The comparison is that I'm having to do something I don't want to do and wasn't an original job duty. The comparison is valid.

No. You not wanting to do extra work is one thing. Being forced to do something your religious beliefs is against is totally different.

 

She isn't against handing out marriage certificates, it's the ones that go against her religious belief she has an issue with.

Exactly.

 

Is a lawyer allowed to refuse to represent a client in a divorce proceeding because of their religious beliefs? And if they do, wouldn't we all expect them to be removed from their job for doing so?

The lawyer isn't being asked to do something his religion thinks is a mortal sin either. If he had to perform the case while sacrificing a chicken to a pegan God then he probably could be dismissed from

the case with no ramifications.

 

People are missing important points of this case and think it's simply a case of telling someone to do something and with no reason they say they won't.

The Jewish person's right to not work Saturday is constitutionally protected if a reasonable accommodation can be made. Me not doing my job (and the Rowan County clerk not doing hers) is not constitutionally protected.

Wrong.

 

Why is the the jewish persons right protected?

 

now explain how that differs from another religion.

The lawyer isn't being asked to do something his religion thinks is a mortal sin either. If he had to perform the case while sacrificing a chicken to a pegan God then he probably could be dismissed from

the case with no ramifications.

 

People are missing important points of this case and think it's simply a case of telling someone to do something and with no reason they say they won't.

 

Issuing a marriage license is a mortal sin?

I may have told this story before.

 

Back in my days at the mental health center, we had a Jewish social worker who worked as a counselor. Company policy was Christmas Eve and Christmas off. She raised a bit of a flap, saying that she wasn't permitted to take off on Jewish "holidays". What she wanted to do was work in the office (when there would be no one else there and nothing to do), then take off on two Jewish holidays.

 

A reasonable accommodation was made. She was told that she could work in one of the residential facilities on Christmas Eve and Christmas day, then take off her two days.

 

She took off on Christmas Eve and Christmas day.

Too freaking easy...:walk:

A couple thoughts:

 

1. I am truly amazed that anyone can think it would be no big deal to go to another county to get married. Let's make all the black people go to another county to vote. Maybe men can go to another county to buy a gun. Or hey, you can identify as any religion, but can only go to a Catholic church in one county or a Baptist one in another and maybe Methodist in still one more.

 

The thing is all of those examples above are fundamental rights, just like marriage. This is precisely the reason for our constitution. Since this is America, some things are so important, the government cannot limit them or take them away. This clerk is the government.

 

2. Not even just here, but in any discussion of this situation, regardless of one's own opinion, I have seen the same "good for her for standing up for what she believes in," over and over.

 

In every other situation, a lot of us enter in with a fair dose of skepticism. Has anyone considered that this clerk might be looking for her own 15 minutes of fame. I mean seriously, it can't be a large number of people that have the opportunity to become a face of something.

 

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think it is sinister, but I don't buy her act for a second. There's a good chance I'm wrong and there are tons of other options, but for my money, I think either Davis sees this as her time to shine, or she is super stubborn and doesn't want to back down and get egg on her face. I just highly doubt she is the most pious clerk in Kentucky.

Wrong.

 

Why is the the jewish persons right protected?

 

now explain how that differs from another religion.

 

Not wrong at all. They are protected by the Constitution if a reasonable accommodation is possible.

 

They don't differ from any religion. Muslims can take breaks at work if the employer candle reasonable accommodations for them to do so.

 

Your next post will be "well then the clerk's right to not issue a gay marriage license as a catholic should be protected." It would be if there was a reasonable accommodation that could be made to do so. There isn't.

A couple thoughts:

 

1. I am truly amazed that anyone can think it would be no big deal to go to another county to get married. Let's make all the black people go to another county to vote. Maybe men can go to another county to buy a gun. Or hey, you can identify as any religion, but can only go to a Catholic church in one county or a Baptist one in another and maybe Methodist in still one more.

 

The thing is all of those examples above are fundamental rights, just like marriage. This is precisely the reason for our constitution. Since this is America, some things are so important, the government cannot limit them or take them away. This clerk is the government.

 

2. Not even just here, but in any discussion of this situation, regardless of one's own opinion, I have seen the same "good for her for standing up for what she believes in," over and over.

 

In every other situation, a lot of us enter in with a fair dose of skepticism. Has anyone considered that this clerk might be looking for her own 15 minutes of fame. I mean seriously, it can't be a large number of people that have the opportunity to become a face of something.

 

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think it is sinister, but I don't buy her act for a second. There's a good chance I'm wrong and there are tons of other options, but for my money, I think either Davis sees this as her time to shine, or she is super stubborn and doesn't want to back down and get egg on her face. I just highly doubt she is the most pious clerk in Kentucky.

 

She may hold claim to "most often married", though.

People are missing important points of this case and think it's simply a case of telling someone to do something and with no reason they say they won't.

 

What are these important points people are missing? You are the one that is trying to simplify this into a take this Jesus-haters kind of thing.

That is what I said...I was the one who brought it up first.

 

Not sure how that was confusing, but if it clears your mind of any worry I will say it again for you. I brought up church and state first. With that said, it isn't a bad argument especially in today's political correctness overload and I brought up several examples why it is a double standard these days on how it is treated. Christmas is the perfect example.

 

As far as the law, you said it wasn't a law that they had to hand out same sex marriage licenses, if it isn't part of the law that the SC ruled on, then why is this even a topic? and why did the SC (Supreme Court) have to make a ruling in the first place? As I already showed, the SC job is to interpret the law. If it had nothing to do with the law why were they even involved? She isn't breaking the law so why is this headed to court most probably?

 

Indeed, you brought up separation of church and state. I pointed out that it was a bad example, because she WORKS for the government. You can't separate the government from the government. I agree that we should drop that as an argument. I've been in that camp since it was brought up.

 

You referred to a new law. The Supreme Court did not create a new law.

Issuing a marriage license is a mortal sin?

 

Thou shall not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

The Jewish person's right to not work Saturday is constitutionally protected if a reasonable accommodation can be made. Me not doing my job (and the Rowan County clerk not doing hers) is not constitutionally protected.

 

Boss comes out 10 minutes before closing (at 5pm) on Friday, and says they've got a rush order that will require mandatory overtime for everyone on Saturday. What reasonable accommodation is there to be made?

The Will of the People does not trump the "rule of law" in our nation.

 

The rule of law has spoken and binds the elected officials to carry it out.

 

If the "will of the people" trumped the "rule of the law" desegregation would never have happened.

 

I don't disagree, Hatz, but, thank God abolitionists didn't just accept "the rule of law" after the Dred Scott case. Fallible men made a very bad ruling in that case. It took the 13th and 14th amendments to reverse the effects of that decision. Roe v Wade is another terrible ruling by the SCOTUS. Occasionally they get it wrong. People of good will can and should object when the Supreme Court is in error.

 

In the present case five judges changed the definition of a word! Who do they think they are? God?!

 

Is anyone surprised that changing the nature of the oldest, most important, and fundamental institution of society would be met with resistance? There is going to be push back and rather than rushing to apply the hangman's noose, why not stand back and observe as those who object search for ways to challenge the law. In the end, the law will win out and each challenge will receive a definitive answer. Perhaps in this way there will be some acceptance on the part of those who have tried to resist. Usually, when someone is sure they have been adequately heard they are more likely to find a way to get along.

 

I think it is also best to accept that those who differ are acting in good faith. I assume that the gay couple who goes to the courthouse seeking a marriage license and films the rejection is doing so, not for publicity, but for principle. I have no doubt they believe they are championing, not just their civil rights, but those of the next gay couple who will go to the courthouse seeking to get married. I don't agree but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

In the same way, I give the benefit of the doubt to the county clerk. I assume she is not out to get attention but to challenge something she feels in unjust. Ad hominem attacks and building straw men is not the way to bring resolution to conflict. It only breeds more conflict.

I'd say it's a pretty futile effort when you KNOW that there are currently no licenses being issued.

 

And conveniently invite the TV stations.

I don't disagree, Hatz, but, thank God abolitionists didn't just accept "the rule of law" after the Dred Scott case. Fallible men made a very bad ruling in that case. It took the 13th and 14th amendments to reverse the effects of that decision. Roe v Wade is another terrible ruling by the SCOTUS. Occasionally they get it wrong. People of good will can and should object when the Supreme Court is in error.

 

In the present case five judges changed the definition of a word! Who do they think they are? God?!

 

Is anyone surprised that changing the nature of the oldest, most important, and fundamental institution of society would be met with resistance? There is going to be push back and rather than rushing to apply the hangman's noose, why not stand back and observe as those who object search for ways to challenge the law. In the end, the law will win out and each challenge will receive a definitive answer. Perhaps in this way there will be some acceptance on the part of those who have tried to resist. Usually, when someone is sure they have been adequately heard they are more likely to find a way to get along.

 

I think it is also best to accept that those who differ are acting in good faith. I assume that the gay couple who goes to the courthouse seeking a marriage license and films the rejection is doing so, not for publicity, but for principle. I have no doubt they believe they are championing, not just their civil rights, but those of the next gay couple who will go to the courthouse seeking to get married. I don't agree but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

In the same way, I give the benefit of the doubt to the county clerk. I assume she is not out to get attention but to challenge something she feels in unjust. Ad hominem attacks and building straw men is not the way to bring resolution to conflict. It only breeds more conflict.

 

I think you are on to something that I've shared with others from the beginning of this.

 

The government long ago co-opted the word marriage from the church. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God. Without any of the three it ceases to be the intention of marriage.

 

The government is in the business of issuing licenses for unions that are recognized by the government as legal and binding. The church is to be in the business of blessing marriages and leading a couple into the covenant with God.

 

I've often wondered why there is a box for civil union and a box for religious ceremony. This is exactly why.

 

Just some thoughts I've been musing on.