But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

[Anonymous]

I thought her reasoning for not allowing the deputies to issue the licenses was that her name still appeared on the them somewhere (i.e. are still issued in her name as the County Clerk)?
I don't support her at all, BTW. She was elected to uphold the laws of the government. She refuses to do that. She goes to jail. I think that's the way a lawful society should work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if religious accommodation stretches so far as to allow you to refuse to do part of your job.

I know of one doctor's office with a physician who won't prescribe birth control. Patients see another doctor for that, but their needs are still met at that office.

I wonder if that was an option in the office Kim Davis works in? Have someone else come over and sell the couple their license.

That's in a private doctor's office. Not a state agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

The clown posse isn't going to do her any favors in the eyes of Judge Bunning. Neither are her lawyers, who now get to put themselves front and center. Upping the ante under these circumstances is akin to doubling down on stupid.

[Anonymous]

There is no way they are really going to leave her in jail over this.... Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty easy to excuse them from performing ALL duties, but unfortunately that often excuses them from all compensation as well. If a job requires you to do something that you can't bring yourself to do, find a different job.

Well, I DO support Kim Davis and I DON'T support so-called marriage "equality."

I think it's important to note that in this case, she is an elected official. As I understand it, it's not just a matter of finding another job, nor another person to just step in and do hers.
Am I right about that?

She has no right to an elected position if she refuses to perform the duties she swore an oath to uphold.

She has every right to her beliefs. If her beliefs prevent her from upholding her oath, she must resign... so says the law, including Justice Antonin Scalia, hero of "conservatives" everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty easy to excuse them from performing ALL duties, but unfortunately that often excuses them from all compensation as well. If a job requires you to do something that you can't bring yourself to do, find a different job.

Well, I DO support Kim Davis and I DON'T support so-called marriage "equality."

I think it's important to note that in this case, she is an elected official. As I understand it, it's not just a matter of finding another job, nor another person to just step in and do hers.
Am I right about that?

She has no right to an elected position if she refuses to perform the duties she swore an oath to uphold.

She has every right to her beliefs. If her beliefs prevent her from upholding her oath, she must resign... so says the law, including Justice Antonin Scalia, hero of "conservatives" everywhere.

p.s. the only way out of this for her to keep her job and refuse to issue licenses is if the state legislature abolishes the requirement that county clerks issue marriage licenses (which some advocate, leaving that to the officiant to do). But she may not refuse to issue any licenses, or licenses only to hetero couples if the law requires the county clerk to issue marriage licenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I do not support Kim Davis, and yes I do support marriage equality.

That being said, I am interested in a discussion of the law of religious accommodation. I *think* that the deal is that changes must be made to the way an employee has to perform the duties of the job to accommodate religion, but all of the duties of the job must be performed. Is that right? For example, uniform requirements can be modified for religious reasons. I know that working hours can be changed to accommodate things like the sabbath (but the same number of hours must still be worked). But are there any circumstances under which an employee can be entirely excused from performing any functions of the job in order to accommodate religious beliefs?

Do Jewish waitresses have to serve you your porkchop? Can a Catholic bartender put that beef stick in your bloody mary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way they are really going to leave her in jail over this.... Right?

I hope they do! She's in contempt of court, committed a crime AND been given a whole lot of leniency until this point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I am going to lead a demonstration against the "exploitation of Christianity to get elected".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I love is the judge in TN who is refusing to grant divorces, all in the name of gay marriage. And why not? If 5 people on the bench can decide what a marriage is, despite thousands of years of human history to the contrary, why can't one decide when a divorce is valid?

When you say "love", do you mean you agree with (or are amused by) the TN judge, or disagree with him?

That poor couple trying to get a divorce. Four days of testimony including seven witnesses and 77 exhibits, for a divorce? And then to be told that some judge is grandstanding and will deny your divorce request. Are they going to sue him, to compel him to do his job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is the judge in TN who is refusing to grant divorces, all in the name of gay marriage. And why not? If 5 people on the bench can decide what a marriage is, despite thousands of years of human history to the contrary, why can't one decide when a divorce is valid?

When you say "love", do you mean you agree with (or are amused by) the TN judge, or disagree with him?

That poor couple trying to get a divorce. Four days of testimony including seven witnesses and 77 exhibits, for a divorce? And then to be told that some judge is grandstanding and will deny your divorce request. Are they going to sue him, to compel him to do his job?

That is what a writ of mandamus is for --- to compel an official act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a clerk. Her job is to give a marriage license to people who meet the legal requirements. She has no authority to Chang or ignore the legal requirements. She is only a clerk.

This is where I get confused. I agree with you. But then I wonder why the heck this is an elected position. Is this the norm?

There have traditionally been a lot of local functionary positions, county clerks, tax assessors, coroners, and so on that do not have discretionary authority that have been elected positions, especially in the South.

I think the bias for elections vs. appointments was put in place generally to limit the patronage power of the mayors, county supervisors, and sheriffs, to try to keep these basic government functions out of the patronage system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it