It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
People should be hired or not hired because of their skills and merit, not because of their faith. And people should not be forced to choose between their faiths and their jobs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public and private employment. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodation of employees' religious observances and practices, unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship.
UPDATE: even if deputy clerks begin issuing marriage licenses, they may not be legal.
"Attorneys also called into question whether any licenses issued in Davis' absence would be legal. Bunning said couples would have to judge that risk on their own.
He indicated that he would lift the contempt charge against Davis if deputies began issuing forms, but he said he was reluctant to release her too quickly."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government MAY burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
originally posted by: Boadicea
One final note: The judge also knows damn well that obeying his order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples would in fact be a violation of state law -- the state law Ms. Davis swore an oath to uphold -- and would in fact put her in jeopardy of further legal action against her by the state. Ms. Davis is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Likewise for the employees under Ms. Davis. And, of course, any same-sex marriages performed under such circumstances would likely not even be legal:
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea
I don't think you really under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It really doesn't protect religious freedom, it defines when and why the government can violate those those religious freedoms. It's really very Orwellian.
In the case of Kim Davis, the Judge has determined that the state's interest in providing marriages licenses is more compelling than Mrs. Davis' religious right to refuse.
I have to disagree. First, there is no Constitutional requirement to provide marriage licenses, therefore there is no compelling interest to force Ms. Davis (or anyone) to do so.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
That's all fine and dandy...
But she cited God's authority, not the State Laws.
How long did it take for the defence to make up this BS.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
Also should I get a county clerk job and change my Religion to the Book of Liberace and refuse man and woman marriages based on my religious convictions?.
Would you be cheering me on for standing up to law with my religious beliefs?.
(Note I'm not a member of the church of Liberace If it even exists just making a point).
So Ket would you agree?.
originally posted by: Liquesence
Religious freedom has not been eroded, hence, no reason for an act to "restore" what was never eroded to begin with.
People have the *perception* that their religious freedom is being eroded because their own self-perceived "right" to publicly discriminate and act with bigotry is being shot down by law.
Federal law trumps state law, period.
While the state might need to "update" their legislature to conform to the federal statute or law, that state law is essentially void *because* is has been overwritten by the FEDERAL law.
This is a tough issue for me any way you spin it because I can see both sides.
Gays need to be able to get married and there is no argument from most folks here, but religious folks should also be free from coercion and forced compliance to participate in something they find against their God and religion. Why can't BOTH people win here and someone without the conscientious objection simply handle the gay wedding, certificate issuance etc and the problem is solved.
What you have is a bunch of ratchet headed morons that don't like compromise.