state has every right to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of us, gay marriage is in direct conflict with our faith. We should not be forced to acknowledge gay marriage if it interferes with our religious beliefs. Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

I'd likely still be living in Tulsa if it were not for the twisters.

that was gods way of trying to kill you off for being a retard

What do you mean "trying" ...

 

[Plasmaball]

Hat's off to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin. Oklahoma as a state has every right to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of us, gay marriage is in direct conflict with our faith. We should not be forced to acknowledge gay marriage if it interferes with our religious beliefs. Forcing someone of faith to provide benefits to a gay couple would be equivalent to asking them to renounce their faith. This would be unconstitutional.

I'd likely still be living in Tulsa if it were not for the twisters.

that was gods way of trying to kill you off for being a retard

What do you mean "trying" ...

you are still alive so sadly mother nature failed.

 

[OKTexas]

I think of this issue as a wonderful display of just how mean-spirited some on the Right are.

Are you really so freaking ignorant to think only people on the right object to gay marriage? Hasn't it been voted down by wide majorities in most states and only be pushed by the far left. Why is it you people feel so compelled to destroy truth?

 

[OKTexas]

What a loon. Forcing a GOVERNMENT official to observe the tenets of YOUR faith is what is unconstitutional.

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

And not force its precepts on the majority of Americans who disagree with you.

The feds will issue the cards. Watch.

Your a lying slime ball, the majority of Americans have voted otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

And not force its precepts on the majority of Americans who disagree with you.

The feds will issue the cards. Watch.

Your a lying slime ball, the majority of Americans have voted otherwise.

Yup, you moron, that's why polling is in the majority for same sex marriage and DOMA and Prop 8 were tossed, and Hawai'i and other jurisdictions joined recently.

The evangelical-fundamental-Pentecostal brigade are only a small minority in America now, unless one is in cloud-cuckoo land.

 

[OKTexas]

And not force its precepts on the majority of Americans who disagree with you.

The feds will issue the cards. Watch.

Your a lying slime ball, the majority of Americans have voted otherwise.

Yup, you moron, that's why polling is in the majority for same sex marriage and DOMA and Prop 8 were tossed, and Hawai'i and other jurisdictions joined recently.

The evangelical-fundamental-Pentecostal brigade are only a small minority in America now, unless one is in cloud-cuckoo land.

Riddle me this bat man, how many states voted no on fag marriage? Come on fag master, tell us about this fucking majority that you seem to have invented in your senile mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good for Oklahoma

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your a lying slime ball, the majority of Americans have voted otherwise.

Yup, you moron, that's why polling is in the majority for same sex marriage and DOMA and Prop 8 were tossed, and Hawai'i and other jurisdictions joined recently.

The evangelical-fundamental-Pentecostal brigade are only a small minority in America now, unless one is in cloud-cuckoo land.

Riddle me this bat man, how many states voted no on fag marriage? Come on fag master, tell us about this fucking majority that you seem to have invented in your senile mind.

Hell even California voted no but a liberal judge legislated from the bench and overturned the voice of the majority. Something liberals thrive on that majority thing.

 

[Seawytch]

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

You are free to abstain from government service if you don't like gay marriage.

Oklahoma is treating all couples equally. Gays have no gripe coming. They wanted to be treated just like normal couples. Now they are.

Actually it's the heterosexual couples that are feeling a bit of the second class citizenship status the gays have been experiencing. I wonder how they like it?

 

[bodecea]

time to move the guard out of OK, and for that matter any Military there. Seeing how they hate the troops, this would be the best course of action.

Nah....let OK stand as an example of Red State meanspiritness.

 

[bodecea]

As my faith does not accept gay marriage, I don't acknowledge it. I do have a right under the constitution to practice my faith.

I don't care if you don't personally recognize a gay marriage. But you do not have a right to force your particular brand of religion on the government.

This is about a government entity. The National Guard is not your church.

You are free to abstain from government service if you don't like gay marriage.

Oklahoma is treating all couples equally. Gays have no gripe coming. They wanted to be treated just like normal couples. Now they are.

Yes...they are treating all couples equally...by taking away a service they used to provide to straight couples to avoid providing that service for gay couples. I wonder how the straight couples will feel about that.