When someone takes a job, the understanding is that they are willing to fulfil the requirements of the job. If the job requirements go against your religious beliefs, don't take the fucking job. A couple examples:

- A Moslem gets a job as a bartender, and refuses to serve booze because "Alcohol is offensive to the Prophet". Hello, McFly - you should have known that serving booze is the primary job function of a bartender.

- An Orthodox Jew gets a job as a sandwich artist at Subway, and refuses to make any sandwich involving ham, "fish without fins" (e.g. the limited-time lobster sub), or both meat and cheese.

How long would either of these people last before they're thrown out on their asses?

It seems to me that most of these people crying "religious discrimination" actively sought a job where some of the requirements are against their religion in order to become a "gatekeeper" and impose their beliefs on others. In this particular case, the job duties include issuing marriage licenses to any couple meeting the state's criteria for "these people can legally get married". Not only is she refusing to issue licenses, but she's ordered her deputies not to issue licenses (one compromise that was offered to her was that she PERSONALLY would not be required to issue licenses to gay couples, with her deputies issuing the licenses instead). Sounds like what she wants is a "Tea Party Compromise", a.k.a. "The other side gives me everything I want".

The best what if example I've heard so far is would these people support a Quaker who refused to issue gun licenses because of a religious belief in pacifism? I'm guessing fuck no. -.-

Also, no. She is not a political prisoner. Though I see this new meme of her being one is emerging among a select few in the fever swamp of right wing blogs and "news" sites. I don't even mean the dubious ones like Breitbart. I mean the really really out there ones that scream about Marxists ruling the US government and the IRS being a crime syndicate, etc.

Far as I can tell the original source is some whack job's crazy rant on a web forum. Well, forums. As he has gone around copy pasting his lunacy on a number of different conservative sites. Its not even based on JEEBUS, its a long winded diatribe about legal technicalities and how the Supreme Court is engaging in "judicial tyranny" and basically should be arrested and sentenced to death. ( seriously. )

I worry about where your dad's reading habits. -.-

This bothers me. When she took the job, she didn't know that she would eventually have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Her job requirements changed while she was there, and she objects to the new requirement. This muddles things a bit, IMO. Where it went wrong was that she did everything in her power to make sure these couples couldn't get married. Even now, from jail, she is saying that the marriage licenses that have been issued in her absence are void, since they have her name on them. I'm sure a marriage license has NEVER been issued while she was on vacation or taking a day off.

That doesn't matter one bit. Some of my employers have changed my job functions on me at the last minute. In my current job, my main duties were to load servers in the office. I've had to install servers on the road with 3 days notice. I've also had to go on the road for the entire month of July.

When you take a job, you have to know that your job can change as your employer needs. I have found that out the hard way.

I know that, my comment was aimed more at the statement that if you can't do a job, then don't take it. She took the job fully able to do it, but it's a bit unfair to suggest that she quit because she can no longer do all of the functions of her job. The reason doesn't matter so much, it can be a religious thing like in her case, or it may be a physical limitation as in others. It's not fair to suggest that someone quit their job because they're in a wheelchair and their boss suddenly demands that they have to climb a ladder to get things off of the top shelf for customers. Religious freedoms are protected as well as physical limitations, and an accommodation could be made for her. She was the one who refused that accommodation by forbidding her entire office from giving out marriage licenses instead of saying "Here's someone who can do it instead."

Since leaving my mom last March, he's gone off the rails. He's spent the past 40 years lying and gaslighting everyone...it was only a matter of time before he managed to gaslight himself. He's managed to warp his own reality. Doesn't surprise me really--isolation can do strange things to one's mind.

Earlier today, he was going on about how Davis shouldn't be locked up...when people like Jane Fonda aren't

Except that that's not what Davis got sent to jail for- indeed, as long as she allows her deputies to issue marriage licenses to gay people, she would be immediately released. What got Davis sent to jail was that the accommodation she is trying to insist upon is that no marriage licenses be issued by her office to gay people. It's the equivalent of that wheelchair user insisting on (say) the entire building they worked in be remodeled to only be on a single floor, for example, rather than lifts being installed so that said wheelchair user can get up to a different floor.

Or put it this way: an accommodation for religious freedoms CANNOT require people not of said religion to obey the strictures of said religion. ( to give another example, Islam teaches that you should not eat pork (among other things)- if you worked at an abattoir, a reasonable accommodation would be to have said person only slaughter animals that are going to be sold as halal. An unreasonable accommodation would be for the abattoir to only sell halal meat because of this one employee.)

IOW, Kim Davis can refuse to issue marriage licenses all she likes- HOWEVER, she has to allow provision to be made for those licenses to be issued. hence the offered compromise of her allowing her deputies to issue the marriage certificates. ( and also in case she ever gets the "smart" idea to mess with the schedule to try to make it difficult for gay people to get marriage licenses- that's JUST as illegal.)

It really isn't. She's an elected official of the government. A government which is secular and built on the foundation of the separation of church and state. It's not like gay marriage is a surprise that just suddenly jumped out at anyone.

If you hold deep religious convictions, don't run for and than accept a position where you are expected to and required to put aside your personal beliefs to operate as a secular agent of the government. Plus, she only assumed office in Jan of this year so this possibility ( gay marriage ) was clearly on the horizon.

You might have a point if this was a private business that suddenly took a religious turn. But this is a government position and operating as a secular entity is a cornerstone to the entire basis of the US government despite what right wing nutjobs like her seem to believe.

....Jane Fonda? I'm almost too scared to ask. Almost. >.>

That stems from way back in the late 1960's and early 1970's when Jan Fonda went to N. Vietnam and supposedly "aided and abetted" the enemy.'
'
story here:https://patriotpost.us/pages/80

The fact that it seems she was thrown in there with no bail, no trial date, and she's basically in jail "until she breaks" so to speak bothers me. She's certainly made it clear she will not issue licenses nor allow her underlings to do so, so I don't quite understand why a judge either can't start the impeachment process or recommend it to the state legislature. They're going to have to let her out eventually since you can't just throw people in jail indefinitely. Then what?

There's also a (unsubstantiated and likely false) rumor that one of the couples was from out of state and came down to that specific courthouse for the sole purpose of kicking up a media frenzy. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, does it really change anything?

You know, at first I thought jail was unnecessary seeing how she should have just been fired, but if she was really doing everything she could to make the marriage license void, then she can rot for all I care (after a fair trial of course).

That's exactly what he's referring to. As I said earlier, I find her actions disgusting. Still though, it's been over 40 years. Let it go.

The judge can't start impeachment. That's not his role. He can advise it, but the legislature is out of session, and the governor seems disinclined to spend the money needed to call a special session. So they won't meet until next year. So she'll be in jail for contempt until she stops being in contempt by either agreeing to do her job or being removed from her job.

Only changes the number of couples with a legit beef. A big part of the issue is that if you're paying taxes at home, why should you have to go elsewhere to be given your government recognized rights?