Too bad leftists don't feel bound by the same standard of conduct. Look at how the current occupant of the White House circumvents or violates the law and the Constitution with impunity, often with executive orders or through his true believers in government like the subversives in the so-called Dept. of Justice. Where's the outcry over that?

Not quite sure what Robert's comments about leftists and subversives has to do with this, but it's simple:

If your brand of magic woo-woo brings your woo-woo principles into conflict with your job under the law, the problem - and the solution - is entirely yours.

The great thing about religious freedom is being free to follow your beliefs as long as you don't impose them on others.

Kevin,

That is exactly Robert's point. Obama's magic woo-woo has severely affected his job. The same can be said of Holder and a pile of people at the IRS.

The issue is some groups are told to keep their magic woo-woo to themselves. And other groups spread it around liberally.

Absolute blanket statements like "when acting as public officials, they are not free to apply personal convictions, religious or other, in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices" always bother me. No exceptions seem be allowed for when one's official duties are truly morally repellent.

Being an official for a totalitarian government comes to mind e.g., the Soviets, the Nazis, etc.). Extreme examples, yes. And, no, I'm not comparing gay marriage to the Nazis.

We rightly celebrate people like Chiune Sugihara, Raoul Wallenberg, and Oskar Schindler who went beyond the bounds of their official duties, some even violating the express rules of their positions, to do what was morally right. And, while Kim Davis may see herself in the same vein, she is not.

Nonetheless, blanket statements like Oaks' don't always apply. The trick is knowing when one's moral duties outweigh one's official duties and when they do not.

This is so hard to figure out - and I don't know why.

Government MUST be involved in the production of offspring and their adoption, because they operate the courts, which determines if the rights of the underaged are protected and the laws of inheritance are followed.

To this end, justices of the peace, notaries public, county clerks, ship captains, ordained ministers of serveal colors and stripes and judges can declare to the State that one is "married", and then the IRS will believe you - to the point that you must file county papers about divorce to file differently.

So, now, we recognize that the production of offspring is NOT the sole reason to be married; there are a lot of obstacles to life in which a declared intimate partner is an asset.

OK. Great!

Religion, aside from sending a certificate to the State, does NOT have to endorse a marriage. Can you show me a Catholic church being forced to perform a Jewish service? Greek orthodox? Probably not - and they shouldn't have to. See above for the alternatives.

Want to be married? Go ahead. Telling the State just removes most of the obstacles you WILL face when, not if, feces hits your impeller.

Jobs are difficult to come by, but if you are unhappy with your gov't position on a moral basis, my suggestion is to:

+ challenge it reasonably within the bounds of your job responsibility and legal authority (which Davis stepped outside of)
+ resign
+ lobby executive and legislative branch
+ raise awareness with press
+ work with lawyers to challenge laws in court appropriately

Davis did none of that, so it's a pretty far cry from a totalitarian gov't.

Re: the mormons, isn't what they said, and good on them, just giving Caesar his due?

Re: the flight attendant, I guess I'd say it's up to the airline to show that accommodating the non-alcohol serving flight attendant is disruptive. Maybe it's costly as they need another flight attendant. Maybe it delays food service and cleanup too much.

If they can't show it's disruptive or expensive, and I think it should be easy to show that, well maybe it's not that big a deal.

" Obama's magic woo-woo has severely affected his job. "

Except that Obama doesn't say crap like "My Christian / Muslim / Hindu / Whatever faith means I don't have to follow any laws I don't like."

And thus Ben & Co. leap from the pier and miss the boat again. Sploosh.

"Except that Obama doesn't say crap like "My Christian / Muslim / Hindu / Whatever faith means I don't have to follow any laws I don't like."

Nope, he just imposes it by fiat. Just imposes it. Yeah, so that makes it all good as far as you are concerned, right Gog?

That the Mormons have made such a statement does not really surprise me; despite their opposition the gay marriage; despite the "evil" brush with which the MSM has painted them.

The way I see it; given the history of persecution against Mormons in the US I would think they would most certainly understand the problems if some government official decided that anybody (including Mormons) were not "in God's view" entitled to their legal rights.

What bigots like Davis do not understand is that what she is asking for/claiming could also be used against her. What if a clerk decided that someone who is divorced or has children out of wedlock should not be given a marriage license? Kim Davis would have failed that test. (although, I'm sure that thought never entered her mind as it was most likely her own mother who issued her previous marriage licenses)

Thaaats what those christians are screwing up? Thanks Gog. I'll let people know they should just stop justifying their actions. Like Nike says, just do it. Never admit to why you are doing it. Just do it. Legal, illegal, moral, immoral, heck who knows. Just do it and then sick the spin doctors on them.

Except that Obama doesn't say crap like "My Christian / Muslim / Hindu / Whatever faith means I don't have to follow any laws I don't like. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 24, 2015 7:18 PM

He imposes it because his belief system (social justice, environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc.) says the desired outcome by any means is morally superior to a compromise solution under compliance with a system of laws (a system of laws that he swore to uphold).

And that's not any different than doing it because his "Christian / Muslim / Hindu / Whatever faith" compels him.

"Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square," Elder Oaks said. "But when acting as public officials, they are not free to apply personal convictions, religious or other, in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government."

He paused, and then added, "Y'know, I used to be an acorn."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/