If she followed the claims from her bible and church, that is what the bible calls for. Point is we no long live by the letter of the bible and its archaic laws any more and she should not have used her faith and bible to refuse to do her job as a clerk for the state.
Religious laws do not over ride state or federal law.
Since she was not without sin, she should not have been casting stones at gays for wanting a license.
so it's ok for all of you to cast stones at her. I mean people went and brought out how many time she's been married, cheered when she got put in jail for what exactly and with NO BOND? MUREDERS have a bond set yet you all don't give a crap. and it's for not signing a piece of paper when there were 100 other place that could do it for them, but they WOULDN'T afford her that because it's all about them AND everyone else be damned and go to hell too. this whole thing was sickening and all because she wouldn't sign some paper. she does have rights the same as the nasty women who caused all this. I hope this brings the states together to fight against this ruling by the Supreme court. before I really didn't care, but watching this, on top of ruining people lives and their business over a stinking cake. oh yeah, .
Licenses are issued in the local clerks office for people who live or plan to get married in area. The ceremony can be performed anywhere in the state for up to 90 in most states. Some place also require blood test. Couples must show up together and show ID.
Why should you go across the state if there is a local clerk near you? It is there job to issue licenses. It is not like they are asking her to perform the vows. Her job was to process paperwork for the state.
Her religious beliefs do not supersede the state laws for her responsibility to do her job. Not should she prevent others in the office from doing their job for the state.
For more than 2000 yrs, state laws have trumped religious laws. In the US we have a separation of church and state for that reason. People cannot impose their religion in a way that interferes with the state or other people's individual rights and beliefs.
The governor told her to do her job and she disobeyed. The courts told her to do her job and she disobeyed. If she can't or won't perform her duty to the state, she should have resigned.
Civil or religious, she was just plain wrong.
The law requires Kim's religious rights be accommodated.
no it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Do Public Employees Have Accommodation Rights Under Other Laws?
In addition to Title VII, public employees
can seek religious accommodations under the First Amendment and other state laws. The First Amendment's free exercise clause
may require a public employer to accommodate an employee's religious observance or practice.
If the employer adversely treats religiously- motivated conduct compared to similar secular conduct, it can only justify its actions by demonstrating a narrow and compelling interest. 9 Demonstrating such an interest is much more difficult than establishing an undue burden under Title VII. For instance, a U.S. Court of Appeals invalidated a police department policy prohibiting officers from wearing beards for religious reasons, but allowing beards for medical reasons. 10
Additionally, twenty states currently have laws - either by statute or court decision - called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which also require the government to demonstrate a narrow and compelling interest where a religious observance or practice is substantially burdened by a law, rule or practice. 11 For the purposes of these laws, it is irrelevant whether or not the law, rule or practice is general in nature or neutral towards religion. State courts have generally not ruled on whether or not RFRAs are applicable to the public workplace. Therefore, they may be another avenue for public employees to seek religious accommodations.
The First Amendment's free speech clause may also require a public employer to accommodate an employee's religious expression.
To be protected by the free speech clause, the expression must not be made pursuant to the employee's official duties. 12 Furthermore, the employee must demonstrate that his or her expression is a matter of legitimate public concern, and
the employee's interest in commenting on the matter must outweigh the employer's interests in operating efficiently and effectively. 13
