@marian:
When Kim Davis took office, she swore to do the duties of her position,so help her God, so technically she violated an oath before God, which would be a sin (interestingly, the Jehova’s Witness believe that oaths before God themselves are sins, go figure). She would argue that swearing an oath that required violating what she saw as God’s law made the oath invalid, but the person who wrote that is technically correct (what it leaves off, of course, is that the ‘so help me God’ is by this time a piece of historical language, when you swear an oath, whether you say “So Help Me God” or “on my honor” or “I understand”, you are legally bound, God has zip to do with it from the standpoint of the state).
Kim Davis supposedly has been saying that if they removed her name from the certificates, it would be okay with her, but I don’t buy that, I think that lawyer is buying into a fantasy. A certificate like that would say something like “Kim Davis, Clerk of the County XXXX”, it is a seal of the office. FIrst of all, I don’t know if the state could make that accommodation, with legal documents like that, normally the office holder of the person has to be on it, the signature I vaguely recall is part of the certification, and it could be that if they took her name off the certificates they would no longer be valid. It could be they could make a certificate with a blank name line, and one of the other people in the office would sign it/stamp it, but it depends on the locality and their laws. More importantly, even if Davis asked for that accommodation, it is likely the legislature would refuse to do so, the same way it is unlikely she will be impeached, conservative republicans dominate their senate, and I doubt they would want to accommodate this case, given that Davis is now a Martyr to all kinds of things, states rights, persecution of Christians, etc.
As far as accommodating religious belief in the job goes, the courts have been very clear, even with the bogus “religious liberty act” claim. If a job requires someone to do something, and they can’t do it based on religious belief, if the duty can be done by someone else, or if another accommodation doesn’t interfere with the job (wearing a turban or a beard for religious reasons, for example, time to pray during the day) then that is fine. With liquor at a checkout (they allow sales in supermarkets now in NJ, too), it would be easy, they always have registers that are non alchohol sales, usually because the person is under 21, but it could be for religious reasons, too. The butcher who won’t handle pork could be accommodated if they had multiple butchers (though to be honest, a muslim would not work as a butcher at a store, nor would an observant Jew, the non pork items would be non Halal or Kosher slaughtered, so they wouldn’t want to handle it). However, when it primarily affects a job, like the pharmacist not prescribing birth control or abortifacients, and let’s say that is the only pharmacist on duty, no accommodation would need to be made, because it would hurt the business.
Likewise a public official could say they can’t issue a certificate because it violated their beliefs, or for example marry a gay couple, as long as there was someone else to do it, if there wasn’t, they can’t just say “well, you can get married by anyone else, or drive 100 miles to another clerk”, because that person is crippling the entire office (and there is a long chain of precedent on this, that Scalia et al would have a hard time ignoring). If the law requires the clerks signature on the form, and she doesn’t want it there, then her obstinance is basically shutting down that office, as it has up until now. More importantly, if they do make that accommodation (unlikely, given the political climate), will that office dutifully issue those certificates, or once she is back in the office, will she find ways to obstruct doing her job?Her son works in the office (gee, what a surprise), and the court specifically told him that if suddenly the office can’t do marriage certificates because the computer is down, they can’t find the paper certificates, he would be held in contempt, and there is a strong case to be made that even if she is allowed back, that office would suddenly be unable to issue the certificates.
What is interesting is that apparently most people in Kentucky think that his is making their state look like a joke, and they want this over with, whether it means her resigning or being impeached, but apparently the state senate doesn’t believe it. I thought it was really funny, I found a link off Yahoo to Newsmax (A “Christian” news site), and Huckabee was going on how Gavin Newsome was not impeached or put in jail for issuing same sex marriage licenses before it was legal; what that drooling moron, of course, forgets is that when the court told Newsome to cease and desist, he did, that once that court issued an injunction and told him he was violating the law, he did, unlike Davis who refused to follow the court’s ruling. She was put in jail for defying the court, something Newsome did not do.