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

Conservatives collectively shit a brick when it appeared that a Muslim checker was not ringing up alcohol. It turned out he was not old enough to ring up alcohol, but that did not get in the way of their rant.

Thus, hypocrisy.

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

Then she should get out of Caesar's office ... and into divorce court apparently. It'll be her fourth!

To rephrase, she's enforcing Civil Law, not God's Law.

BTW, work on your punctuation, PP!

Signed,
a DW who's remained married to her first DH for 20 years and believes in marriage equality!

Anonymous wrote:I could accept her not signing on grounds of her personal religious views. But not allowing the assistant clerks to do so is a direct violation of her oath, and by doing so she puts herself above the law. She is not exercising her personal freedom of religion, but attempting a theocratic overthrow of the Constitution.

+1

Back to the original question -- My father is a strict Sabbath observer and as a truck driver had to figure out up front before applying to a job whether he would be accommodated. No company would change a route or schedule to accommodate him, but if they did have a route or schedule that would work, they could put him on that and promise not to move him to a different route.

At one point in time he was looking at a service writer position but ended up not applying because it had mandatory weekend hours which would entail him arranging a swap with someone on every Sabbath. So it's not that they wouldn't hire him or actually demand that he work on Sabbath, just that they would not make any special accommodations and it was up to him to work around the shop's requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could accept her not signing on grounds of her personal religious views. But not allowing the assistant clerks to do so is a direct violation of her oath, and by doing so she puts herself above the law. She is not exercising her personal freedom of religion, but attempting a theocratic overthrow of the Constitution.

This. SHE doesn't have to sign. Have someone else sign. If they won't, let it be their fight.

That is exactly the point. Not only has she refused to do her own job, she is not allowing others to do theirs. That has nothing to do with her own religious freedom.

Opponent of gay marriage here and I have to say, that is a very good point

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could accept her not signing on grounds of her personal religious views. But not allowing the assistant clerks to do so is a direct violation of her oath, and by doing so she puts herself above the law. She is not exercising her personal freedom of religion, but attempting a theocratic overthrow of the Constitution.

This. SHE doesn't have to sign. Have someone else sign. If they won't, let it be their fight.

That is exactly the point. Not only has she refused to do her own job, she is not allowing others to do theirs. That has nothing to do with her own religious freedom.

She's in jail because she swore an oath of office and then violated it by refusing to issue licenses. That is the crux of the matter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oath-court-clerk-now-jailed-gay-marriage-33516278

Since when does having religion/faith mean that you do the things you want to do? It usually means you do things you don't want to do -- like Moses, Abraham did.

Anonymous wrote:I could accept her not signing on grounds of her personal religious views. But not allowing the assistant clerks to do so is a direct violation of her oath, and by doing so she puts herself above the law. She is not exercising her personal freedom of religion, but attempting a theocratic overthrow of the Constitution.

This. SHE doesn't have to sign. Have someone else sign. If they won't, let it be their fight.

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

So do I. So I will have to kill you as that is what my religion tells me. Bye.

I could accept her not signing on grounds of her personal religious views. But not allowing the assistant clerks to do so is a direct violation of her oath, and by doing so she puts herself above the law. She is not exercising her personal freedom of religion, but attempting a theocratic overthrow of the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take it back a few years to when Scripture was used to support anti-miscegenation laws. After the Supreme Court decided those were unconstitutional, imagine an elected clerk choosing to deny to issue any marriage licenses because her flavor of Christianity said that it was a sin for whites and blacks to marry.

Or, to follow up on my own example, imagine a Mormon clerk refusing to issue any marriage licenses in protest over the fact that polygamy is illegal.

So, did that happen? Again, I understand the analogy. But I'm genuinely wondering about how the law applies.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

She is elected by her peers, the people she represents. They decide who holds these positions, not you.

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.

Take it back a few years to when Scripture was used to support anti-miscegenation laws. After the Supreme Court decided those were unconstitutional, imagine an elected clerk choosing to deny to issue any marriage licenses because her flavor of Christianity said that it was a sin for whites and blacks to marry.

Or, to follow up on my own example, imagine a Mormon clerk refusing to issue any marriage licenses in protest over the fact that polygamy is illegal.

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.

Take it back a few years to when Scripture was used to support anti-miscegenation laws. After the Supreme Court decided those were unconstitutional, imagine an elected clerk choosing to deny to issue any marriage licenses because her flavor of Christianity said that it was a sin for whites and blacks to marry.