Unless she can prove that the job description gives her the right to arbitrarily withold her signature because an applicant is homosexual, or black, or has only one eye, or walks funny, she ought to get herself into another line of work that doesn't offend her moral sensibilities.
I fully support her right to object.
But like the man said, you get paid to perform a given job, not to hold a moral position about the people involved. Best of luck to her.
When she was elected by the people in her community - implying she shared the community's values - at the time that she signed on for this position, the firm foundation of real marriage was already in existence. This is effectively changing her job description in the middle of her term. She wasn't elected to "marry" two men or two women.
Absolutely correct, dayglored!
Actually, in her shoes, I'd refuse my signature - and then tender my resignation. I think that that would be the only consistent action possible.
Regards,
Well I think what this woman is saying is that natural law supersedes man’s law and she is going to obey natural law. In that I completely agree with her. The state can pass all the laws it wants but the people will only willingly obey natural law NOT man’s law.
No different that forcing nurses to participate in abortions.
She ought to stay put and let the voters determine her fitness for the job.