LOSING YOUR JOB IS AS EASY AS A, B, & CONVICTIONS

A – Assertive
B – Backbone
C – Convictions

Here we go again…

Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol Find the full gist here.

I wrote an article, Your profession, your intergalactic passport to hell?

Can we also ask if strong assertiveness, backbone and strong convictions can also be your gate fee to the jobless market?

Seeing the screaming headline up there, my mind immediately went to the recent report about a Kentucky judiciary ordering Kim Davis to remain in jail for her continued refusal to either issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or allow her deputies to do so. The interesting / surprising details can be found here

The issue of discrimination is something that needs to be properly addressed before employees are employed, the job requirements should be clearly spelt out, properly thrashing out how religious and other convictions can possibly interfere with the job requirements. If the personal biases of employees/employers are properly disclosed, subsequent disagreements could be avoided.

I have worked in a fairly big organization where every morning, before work commences officially, every member of staff is expected to assemble and do praise worship, Christian style. As a muslim in its employ, you are still expected to take part. Excusing yourself had consequences. While not openly stated, these little issues of religious difference and your ability to bootlick and kowtow to superiors have greater weight in your assessment and career prospects than actual delivery on the job!

images (7)

Should an employee refuse to carry our instructions or job duties that are not in tandem with their personal religious or ethical beliefs? Should such an employee resign? Would the employer (governmental or not) be within its rights to terminate the appointment of such an employee (After all, it could be considered dereliction of duty not to perform your duties, irrespective of the legitimacy of your personal beliefs)?

Here are a two opinionated legal views regarding this matter:

.. So I’m going to make a very big statement right here, and give you guys a history lesson, that you never got in grade school. I support Kim Davis. She’s asking “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?” That simple question is giving many a civics lesson they didn’t get apparently!
The Supreme Court can’t and didn’t make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because congress has made NO law allowing same sex marriage, Kim does NOT have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples. Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will one day pay the far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not a God. No United Nations (UN)elected lawyer has the right to redefine laws of nature or natures God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent grounds and there’s nothing in our constitution to back it up. They’ve violated Americas MOST fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution- religious liberty.
I stand with Kim Davis/Casey Davis and every other American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith, and our Constitution…

images (9)

Yet another:

….There is a line (to clarify not an actual line of text) but a statement, that reflects the General principle in the Constitution of the United States that declares separation of Church and State, which means you are entitled by law to your religious beliefs in the privacy of your own home. Not when you hold public office, however. You are bound by the law. Constitutional law, And such a law was signed into law that states, people regardless of gender or sexual preference are now entitled to be married. You don’t have to like it, or agree with it as a private citizen that is your right. But in your job, a publicly paid for job, by all taxpayers in your state. You must comply with the law. This is not a State law that was passed, this is a Federal law. That is the simple and logical truth to this all. She has a job, she must do it , and that is to issue marriage licenses among other things and she can not base it on her privately held religious beliefs. You can moan and groan and preach to the highest altar you want it doesn’t change the facts. She is guilty of discrimination and found in contempt of a Federal Judges order to follow the law, she is not a victim no one is stopping her from practicing her religious beliefs but she can not impose them upon others while doing her job as a State elected official who is bound by oath and law to uphold the Constitution of the State and Country…

Not being a lawyer, I wouldn’t know about the legalistic gymnastics, but I know I wouldn’t falsify records if I am an accountant and instructed.to do so by my superior. While people would rush to say that this is not a criminal issue, the result is the same. A woman asked to register same sex couples may find this even more distressing / repugnant than being given a gun and asked to shoot somebody in the head.

All a matter of belief.

descrimination

Some laymen opinions / comments are as follows:

This woman refused to do something because it is against her ethics. She was in direct disobedient of a federal court order.The state can go ahead and sack her, but yes, she has the prerogative to remain at the job, until and unless sacked.

She was not doing her job. She was practising discrimination.
Discriminating based on sexual orientation. Same way you discriminate against another because of the colour of the skin.

Are we going to continue seeing cases of “discrimination” on the altar of [aberrant?] sexual (dis)orientation, religious convictions /creed, race, etc.?

When applying for a job (or deciding.on a career), would it not be desirable to think long and think right about the possibility of the job requirements clashing with some personal non negotiable convictions?

Your take?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *