But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Question is whether it's an essential function of the job. Eg, you could refuse to hire a woman who wears glasses burkha (did I spell that right?) for a job as a stripper, but not for a job as a receptionist.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

She follows gods law. Good enough for me

[Anonymous]

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?

[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.

I answered my own question. She refused to allow that to happen, too.

[Anonymous]

I posted this elsewhere: what if a clerk solely responsible for issuing gun licenses in a county were to decide that, since guns do nothing but kill, he or she could not in good conscience issue any gun licenses?

[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?

I do wonder what the elected official part would have to do with it. I assume it makes it not technically within the realm of employment law when it comes to both religious accommodation requirements and the county's ability to terminate or otherwise discipline her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this elsewhere: what if a clerk solely responsible for issuing gun licenses in a county were to decide that, since guns do nothing but kill, he or she could not in good conscience issue any gun licenses?

That seems like a reasonable analogy, though I don't know the specifics of an elected clerk role. Seems strange to me that termination is not an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She follows gods law. Good enough for me

Can anyone show me the engraved tablet that says "Thou Shalt Not Issue Marriage Certificates To Gay Couples" that has been scientifically and undisputably proven to have come directly from God?

No??

Didn't think so.

She doesn't follow "God's law." She follows some bogus, made-up shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this elsewhere: what if a clerk solely responsible for issuing gun licenses in a county were to decide that, since guns do nothing but kill, he or she could not in good conscience issue any gun licenses?

I would go to another county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this elsewhere: what if a clerk solely responsible for issuing gun licenses in a county were to decide that, since guns do nothing but kill, he or she could not in good conscience issue any gun licenses?

That seems like a reasonable analogy, though I don't know the specifics of an elected clerk role. Seems strange to me that termination is not an option.

Termination is not possible because as an elected official, she doesn't have a boss to terminate her. There are three more years of her term. The legislature can impeach her, but they don't meet again until next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She follows gods law. Good enough for me

Someone who only follows "God's Law" should probably not work for the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this elsewhere: what if a clerk solely responsible for issuing gun licenses in a county were to decide that, since guns do nothing but kill, he or she could not in good conscience issue any gun licenses?

That seems like a reasonable analogy, though I don't know the specifics of an elected clerk role. Seems strange to me that termination is not an option.

Termination is not possible because as an elected official, she doesn't have a boss to terminate her. There are three more years of her term. The legislature can impeach her, but they don't meet again until next year.

Interesting. I gues. I always thought of elected roles as for those people that would make, interpret, or enforce the law. In other words, we elect those positions that will be filled by people who we expect to exercise judgment (that hopefully reflects the will of the constituency). I'm confused by why this is an elected position in the first place then.