> I think he makes that point because the legal argument is easier, not necessarily more valid.
I understand the conscientious objection however I think it is going to be very difficult to defend; she wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartiality, this was understood when the job was accepted. Far better, both tactically as well as more justifiably, is to reject the illegal order of the court which no one is bound to obey.
typo - impartiality s/b impartially
I agree with that, but this woman’s view is completely wrapped around the religious objection. Although it traditionally has been adjudicated with exceptions, like in the case of a pacifist in the military, there could be no such protections negotiated for a county clerk. So I see that quite clearly..
But, non the less they are currently negotiating a fix. What the defendant would agree to is to keep her name off the licenses for any objectionable marriage. That could be done by a assistant, however the statute she works under is not likely clear enough and the court is still playing hardball.
This tells me that there is no intention by the court at this time to mitigate anything and it wants to show it’s fangs.
In any case, her law team will use all of the available legal arguments. Not just the religious objection, which as you noted and others have as well, will most certainly take a great deal of time to argue and it has to cook for a while to tenderize, so to speak...