Actually that wasn't the point. Go back and read the comments. People were saying she should be fired period, not because she refused a reasonable accommodation.
Sadly, she can't be fired - although she ought to be because she's refusing to do her job and follow the law. If she had any integrity, she'd resign her office. But she has no integrity which is why she refuses to do her job knowing that she can't be fired from her cushy job. She really ought to be removed by the legislature, although there's practically no chance of that happening, because they are likely to miss the forest for the trees, by thinking this has something to do with freedom of religion as opposed to the rule of law.
Actually, I'm right.
You forgot to click your heel three times Dorothy.
I frankly don't care whether you have a different viewpoint. Yes, the number couples involved matters. If it is two couples over the course of year, then accommodating her is much simpler. It would likely not cost her employer anything. If a significant number of licenses involved gay couples and her employer had to hire an additional employee to accommodate her, then that would not be reasonable. So, once again, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
It's not that I have a different viewpoint. It's not even that the text of Title VII is crystal clear. It's that there's actual case law that addresses what "reasonable accomodation" means and how to go about deciding whether a particular request is reasonable. And under the existing case law, whether you like that fact or not, the number of couples affected by her decision is not relevant.
She's not really asking for an accommodation. She's asking that she and her entire office be allowed not to follow a court order. That's wrong.
No, you have it all wrong. She asked, as a Title VII accomodation, to have her name stricken from the forms (according to
link her lawyer said that she "
would agree to record licenses issued by the clerk’s office, rather than in the name of the clerk, herself.") but that would require convening the legislature, changing the law and then designing, printing and distributing new forms to all the clerks. The accomodation she requested would take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money and that makes it
prima facie unreasonable under Title VII and existing case law.
But, of course... you're right. Despite having admitted to not knowing a lot about the case, despite refusing to read case law that's on point and refutes statements you made and despite generally having a penchant for talking out of an orifice other than your mouth.
