Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean to imply that two people were involved. I just lost track of whether my conscientiously objecting protagonist was a major or a captain.
Sure, sure - but my point it is, they don’t cancel the whole plan just because one person is determined to gum it up. The army might end up arresting her, but the entire army isn’t confounded by her objections.
The difference is that squeamish is not a constitutional right. The First Amendment guarantees people freedom of religion. Under Title 7 of the Civil Rights act employers have an obligation to exempt employees if their duties conflict with their religion as long as the exemption does not create an undue burden. Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees.
Some people seem to think that just because religion is not important to them it should not be important to anyone. History shows that forcing people to act against their religion is dangerous and tyrannical. Thus the law sensibly states that people can not be forced by their employers to act against their religion as long as it does not create an undue burden for the employer.
The First Amendment does not allow you to force your religion on others under color of authority.
You’re taking away the other person’s right to practice their religion or lack thereof.
The Constitution overrides that religious freedom restoration act.
Keywords being “create an undue burden”.
Now I ain’t no high fallutin’ lawyer, but I expect a worker who won’t issue legal paperwork to people, and furthermore will prevent every other worker from issuing legal paperwork to people, when their employer’s entire business model entails issuing legal paperwork to people, would non-creatively fall under “undue burden”.
That would make sense if she only refused to sign the licenses herself. Instead her intended actions were to make it impossible for same sex couples to get a marriage license in that county. It is the equivalent of establishing a state religion, the opposite of religious freedom.
She was not being forced to do anything. She could (and did) refuse to issue marriage licenses under her own signature. No court in the land would find that having her name on a piece of paper in her capacity as a public official was any sort of burden on her. Deputy clerks who don’t want to personally sign licenses have a vaguely colorable argument. Davis has none at all.
Let’s look at the two big legal tests applied to Religious Freedom cases and which RFRAs were designed to implement.
Does the government have a compelling interest to override those freedoms. The SCOTUS ruling underlying this is about preserving constitutional protections. That’s a pretty clear case for compelling interest.
The other test is if the infringement of religious freedom is narrowly tailored. A small number of county clerks in KY who might have religious objections to signing a marriage license is pretty narrow. There’s no requirement to like it, wish them well, participate in the ceremony, etc. The clerk simply has to issue the thing saying that the couple meets the legal requirements to be married. That’s pretty damn narrow.
The pope said he was not one to judge gay people , will this sure look like he was only trying to made the church look better b/c people been turning away b/c the sex scandal . They had to sell some churches to pay off their lawsuits .
I really think the church should clean up their mess and stay out of other people lives! If the pope really is OK with people being gay he would never had gone to
see Davis !
He’s an old Argentine guy who lives with other old people in Italy and speaks minimal English. He doesn’t know the first fucking thing about Davis.
Huh, is Kim Davis the daughter of Lee Harvey Oswald?
I honestly don’t care what a guy who believes in a magical Sky-Fairy thinks should be human rights.
Can anyone explain why she was sent to jail rather than just fired?
She can’t be fired, she’s an elected official. She can only be removed by the Legislature who only meets a couple of months each year. The Governor refused to call a special session.
I was wondering too: I just did a google:
Davis is the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who stopped processing marriage licenses due to her “Christian” beliefs, after the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality. Firing seems the obvious thing to do. But Davis is an elected official, which means there is no supervisor with the power to terminate her employment.
There isn’t the authority to fire her, because she’s elected. The state legislature was out of session, so they couldn’t do anything about it until they came back in session.
Edit: NINJA!
Thank thee.
What if we lived on a deserted island that had no laws. It was common practice on this Island to throw babies to starving wolves, to appease the god of the Island. We form a constitution that says this is now illegal. Kim Davis, however, continues to throw babies to starving wolves. Would you still praise her for civil disobedience?
I think, but am not sure that the county manager would have the ability to fire any of her staff. Just not her. The BOCC (Board of County Commissioners, also elected positions) should be putting SERIOUS pressure on her. Unfortunately, considering how the population leans, they have not said a word. They want to get re-elected.
Munnings, the Federal Judge that found her in contempt is the judge that will rule if Davis’s lawsuit against the Governor can move forward. That should be interesting.
I don’t see John Mace praising her for civil disobedience - just observing that what she is engaged in is civil disobedience.
And he’s right, IMV. She is engaged in civil disobedience. I strongly disagree with her and I don’t like what she’s doing, but don’t see that the term “civil disobedience” can justifiably be limited to the actions of people who agree with me.