- cross-posted to:
- news@endlesstalk.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@endlesstalk.org
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
I genuinely do not understand how this was ever a case. You are an employee at an office that provides a service. You are a representative of that organization. And, as a civil service employee, I would expect you are obligated by the laws of that county or state to facilitate the services offered.
ON BEHALF OF
Regardless if you’re in this position or you’re the president, you are obligated by the state or federal constitution to operate as a representative of that jurisdiction’s laws.
If she took on this job while knowing it would conflict with her religious views, or the laws changed in a matter that conflicted with her views, she should have notified the county and she should have been denied or removed from that position. Although, I’m sure that raises a different case in denying someone employment based on their religion.
One of the drawbacks of the first amendment is that the courts can and will bend over backwards the moment somebody says the magic phrase “it is my sincerely held religious belief.”
It is my sincerely held religious belief that religion has no place in government.
My religion forbids traffic lights and speed limits. Also I’m allowed to mess with Texas. Divine mandate supercedes mere mortals laws.
With one caveat: the religion must be Christianity
Oh they would for sure sue the state over it, but it would be denying employment based on that person not perform their legal duties.
The accommodation the employer needs to make is to put her in a position where her religious values would not interfere with her work.
But given that she likely took the job for the very purpose of forcing her religious values onto her work, she should have a legal obligation to STFU and just do her fucking job. This honestly would be no different if a Buddhist refused to issue conceal carry permits because they believe in non-violence.
If you disagree with the law, you lobby to change the law. Not fucking be the arbiter of the law in your administrative role.
So what you’re saying is I could get myself elected sheriff and then refuse to do the job because I don’t believe in it?
No. I’m explicitly saying the exact opposite.
I get what you are saying and totally agree and if they are the sole decider the person in the position should be 100% neutral. And she should have resigned if they couldn’t do the job. You can’t expect a devout Hindu to work for a slaughterhouse and process cows.
But on the other hand we have had so many cases where employees have sued and won because an employer was trying to treat their employees equally but they hired the occasional employee demanding extra leeway for religious holidays or prayer time. So this case is pretty important for employers that provide religious exemptions.
But yeah this lady is a piece of shit and needs to lose this case and disappear from the spotlight.
Accommodating holidays or time for prayers is very different than accommodating an employee refusing to ever do the test they are paid to do.
Yeah. I don’t really blame this woman at all. It shouldn’t have been her sole responsibility. I would venture to guess though that even the people above her shared her opinions.