Because data beats no data (in my opinion), here is a reasoned article by Eugene Volokh on the state of the law in the United States on the subject of religious accommodation with special attention to cases in the news recently.
1. Kim Davis is different from many of the other cases cited in that as an elected official, she's seeking to impose her view of God's will on others, not just to avoid doing things which her religion prohibits. She's simply required to confirm the validity of a legal transaction, not to endorse or facilitate it. If she were required to conduct wedding ceremonies, that might be a different matter.
2. It seriously bothers me when anyone is sent to jail for a work stoppage. I believe there was another Volokh piece that showed that the judge's options were limited; she can't be fired, of course. Still, it's an ugly thing and has given her supporters a sense of righteous anger.
I assume that the lawyer is correct on the finer points of the law. I believe that most people on both sides of the issue don't really care about the finer points of the law.
As a rabid secularist, I do not believe that claiming a religious belief should allow someone to do something otherwise illegal. The Constitutional protection of religion should mean that you can't pass a law to suppress a particular religion (or that a law that is found to have only that purpose is otherwise invalid), but if we have a law with a good reason, it should apply equally to everyone. And I certainly don't believe that asserting that a belief is a religious conviction justifies enforcing that belief on others. (Society does impose beliefs on others -- that's the nature of law. I just don't think that because someone identifies a belief as a religious one is a proper consideration for or against imposing it.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-09-07 09:48 am (UTC)1. Kim Davis is different from many of the other cases cited in that as an elected official, she's seeking to impose her view of God's will on others, not just to avoid doing things which her religion prohibits. She's simply required to confirm the validity of a legal transaction, not to endorse or facilitate it. If she were required to conduct wedding ceremonies, that might be a different matter.
2. It seriously bothers me when anyone is sent to jail for a work stoppage. I believe there was another Volokh piece that showed that the judge's options were limited; she can't be fired, of course. Still, it's an ugly thing and has given her supporters a sense of righteous anger.
no subject
Date: 2015-09-07 06:26 pm (UTC)As a rabid secularist, I do not believe that claiming a religious belief should allow someone to do something otherwise illegal. The Constitutional protection of religion should mean that you can't pass a law to suppress a particular religion (or that a law that is found to have only that purpose is otherwise invalid), but if we have a law with a good reason, it should apply equally to everyone. And I certainly don't believe that asserting that a belief is a religious conviction justifies enforcing that belief on others. (Society does impose beliefs on others -- that's the nature of law. I just don't think that because someone identifies a belief as a religious one is a proper consideration for or against imposing it.)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-08 12:48 am (UTC)On a quick scan, none of the examples referred to imginary Biblical injunctions.