Francis A. Avila Jr.: Bee wrong, Davis has legal foundation for her actions

The Bee’s devotion to the rule of law would be more believable if it had any clue about the applicable law. Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers must exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules as long as it does not create an “undue hardship.” Contrary to The Bee’s assertion that if Kim Davis did not like the job requirements “she could have resigned,” the courts have consistently rejected this coercive interpretation. Additionally, the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, both federal and Kentucky’s version, requires that Davis’s religious objections be accommodated.

If Davis believes it is wrong to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do so would burden her religious beliefs enough to trigger Kentucky’s RFRA. Eugene Volokh, law professor at UCLA, says if Davis pursues her appeal, “she would probably prevail.”

There are solutions available to all parties. However, they do not advance what the same-sex activists and their chorus of editorial enablers really want, which is forcing Davis and everyone like her to bend to the new orthodoxy imposed by the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of Davis’s dissent is inseparable from the illegitimacy of the ruling that made it necessary.

This story was originally published September 21, 2015 at 12:50 PM with the headline "Francis A. Avila Jr.: Bee wrong, Davis has legal foundation for her actions."