Is there a difference

[Rvaughn]

In 2015 Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk Kimberly Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as a violation of her conscience or beliefs.

In 2017 Orlando prosecutor Aramis Ayala refuses to seek the capital punishment penalty as a violation of her conscience or beliefs.

In 2015 conservatives defended conscience and liberals advocated fulfilling the oath of office. In 2017 liberals defend conscience and liberals advocate fulfilling the oath of office.

Is there a difference -- in principle -- in these situations?

[KeithE]

[Rvaughn]

My first thought is that the area of accommodation is a problem where both sides have difficulty with it when it is against their beliefs and favor it when it agrees with them. I think making all efforts toward accommodation is the best route (or, as RFRA puts it, use the least restrictive means possible).

I understand your point, that prosecutorial discretion may chose the penalty that a person is tried for. But normally that would be a legal decision based on the facts of the case. Another difference I see in the cases is that Kimberly Davis was caught by a change in law. IIRC, she was elected county clerk before the Supreme Court ruling. Accommodation at least could have let her serve out her term without going after her head. On the other hand, Aramis Ayala was elected knowing the laws of Florida and that she would not support/enforce capital punishment. Assuming she was elected without revealing this fact (which I don't know for certain) then to that degree she defrauded the electorate. (So I'm not against accommodating Ayala, but think she should have been up front about her position -- again, assuming she was not.)

[KeithE]

[Rvaughn]

Have to use that qualifier a lot, since I can't often recall whether I recall correctly!