Kim Davis IS Charee Stanley...

Charee Stanley (Top), Kim Davis (Below)

I have to admit, I had very little sympathy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who refused to to give out same-sex marriage licenses, UNTIL I came across the stories of Charee Stanley (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/) AND Jean Camara (http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department.html/) AND Suhara Robla (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.Ve2oLhHBzRY). In two of those cases, the Muslim employees were moved to equivalent positions within those organizations. In Charee Stanley's case, she is suing to, in effect, be paid NOT to do her job. According to the precedent set in the Costco and Target cases, she should be given an equivalent position (maybe baggage handler, etc.) within that same company.

Clearly American legal precedent has been set in such cases of "religious objections," and that precedent demands that such organizations provide the objecting person with a comparable job title at equivalent pay.

Charee Davis is suing over exactly the SAME religious objections that Kim Davis articulated in her Kentucky office. Now, IF Ms. Stanley wins her case and is allowed to get full pay for doing only part of her job, that would also change the precedent for Ms Davis, who then SHOULD be allowed to keep her Kentucky County Clerk's job and just not handle same sex marriage licenses. As in Ms. Stanley's case, "Let the others pick up the slack."

Moreover, IF Kim Davis' objections warranted jail time so do ALL other such religious objectors. In fact, alcohol, tobacco and pork products are far more enshrined and protected in American law than any of our recently updated sexual mores, such as tolerance for LGBT, and other alternative sexual preferences (ie. practitioners of bestiality, necrophiliacs, etc.). Sure, tolerance is a long held American tradition that is vital to our cherished INDIVIDUALISM, but tobacco, pork products and alcohol built this country (seriously, look it up...they DID) and are steeped in centuries of BOTH American tradition and American legal precedents.

However, Target and Costco were both expected to find alternate spots for Suhara Robla and Jean Camara, the latter of whom is suing to try and force Costco to set up separate check-out lines, "One for Muslims and the other for Kafirs." Hopefully the U.S. court that hears that challenge will not merely reject Mr Camara's demand out of hand, BUT sentence him appropriately, perhaps cutting off both of his feet, if not sentencing him to be stoned to death for that "assault on American jurisprudence." FYI I have some experience in such punishments and will donate my time to create "a tasteful and appropriate spectacle" for such sentences. I'm not at all squeamish and have all the charisma of that Bishop at the end of Braveheart. I'm NOT kidding....we could have fun with this!

Seriously though, given that Costco and Target were expected to find other accommodations for their Muslim employees, who refused to touch pork and alcohol products, it seems incumbent upon Kentucky to find another equivalent position for Ms. Davis, perhaps in the property tax assessor's office, or business licensing, or something like that.

In this regard federal judge David Bunning appears completely out of order and in clear violation of U.S. legal precedent that protects ALL such religious objectors from Jean Camara to Kim Davis to everyone in between. Either ALL such religious objections are honored or they are ALL discounted, anything less amounts to the government forging a state religion. The government hasn't the authority to do that. The way the original Constitution is written, the 10th Amendment makes very clear that all such decisions must be brought before the people in referendum.

I know what some of you are thinking; "You mean even if a sitting U.S. President and both Houses of Congress agreed that a given religion, either Islam or some other faith should be the 'primary religion of the land,' they couldn't do that?"

No, they couldn't. Such an action is barred by BOTH the 1st Amendment, which bars the establishment of a government-recognized religion and the 10th Amendment that maintains that all powers not expressly given to government (and those are highly limited by the first 10 Amendments) "revert back to the people."

So...should Kentucky be forced to find this woman who deliberately and publicly refused to abide by federal law over her own personal religious objections be given another EQUIVALENT position within that County government?

YES, just as surely as that accommodation was made for many Muslim workers.

Either that, OR remove ALL such religious objection accommodation protections from Muslims and other religionists as well...I'm VERY OK with allowing Muslim workers who refuse to handle pork products, alcohol, etc. to be fired, even jailed...so long as there is but ONE standard for ALL American citizens.