Is there no way to accommodate the conscience of people like Kim Davis?

It goes without saying, as many conservative commentators have argued (see here, here, and here), that liberals who wax sanctimoniously about the “rule of law” in condemning Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis for illegally refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, are being laughably inconsistent. The left cheered San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. They defend “sanctuary cities” that defy federal immigration law and local officials who refuse to comply with federal drug laws. In short, they are demonstrable hypocrites.

But, beyond agreement on this collateral point, social and religious conservatives are divided on Davis. Many, like Rod Dreher, have declined to climb on her bandwagon, while others, including David French and Maggie Gallagher, have rallied to her support, albeit with some apparent qualms. For example, Gallagher (a friend for whom I have great respect) has acknowledged that, for better or worse, in the wake of Obergefell same-sex couples cannot be denied licenses, but has argued that an accommodation should somehow be made for Davis – analogizing her situation to that of a prison doctor with religious objections to capital punishment who is required to perform lethal injection.

I would agree, and would argue that such an accommodation would probably be required by both Kentucky’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act (which require “reasonable accommodation” of an employee’s religious practices if it doesn't cause the employer undue hardship). If Davis were an employee in a large County Clerk’s office – so that if a gay couple walked in while she was on marriage license duty - she could easily swap tasks with another employee

But, but, but the only laws that are important to this Admin and it’s sheeple are the ones that the Dems agree with. Any law that a Dem disagrees with is ‘bad law’ and can be broken. I have had this argument with Leftist relatives. I tell them ‘if you don’t like a law, then go through the proper channels to change it’. Crickets.....they don’t think it is a bad thing to break a ‘bad law’.

Put it into law. No law should make criminals of 50% of the population.

That's what I keep saying. Some accommodation must be made, or else... no Christian is going to be able to work in a BUNCH of government jobs.

What Kim is doing is, forcing the issue. Governments can move surprisingly quickly, when they WANT to. Remember the $1 TRILLION TARP bill that got passed in 24 hours?

But, all too often... someone has to apply some heat to get them to move. That is exactly what Kim Davis is doing.

NOT accommodating anyone with a different point of view is the ultimate goal! I realized this when watching the news last night and a gay man who was just married said through tears “now I feel like a person!”

So, we have the concept, almost universally found among all cultures and times, that the state should recognize, encourage and support family formation. And that, all other things being equal, a child is best raised by its biological parents. And that marriage between a man and a woman usefully channels behavior into supporting future generations.

All of this, according the US supreme court, is a violation of the Constitution. We must allow the union of two men or two women as a “marriage” to preserve the “dignity” of these people.

It’s a stamp of approval that they want. Accommodation? no way. The entire purpose is to delegitimize and crush any opposition.

Interesting how within ten weeks of the court decision a Christian was jailed in America. No, there’s more to it than that. But this may be the tip of the iceberg.

You can accommodate when you are one of many. If she was a deputy clerk, she could be excused from duties she has a moral objection to. Some other deputy could do them.

But she’s not a deputy. She is head of the office. The office has to do this. She must exercise her power in order to see that it is done.

There is no way to accommodate her objections with her job responsibilities. She is responsible for every license that comes out of her office.

RE: There is no way to accommodate her objections with her job responsibilities.

There is a way — PASS A LAW EXEMPTING PEOPLE LIKE HER and transferring the responsibility to people who have no religious objections.

North Carolina already passed such a law, what’s stopping Kentucky from doing the same?

She is responsible for every license that comes out of her office. . . .There is no way to accommodate her objections with her job responsibilities

. . . not because she got herself elected to a job she conscientiously objected to fulfilling, but because five judges in Washington decided - over the objections of four others - that the job she got herself elected to entailed behavior she considered obscene.
Congress should pass a law overriding the SCOTUS ruling - and stipulating
Article III Section 2 : the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
that it is not reviewable by SCOTUS.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.