Should religious objections excuse employees from customary/prescribed job f(x)'s?

Aug 2014
4,672
Australia
Resurrected this thread because of a new development. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has just ruled that Kim Davis can be sued as an individual.

“In short, plaintiffs pleaded a violation of their right to marry: a right the Supreme Court clearly established in Obergefell,” Circuit Judge Richard Griffin wrote. “The district court therefore correctly denied qualified immunity to Davis.”
...
Michael Gartland, a lawyer for Ermold and Moore, said his clients may ask the full 6th Circuit to review the sovereign immunity issue. “No matter what happens, we’re going to trial against Ms. Davis in her individual capacity,” he said.

Kash Stilz, a lawyer for Smith and Yates, said his clients were pleased their lawsuit can continue.


Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses can be sued - Reuters
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,709
Australia
Interesting how she cannot be sued as county clerk but can as an individual. Given that the gay couples were later issued their licences and Davis has lost her job and spent a short time in gaol, what is to be gained by suing her?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,271
Dispargum
... Given that the gay couples were later issued their licences and Davis has lost her job and spent a short time in gaol, what is to be gained by suing her?
For one thing, the gay couples' lawyers didn't make any money yet. I don't know how how these things work in other countries, but here in America plaintiff's attorneys work on a contingency basis. They only get paid by taking a percentage (usually 1/3) of the cash awards that they win. The plaintiffs didn't receive any kind of cash award when they received their licences and when Davis went to jail.
 
Likes: Belgarion
Aug 2014
4,672
Australia
She didn't go to gaol for anything she did to the plaintiffs. She went to gaol for contempt.

She CAN be sued as a county clerk but then the taxpayer pays the penalty, not her. If the lawyers wanted a windfall, they would be suing Kentucky County, not her. What assets does Davis own? A mortgaged house and car? It is pretty clear that the plaintiffs are going after Davis as a matter of principle, not for money. They could have sued Kentucky County four years ago. We've had this delay because they want her to be held personally responsible, not the county. I'm guessing that they are also trying to set a legal precedent so that others can be sued for the same thing.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,755
It is very simple... If one's belief (whether religious or otherwise) prevent one from performing a certain job then one should either not apply for such a job or accept to put aside their beliefs for the purpose of the job.... Which they may rationalize as "having no choice" (some religions even have provisions for such cases).

Otherwise it is anarchy (imagine an employee refusing to charge clients a certain price because it contradicts his belief that certain products or services should be provided for free)
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,419
Las Vegas, NV USA
I suppose one could say their religion precludes working since it requires praying during all waking hours. It is the duty of non believers to feed and house them so they can pray to save the souls of the non believers.:halo:
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,271
Dispargum
I suppose one could say their religion precludes working since it requires praying during all waking hours. It is the duty of non believers to feed and house them so they can pray to save the souls of the non believers.:halo:
We used to have jobs like that. They were called monks, and sometimes nuns.
 
Aug 2014
4,672
Australia
We used to have jobs like that. They were called monks, and sometimes nuns.
They still do in some countries. A lot of Israelis resent the Haredis in their country for this reason. They are exempt from military service. Many refuse to work and get generous welfare benefits that the rest of the community pay for.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,709
Australia
She didn't go to gaol for anything she did to the plaintiffs. She went to gaol for contempt.

She CAN be sued as a county clerk but then the taxpayer pays the penalty, not her. If the lawyers wanted a windfall, they would be suing Kentucky County, not her. What assets does Davis own? A mortgaged house and car? It is pretty clear that the plaintiffs are going after Davis as a matter of principle, not for money. They could have sued Kentucky County four years ago. We've had this delay because they want her to be held personally responsible, not the county. I'm guessing that they are also trying to set a legal precedent so that others can be sued for the same thing.
It seems there is a measure of vindictiveness in this. The plaintiffs have had their point proven, the woman has already lost her job, been imprisoned (however briefly and even if it was for contempt of court ,rather than the actual license issue) and been vilified in the media. As this woman probably has very few assets to sue her would probably make her broke and homeless as well. Is this what they want as an extra 'punishment' I wonder.
 

Similar History Discussions