Posted on Sep 6, 2015
What is your opinion when someone refuses to do their job based off of religion or personal view?
7.65K
64
38
11
11
0
It seems like it is more common now than before that people are refusing to do their jobs based off of religion or personal views. A Kentucky clerk refusing to do her job in issuing marriage licenses. A converted Muslim flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol. They knew what their duties and responsibilities are when they first took the job. I personally feel that if a person refuses to do their job based on religion or personal views, they should be terminated.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html
Job Performance
Religion
Politics
Transition
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
8
8
0
MSgt (Join to see)
Employment at will, if the person refuses due to personal beliefs to meet the conditions of the job and the elements of the job are legal and have not materially changed, then they should be terminated from employment.
Employment at will, if the person refuses due to personal beliefs to meet the conditions of the job and the elements of the job are legal and have not materially changed, then they should be terminated from employment.
(8)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC John Shaw On this one, it does seem like like there are complexities though.
She converted to Islam, discovered there were issues with the serving of alcohol and requested an "accommodation." Her employer suggested working it out with other members of the flight crew which she did. A complaint was filed later (based on the article), based on the "accommodation," which resulted in the revocation of the previously granted religious "nod" of approval.
That said, I 100% agree with your above statement, but I think this particular case may be a "pissing contest" which no one will walk away dry.
She converted to Islam, discovered there were issues with the serving of alcohol and requested an "accommodation." Her employer suggested working it out with other members of the flight crew which she did. A complaint was filed later (based on the article), based on the "accommodation," which resulted in the revocation of the previously granted religious "nod" of approval.
That said, I 100% agree with your above statement, but I think this particular case may be a "pissing contest" which no one will walk away dry.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This may have been intentional to bring about a case for a lawsuit. She knew her beliefs and the doctrine of her religion before accepting the position.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Civil disobedience has been necessary throughout history. Regarding the flight attendant...yep she had to know what would be expected. Should be fired. With the clerk...different story...being asked to do what was previously illegal.
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SMSgt Tony Barnes - Senior Master Sergeant; One - minor - point. "Same Sex Marriage" was never actually "illegal" - it's just that the policy didn't make any provision for it.
You might analogize it to women "taking their husband's name" when they got married. There was no actual, legal, name change - but the policy permitted it. When the number of women who were no longer married to "the husband whose name they had taken" and wished to "revert" to their "Maiden name" reached the level where it became an administrative burden, the sharp-eyed "government" suddenly realized that they didn't have to "change their name" at all since it had never been LEGALLY changed in the first place.
You might analogize it to women "taking their husband's name" when they got married. There was no actual, legal, name change - but the policy permitted it. When the number of women who were no longer married to "the husband whose name they had taken" and wished to "revert" to their "Maiden name" reached the level where it became an administrative burden, the sharp-eyed "government" suddenly realized that they didn't have to "change their name" at all since it had never been LEGALLY changed in the first place.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Tony Barnes
COL Ted Mc - I'll concede that point...although it would have been illegal in many states to consummate a same sex marriage.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SMSgt Tony Barnes - Senior Master Sergeant; True, but a "non-consummated" marriage is still a valid and enduring marriage until annulled (or the parties divorce).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google