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.
In Germany at police officer successfully sought out the Constitutional Court because he was disciplined for not following the order to enter a church as that conflicted his agnostic views.
It is alright to deny something because of your views, the state simply has to facilitate all rights and in this case the county would have to have someone on their payroll to legalise same Sex marriages. That allows the individual clerk to stay true to their believes but also facilitates the rights of those seeking their lawful marriage.
This makes total sense. What’s frustrating is that everyone focuses on the religious choice aspect while not asking the real question like why was this one person in charge of the entire county when it was known she had an issue. I’m sure this would lead to a larger investigation to find she wasn’t the only one with the issue of marrying a same-sex couple.
Really, the county should be held accountable, not this woman. The county has the obligation to marry same-sex couples. The county staffed one person whom they probably knew would have this issue.
The county should reprimand the woman for not fulfilling her duties as a representative, she should have sued the county for putting her in that position by not hiring someone else, and the couple should have sued the county. I’m not really familiar enough with the case to know how this actually went down.
Her job was an elected position so what do you expect the county to do?
I didn’t know this was an elected position. I could see how that complicates the matter.
Still, even if The People elect a person to a publicly held office as a representative of their interests, the elected official is obligated to uphold the law. If they’re unable to do so, either the county should have prevented her from taking the position or she should be held accountable for lying. Either way, the county should be facilitating the law to allow same-sex couples to be married.
I once asked my mother if it would be ok for a Muslim or Jewish deli employee to refuse to sell her pork. She said they shouldn’t be in that job if it conflicted with their religious beliefs. I tried to tie that to this and she sort of shut down rather than argue against it or accept it.
We don’t have a relationship anymore. She voted for the shithead every time.
That’s not a comparable situation though. There’s no reasonable expectation that those places would sell you pork*. The employee who works there isn’t (not) doing anything that conflicts with the business’ offerings.
Even if a muslim employee at a barbecue restaurant were to deny a customer a rack of ribs, the restaurant is under no obligation to serve you.
This issue is about a representative of the county rejecting the county’s obligations.
*Edit: After re-reading the comment I was replying to, I see it’s about a person who is Muslim or Jewish working at a deli, not a person working at a Muslim or Jewish deli. The comparison is closer than I had argued against but still not the same because one is public and one is private.
If the place carries pork and a specific employee refused to give it to you …
That’s directly applicable. It’s an exact equivalent situation. You’re just replacing nouns
It’s not at all directly applicable.
There is no constitutional obligation for that employee to sell you pork. They’re representing laws that exist to benefit the tax paying public.
A worker at a barbecue is under no legal obligation to sell you pork. They may one under an obligation of their employment but that’s a private contract. The shop itself is under no obligation to sell you anything at all.
You’re getting bogged down in specifics that are not relevant to the metaphor.
A person, who is NOT in a position to determine who/what their employer’s organization will or won’t serve, is making decisions they lack the authority to do. And if they can’t handle the responsibilities of their position, should find new employment.
That’s it. You’re over-complicating it.
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.