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

diddyriddick

Historum Emeritas
May 2009
14,692
A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
If your religious beliefs are so strong then you should not apply for a job that will compromise them. She should be sacked. This reminds me of the news story about the woman in the USA who would not issue a marriage license to a gay couple. fair enough she should be given the boot, but to put her in gaol is way over the top.
You're talking about Kim Davis in Ky.....She's an elected official and CAN'T be fired.
 

diddyriddick

Historum Emeritas
May 2009
14,692
A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
After Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, an elected state constitutional officer, was sentenced and taken out of the courtroom, the Judge offered a compromise: he would release her if she promised not to interfere with her staff complying with the law. Her lawyers said she would not do that. She not only won't issue licenses, but she is forcing her staff to break the law. Once she was out of the way, they started to issue the licenses - all except her son. It needs to be pointed out that all she had to certify is that they have met the legal requirements for marriage. She is not certifying that she approves. She was adding a religious test to marriage which is not legal in the US.

Her staff's desire to do their job was highlighted when the first gay couple got married. The man behind the counter reached over and congratulated them with a smile.

In addition, the KY Attorney General is investigating her for taking a salary and then refusing to do what she was paid to do. Is the woman so ignorant that she could not see when she took her elected office that gay marriage was a good possibility? Is she such a bigot that she can't see others in her community might interpret the Bible differently? She has a duty to serve all the citizens, not just fundamentalist Christians.

In KY, only the legislature can remove an elected official. The legislature meets in January. They can change the job duties, but it is unlikely she would be impeached.

I don't know about other countries, but in the USA, contempt of court is serious. And contempt of a Federal Court is something that not even Richard Nixon risked when the Supreme Court ruled on the tapes.

Here is the oath elected KY officials which includes Kim Davis took and then violated when she took her elected office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

The Supreme Court of the US said gay marriage is legal. The Governor of Kentucky and the Kentucky Attorney General said it is the law in KY. Kim Davis left the judge no option but to jail her since as he said and was pointed out above, others would pay the fine for her.
You're mistaking her noble intentions......She's running for Congress in 2018.
 
Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
*sigh*
Look, I'm all for gay marriage and all that. Buts. Can't these people get their license someplace else? I'm not sure I understand the process of marriage license though.

I know an elected official should be doing her / his job according to the law, but this change was so sudden that there are bound to be people with qualms about it still holding official positions. Can't they introduce a side-law that a) each office needs to have at least one official handing out these licenses and b) make sure no new people take office that don't want to do it. That way they will eventually fade away. This is how we've been doing it in the Netherlands anyway.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
Can't these people get their license someplace else?
No. In Kentucky, only the office of the county clerk has the power to issue a marriage license. Applicants would have to travel to another jurisdiction to get a license and that is unreasonable.

I know an elected official should be doing her / his job according to the law, but this change was so sudden that there are bound to be people with qualms about it still holding official positions.
Her religious qualms are of no consequence. She is not required to confer moral approval and her issuance of a license is not a statement on whether she morally approves. The license serves only as a certification the applicants meet the statutory criteria for obtaining a license.

Can't they introduce a side-law that a) each office needs to have at least one official handing out these licenses and b) make sure no new people take office that don't want to do it. That way they will eventually fade away. This is how we've been doing it in the Netherlands anyway.
This is part of the problem. She wasn't just refusing to issue the licenses herself. She banned all county clerk staff from issuing them as well.

If we allow Davis to refuse to do her duty in this case, what stops her from declaring all her duties to be sinful? Under the logic she and her attorneys have put forward, she could simply stop the work of her office all together due to religious reasons while she sits on her behind and collects an $80k/year paycheck for doing absolutely nothing. Or she could say she objects to interracial marriages. Or maybe she thinks Muslims or Catholics are heretics and she won't issue them licenses either. She could use the same logic to carry out any kind of discrimination she likes if we let this stand.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
No. In Kentucky, only county clerks have the power to issue a marriage license. Applicants would have to travel to another jurisdiction to get a license and that is unreasonable.

Her religious qualms are of no consequence. She is not required to confer moral approval and her issuance of a license is not a statement on whether she morally approves. The license serves only as a certification the applicants meet the statutory criteria for obtaining a license.

This is part of the problem. She wasn't just refusing to issue the licenses herself. She banned all county clerk staff from issuing them as well.

If we allow Davis to refuse to do her duty in this case, what stops her from declaring all her duties to be sinful? Under the logic she and her attorneys have put forward, she could simply stop the work of her office all together due to religious reasons while she sits on her behind and collects an $80k/year paycheck for doing absolutely nothing. Or she could say she objects to interracial marriages. Or maybe she thinks Muslims are heretics and she won't issue them licenses either. She could use the same logic to carry out any kind of discrimination she likes if we let this stand.
I understand the problem. People shouldn't have to travel to another jurisdiction for such a license. However, with major steps having been taken, I've learnt that instantly demanding people to abandon their beliefs is usually working against the goals of emancipation. This woman has now been given a platform for her moral judgements to spread across the globe.

Qualms are of consequence, because where their work never interfered with them before, they all of the sudden do now. A transitional period is not entirely unreasonable for the offices, at the end of which (a) at least everyone can get a license from every office (b) everyone who takes up office after the start of the transitional period must always give a license. It just seems more practical to me this way then start throwing elected officials into jail.
 
Dec 2012
1,562
U.S.A.
I understand the problem. People shouldn't have to travel to another jurisdiction for such a license. However, with major steps having been taken, I've learnt that instantly demanding people to abandon their beliefs is usually working against the goals of emancipation. This woman has now been given a platform for her moral judgements to spread across the globe.

Qualms are of consequence, because where their work never interfered with them before, they all of the sudden do now. A transitional period is not entirely unreasonable for the offices, at the end of which (a) at least everyone can get a license from every office (b) everyone who takes up office after the start of the transitional period must always give a license. It just seems more practical to me this way then start throwing elected officials into jail.
When you're an elected official and you defy the Supreme Court than jail is to be expected. She has a sworn duty to perform and she is not performing her duties.
 
Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
When you're an elected official and you defy the Supreme Court than jail is to be expected. She has a sworn duty to perform and she is not performing her duties.
My point is that the execution of those duties were different when she was sworn into office in january. As a gay myself, I don't believe throwing her into jail has helped gay rights one bit.
 
Dec 2012
1,562
U.S.A.
My point is that the execution of those duties were different when she was sworn into office in january. As a gay myself, I don't believe throwing her into jail has helped gay rights one bit.
Perhaps not, but that is not why she was jailed. She was jailed for violating the law and being derelict in her duties.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,161
Australia
My point is that the execution of those duties were different when she was sworn into office in january. As a gay myself, I don't believe throwing her into jail has helped gay rights one bit.
She was jailed for contempt of court, not because of her religion. Once the Supreme Court issues a directive you obey it or face the consequences. She had plenty of options before this went to the Supreme Court. Afterwards she only had two: issue marriage licences or resign.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
Yes, and exactly what will come of it? Sudden law change = jailing everyone who can't perform because they don't want to toss all their ideas overboard instantly? The result is, somebody can now play a "victim" of gay activism, which I think is very detrimental to our cause. Therefore, I refuse to see this as some kind of black and white clinical situation.

But I'm talking in circles, so I guess I'll just keep my frustrations to myself for now.