She isn't a government employee, and the term "official" isn't superfluous.
Kim Davis wasn't hired to do a job; she stood for election and won.
She is a government employee:
Generally, any individual who serves as a public official is an employee of the government for whom he or she serves. Therefore, the government entity is responsible for withholding and paying Federal income tax, social security and Medicare taxes, and issuing Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, to a public official.
http://www.irs.gov/Government-Entit...sification-of-Elected-and-Appointed-Officials
She is an elected official. Her income tax might be withheld through the same means as that of a government employee, but her position within the government is fundamentally different from that of a person hired to do a job.
She was not hired. She was elected. She was not required to agree to terms of employment. She took an Oath of Office. That Oath was her pledge to fulfill the duties of her office to the best of her ability, and there is no such thing as an elected official in this country who gets to pick and choose which of his or her official duties he or she will perform.
She is an employee. Did I not tutor you sufficiently?
You call that tutoring? Don't quit your day job.
I said "the first amendment exists to protect everyone's right to express belief and exercise religion. She is a government employee (an "official" or "officer" being a superfluous term)." So yes, her being "an official" is superfluous and irrelevant to her right, as an employee, to the first amendment rights of expression and religion. Why does that vex you?
She has rights of expression under the first amendment as a citizen. But she does not have the right to violate her Oath of Office as the duly elected and sworn County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. And she does not have the right to require the official actions of the County Clerk's office conform to her religious practices.
However, I would be most amused if you alert other folks "standing for office" that they don't have free speech and religion rights if one of them wins: like Hillary, Donald, and Mr. Huckabee.
Ah, I think I see the problem.
You don't see the difference between a citizen acting as a citizen, and a citizen who is also an elected official acting in an official capacity. That or else you don't see a difference between being free to hold and express opinions and being free to act on them by way of wielding government authority over others and forcing them to conform to your religious practices.
So I suppose you think a state's Governor can order the DMV to no longer issue driver's licenses to women, a County Clerk can require men applying for a marriage license to have beards, and the head of the Department of Fish and Game can refuse to give hunting licenses to people who haven't made a pilgrimage to the Temple of Artemis, because of their first amendment rights.
She wasn't required to sign an agreement to abide by office policies or face possible termination of employment; she took an Oath of Office, specifically this one:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
<link>
She cannot be fired. She can only be removed from office through an act of the Kentucky legislature or by failing to win re-election.
So what? How she becomes an employee, through election or appointment, or how she loses her job does not change her first amendment rights.
How she became part of the government does not change any of the rights she has as a citizen. But her rights do not include a right to violate her Oath of Office. If she thinks she has that right under the first amendment, that just goes to show how ignorant she is.
As an aside, I don't see much point in quoting the oath. She believes she is following the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Constitution, and Kentucky law. In current Kentucky law, marriage is only between a man and a woman AND certifying a same sex marriage is punishable.
She never said that. That line of reasoning came from someone else entirely. Kim Davis plainly stated she would not issue marriage licenses because she was following "God's law". Any other position isn't hers.
She has the power to certify that an applicant has met the legal requirements to conduct certain business and enter into certain legal agreements in Rowan County. She represents the government, and in some ways she is the government.
When she acts in that capacity, she is an approving authority - just as is the President of the United States when he/she signs a bill.
So what? They don't lose their first amendment rights. (Perhaps you don't understand the first amendment).
and all government employees have the right of free speech, as long as such speech is to address public-political issues (e.g. an employee is not free to bad mouth his employer or use speech to create a hostile work environment). The denial of services of Rowan County residents is not a violation of the first amendment (people can complain all they like about her closure of marriage licences), it was a violation of a lawful requirement of her job. It may also have been illegal discrimination under the color of claimed equal treatment (although I find this argument weaker).
None the less, as an employee, under State law, she is entitled to protection of her freedom of conscience and entitled to religious accommodation (if it is not unduly burdensome or harmful to her office's mission). IF she were a federal employee (official), then she would be entitled to the same under federal law.
Kim Davis, citizen, is protected in the same way and to the same degree any other citizen is protected. But the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky does not have the right or legal authority to refuse to carry out the duties of his/her office. No elected official has that right.
Well, they do have that right under limited circumstances. They can quit, and they can refuse some duties when, under the law, it is permitted. They also have the right to refuse to execute unlawful acts, without fear of removal or punishment. I support same-sex civil unions but she happens to be correct.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Yes, she can resign her office. The law allows that. If the law allows her to decline to perform a specific duty, she can do that, too. And she is required by her Oath to refrain from doing something illegal. So all three of your suggestions are in compliance with her Oath of Office.
As long as she holds that office, she is bound by law to fulfill her Oath to perform her official duties. If she can't do that in good conscience, then she has a choice to make between her conscience and her paycheck.
ETA: I'm in favor of reasonable accommodations for employees, but I suspect my definition of reasonable might be different from yours. But when it comes to elected office, I don't believe in changing the official duties to suit the office holderl.
The official duties of the County Clerk do not and should not change depending on who holds the office. If the Clerk's duty is to certify when two people meet the legal requirements for marriage, then she has to certify it no matter how she feels about the people themselves.
