[JimSEA]

There seems to me that a reasonable accommodation is being ignored for the sake of confrontation here. There are employed in the clerk’s office willing to issue licenses to gays and following the questionable law. If the clerk’s name is substituted for by the deputy’s name and the willing deputy issues the license there is no need to negate the religious objection of the first clerk.

[Karl Spooner]

If the clerk’s name is substituted for by the deputy’s name and the willing deputy issues the license there is no need to negate the religious objection of the first clerk.

I believe that when the judge called Kim back the 2nd time he wanted to know if she would authorize the deputy clerks to issue the gay licenses. I read that she refused to appear and her lawyer said that no she would not authorize them. So it appears that any marriage certificates issued herefore will not be valid. So it is now a charade.

[atc23]

There seems to me that a reasonable accommodation is being ignored for the sake of confrontation here. There are employed in the clerk’s office willing to issue licenses to gays and following the questionable law. If the clerk’s name is substituted for by the deputy’s name and the willing deputy issues the license there is no need to negate the religious objection of the first clerk.

This attitude is why we lose. Switch sides already why don't you.