I encourage you to read the whole thing before responding. The article is well-written, balanced, and informative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-of-your-job/

I'm not going to wade into the debate about this, but I thought this article was relevant to the discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel...ttendant-feat/

What I do find troubling about the Kim Davis situation, which I think should be troubling regardless of which side of the debate you are on, is that she was arrested for not doing her job and not simply fired. I mean, in what reality does that make sense?

I do not think she should have been arrested. However, in this case, I don't see what other option the judge had. The: "You take the Job, you follow the rules" approach, doesn't have to apply to pharmacists who refuse to issue birth control, or the cabby who doesn't want to transport alcohol. In those situations, I'm perfectly happy boycotting the companies who employ such religious nutcases. I call them nutcases, because they are in fact: "Taking a job, and not following the rules".

But the situation with Kim Davis is that you can't boycott the government! People have little choice but to get their marriage licenses from the county clerk. Therefore, you need a county clerk to abide by the law(s). Therefore, she should either resign, or be fired. I'm not for imprisoning anyone where there is no victim (such as drugs, prostitution, etc.). However, you could make a reasonable case that there are indeed victims here (the people who want to get married). They have that right, so I'm not that unhappy about Ms. Davis' imprisonment, although I'd much rather see her resign or fired.

Oh, and by the way... This is all just my opinion. Not a belief

She can't be fired. She was elected to the position. She had two choices if she didn't want to go to prison:

1) Follow the law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
2) Resign from her position

Nobody was holding a gun to her head to keep working as the county clerk. Going to prison was entirely her own doing.

And it's for this reason I can't get that worked up feeling sorry for her. But couldn't the judge have forced her to resign, instead of sending her to jail? Or at least suspended her without pay? I'd have preferred that, since I think she's still getting paid while in jail. It doesn't seem right that she still collects her paychecks while being in jail.

Fair point, but that doesn't address potentially irrational/illogical people.

To me, if an elected official is refusing to perform the full duties of their job, which is causing a hardship, and is also refusing to resign, removal from office is the proper route to go down. I guess I don't have intimate knowledge of how things work on the local level all across the USA, but I would imagine that there is always a process in place to remove an elected official.

Among friends, I've argued that she should have been able to deputize others in her office to sign for her. The interesting question suggested by the article is the determination of what exactly she's looking for. It's not enough to claim that something is against your religion so you're just not going to do it, but exactly what is the religious problem and is there a reasonable accommodation for it?

But that's just not how religious protections actually work. And that's the hard part that people are having a hard time following.

That's simply not how the protection laws work. You simply cannot appeal to this argument in the framework of religious protection laws, no matter how stupid you think the religious objection is.

Some positions are open to a recall. Others require some sort of criminal proceedings, or sometimes ethical violations. None of these really fit the bill here. (I think her situation is a civil contempt of court, which isn't a criminal act.)

This is not a correct representation, she was jailed for being in contempt of the court.

I don't disagree with the article's premises; that we are and should be giving some legal leeway to religious considerations for workers (the world is too strange and diverse not to, I think) but I disagree with the conclusion.

Why? Because the author is severely downplaying the "undue hardship".

Consider for example if a clerk had similarly refused to issue marriage licenses to couples of mixed ethnicity. I'd say this case is at the same level of discriminatory behavior, and one one that can't be tolerated from a government official.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

As a factual observation, she is refusing to issue *any* marriage licenses.

This sounds to be a very smart and adequate solution! Do you know for a fact that she has the power to deputize others? Or are you guessing?

And yes... The interesting question is what is it exactly that she's looking for? It would appear (especially if you're suggestion could be done), that she simply wants to do her part in stopping as many gay people from getting married as she can. If that's the case, it is very wrong.

Yeah, I have a hard time following how religious protections work myself. If I worked at a restaurant, I wouldn't want to sell cheese burgers and fries to people who weighed 300lbs. If I worked at WalMart, I wouldn't want to sell alcohol to people I knew were alcoholics. So how does it work? If I say over indulgence is against my religion, it's fine? But if I say, I just don't want any part of it, I can get fired for not doing my job?!

Don't get me started on religion... I'm sure there is a ton of stuff we could spend days arguing about. It's my (opinion), that religion is overly privileged and I have a huge problem with that. They get tax breaks they shouldn't. In Chicago, churches are exempt from paying water bills, etc. It's nuts! I think religious privileges should just be dropped altogether. Give them write offs for charity work like everyone else, but that's it. Your religion is not other's religion and I shouldn't have to deal or pay for it. Maybe this is way off topic, but I see similarities. Bottom line: I don't care what your religion is. Don't let it affect other people or your ability to do your job that affects other people.

It's just a guess. It's the sort of thing that's done in many other types of situations. It's basically just like designating a proxy.

I haven't looked through any legal briefs to see what she has put up in her defense, so I don't really know.

There's another thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...n-law-1554838/

At least under current US law, religion is at least a roughly understood object for which there are specific boundaries that define it. So you can't just call anything a religious belief. Even within religious protection laws, there are boundaries to what is or is not something that you can be forced to do.

In the other thread, I noted that it does not appear that even if atheism is considered a religion for certain purposes, it does not appear that it can win certain arguments, such as some equivalent to the contraception exemption.

This type of thinking doesn't actually work that well in society. All sorts of issues pertaining to fair employment standards advanced in the face of "If you don't like it, get a different job."

But to the broader point, I think it's ignorant of how a the modern collective society works. I don't have kids, but my taxes pay for schools. They also go pay for other types of social services provided through the government, many of which I have no access to or will never use (and some I will never be in position to use). So to try to isolate one of the hundreds of things that support one group of people but not another and be pissed off about it seems to not appreciate the breadth of things government covers.

Is there an actual law that she broke?

She is in prison for contempt of court. What did she do to get contempt called on her? Was it just that she refused the judges order to start signing marriage certificates?

Contempt of court is not really "breaking a law" but rather not complying with a judge's order. I believe the judge ordered her to issue marriage certificates and she has refused to do that.

Just this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politi...-sex-marriage/

In her understanding, she's doing the second half of that statement. She's rendering her identity to God by not putting her name on something that is Caesar's.

It is impossible to create specific boundaries. The "roughly understood" part makes it impossible to remain fair and unbiased. So I say get rid of them all.

Again, impossible to create boundaries that are fair and unbiased to all.

What do you mean, "not even atheism"? I'm not sure I ever heard the argument that atheism deserves special protection. It does however, deserve protection and freedom from religion.

I don't think either of us would relish living in a society full of uneducated people. At the same time, I don't think it would diminish the quality of our lives one bit if society didn't pay for places where people could go and pretend that eating a cracker is the body of some fictional savior. So I don't see the equivalence.

Right, but again I don't think you'd want to live in a society where indigents and vets filled the streets. I've agreed that religions should receive all tax benefits for charitable work. I have no problem with that. There are sound reasons (many just humane) why our tax dollars should go towards solving other people's problems that we might never use or have a need for. But unless you can provide some specific benefit to paying for places of worship, I don't agree with the analogy you're trying to make.

You can say that, but I don't think you'll like the outcome. The blunt approach is exactly what you see coming out Donald Trump's mouth these days.

I don't deny the possibility of bias and unfairness. But if you think that *NOT* having rules is somehow more equitable, you're dangerously naive.

I'll note that your "special protection" that you think it doesn't deserve is exactly the special protection that you've listed. Don't be silly. Read the thread.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. The VAST MAJORITY of community-based social services for the poor run through churches and religious organizations. Such programs are predominantly in areas with high concentrations of poor and minority populations. You can pretend that separating the two is simple, but the reality is that it is not. Church food pantries are often more than just food pantries, which is why they are successful.

There are also many reasons it's hard to run a stand-alone food pantry, but one can run out a church relatively easily. And you don't currently see that many corporations running food pantries, so making it harder for food pantries to exist and be successful isn't really going to be helped in your way of approaching it.

You're welcome to not agree, but I'd just call you dangerously naive again. You seem to have no sense of the value of social support structures in the types of social services that are provided. You also say that as if "indigents and vets" don't already fill the streets.

@Aaron W

Your point is well taken that churches do a lot of good for communities. I'm not sure if you're actually reading through my posts, or just snipping at the points you don't happen to agree with. If you would actually read through them, you'll find that I have nothing against tax breaks for any charitable work that churches, temples, mosques, or any other religious organization provides.

My problem is with tax exemptions that have nothing to do with charity. Also, when you take your religion OUT of your house of worship and into the workplace or the society at large. Kim Davis has every right to not want to marry gay couples. The problem is that she's taking her religious convictions to work with her. Therefore, she should not be protected under any religious freedom act, etc. If she cannot or is unwilling to do her job, she should resign or be fired. I don't understand why it can't be as simple as that.

When you start getting into pharmacists who don't want to provide birth control, then we as a population can start boycotting the companies that employ them. Let them take care of it. If a Walgreen's finds they are losing too much business then they can start making their pharmacist sign an agreement stating that administering prescriptions for birth control is a required part of their duties. Problem solved.

I assume that when Kim Davis took her job, she agreed to follow the law. She has failed to follow the law and is therefore in dereliction of her duties. Why should it matter if it's because of religion, laziness, or stubbornness?

It's funny that as a liberal, I'm often accused of wanting more government when I find that I'm almost always advocating for LESS government involvement! Stop making the government babysit and decide what should and shouldn't be allowed for religion. Our constitution already allows for people to practice whatever faith they want without being discriminated against. That's really all you need. Your beliefs are not the rest of society's problem.

I read your post. But you're not understanding the impossibility of separating out the parts of religion that you like from the parts you don't like. It's not that simple. For many churches, charitable work *IS* religion. It's not a separate thing. And the tax complexity of saying that you get a tax break for this thing and not this other thing (especially for small churches) is going to a nightmare.

I'll give you the equivalent of this: Keep your sex life in the bedroom. Now tell me how well that command works in reality.

If you don't understand, that's not really my problem. You've been given a comprehensive article to read that explains what's going on. That's how the law is written. Deal with it.

First, it's not a law that she's not following. The sooner you stop making that mistake, the better it will be for your ability to articulate a meaningful argument.

Second, if you're so big on following the law, then why don't you respect the law that is in place to protect individuals?

Third, it matters because society says it matters. Think about ADA compliance. Should it matter that someone who is perfectly capable of doing a job, but the building has a step leading to the door and the person can't get in to do that job?

Quit being a naive liberal. Be an informed liberal. Take your liberalism seriously enough to think about things instead of spouting liberal-ish nonsense.

Fair enough, but it doesn't change this point as she is doing it as a conscentious objection and subsequently enforcing a discriminatory viewpoint beyond that which can be excused by the law. I guess some people don't find it sufficiently discriminatory to warrant legal proceedings, but this is hardly unexpected. There are still people in the US who object to the civil rights act, without comparison beyond that.

And please, don't go around looking for absolutes on this. This is the wedge principle in action, thus the courts' job is to hold legal opinion on specific religious objections, not rule a general principle for any given religious view.

Getting away from Kim Davis, but I thought of one example that answers the question of the title.

When you are a soldier and religion forbids you to kill.

What about now?

This is slippery slope law. The courts' task is to maintain opinion on specific cases and stop things "sliding too far" so to speak, so in the context of your thread title (specifiying the word "legally") this can't be answered.