They did at the time she denied those citizens' their right for a legal marriage license at the time she refused to do her job. The lawsuit is based upon her actions at the time when it was part of her job. Changes in the law would not absolve her of having to pay for damages and costs she caused by not doing her job when she was required to do it for all legally requesting citizens.
Where I have difficulties in understanding the viewpoints of some people who believe that public employees should have the right to refuse to do their jobs, or alter the actions they are legally required to preform, based upon their own personal religious beliefs is do they feel that sort of thing should apply to every public sector employee, or do they have a limit to who it should apply? Do they hold those beliefs only for people who claim to be Christians? What about other religions?
If they believe such "religious freedoms" should be afforded to every public employee then what would they say if a cop is called to a domestic disturbance in which a wife is being assaulted by her husband because he caught her in bed with someone else and they are at the other guy's house when the cops are called? Should a cop who says he is deeply religious and his understanding about punishing women caught in adultery gives a husband free reign to do as he pleases, just walk away, again, based upon his own personal religious beliefs? If he is expected to uphold the laws, it would violate his own religious beliefs so wouldn't he deserve the same "religious protections" as Kim Davis? If not, what would make the cop less deserving of having his own religious rights being protected as any other public servant (public employee)? |
