Then if she felt so religiously violated by it, she could have resigned her post.
How would people on this board feel if a border sheriff “objected” to having to arrest illegals who are “looking for a better life”, and just let them waltz in?
Would you support that sheriff, or would you demand disciplinary action be taken?
I agree 100%. Resigning is the honorable thing to do if she feels that issuing state licenses is somehow a violation of her religious tenets.
I went back and forth on this all day and if she is against this, then she needs to quit. She is an employee of the state, and if the state is ordering you to do X, then you do it or stop working there.
Should she be in jail? No.
Does she think she can just ignore a directive from the higher ups and still keep her job? Nope.
She is an elected official, but she isn’t a legislator or a executive, charged with the ability to ignore whatever she wants, no matter how odious it is personally.
> How would people on this board feel if a border sheriff “objected” to having to arrest illegals
National defense is a legitimate function of the Federal government, marriage is not.
GAFC
The correct answer is to say that the job duties have changed and either carry them out or it's grounds for termination. Arresting someone and throwing them in shackles is pure legalistic terrorism. A show of force by a demonically possessed government.
That is not a valid comparison unless the sheriff was elected or hired to be a guard whose duties were radically changed, such as defining anyone who wanted to come over the border as American citizens, regardless of how they themselves even defined patriotism.
Or a person was elected as a bank guard but whose duties were changed to guarding a gay parade against conservative protesters.
Or one enlists in the Marines, but now, defending American from enemies now means threatening or using force against peaceful Americans due to them owning a registered handgun, or engaging in homeschooling, etc.
Davis obviously does not disagree with the terms of the job to which she was elected, which was to issue marriage licenses to people of opposite genders, not to men and monkey, or women and whales or men with men, which Kentucky law forbade.
Would you say that in any of these cases, esp. if jobs whose description can be so radically changed, that those who object should face unemployment?
I can see the say when what recently happened in NJ , in which judges are instructed to "instantly remove any jurors who display conscious or subconscious racist beliefs" (talk about subjectivity) will be applied to those who display subconscious aversions to homosexuality.
Your job performance can now, at least implicitly , be related to your degree of support for LGBT rights. Soon your company could require you to affirm racial equality, since your job requires you to be a team player, or but racial can now mean supporting LGBT rights,
OF COURSE!
Because CHRISTIANS ARE NO LONGER WELCOME as public servants in the US of A now, right?
Backlash is coming. You just wait. The Law of Unintended Consequences will never be denied.