Kim Davis is Not a Martyr for Religious Liberty. She’s a Tool of Religious Right Hysteria.

Cultural Commentary 4 Minutes

The plight of Kim Davis has taken America by storm this week.

kimdavisThe Kentucky county clerk’s steadfast refusal to carry out her job, followed by her imprisonment for contempt of court, is the stuff Kirk Cameron and Kevin Sorbo movies are made of. Whether you think her a martyr or a bigot, you have to admit: this is dramatic stuff, especially for the apocalyptic crowd.

I’ve read two takes on the situation this week that I really enjoyed, and that I want to riff off of a little bit.

Over at Religion Dispatches, Sarah Posner is as usual a refreshing source of common sense and clarity, by cutting through the rhetoric and getting to the heart of the situation:

Religious freedom, of course, has long been seen as the hot 2016 culture war issue, so it’s not surprising to see some of the candidates line up to support Davis. Religious freedom is a new litmus test on the right; of course abortion is still there, but now religious liberty is the proxy for opposition to marriage equality.

But if you listen to what Davis is saying, her real argument is that God’s authority trumps that of the courts (a truly odd statement for someone who is employed by a court), not that her religious liberty is under siege.

And over at Patheos, Brandan Robertson keeps religious liberty in the mix, but explains how Kim Davis is actually undermining freedom of religious expression:

Kim Davis posed a great threat to the religious liberties of our nation by refusing to carry out her duties as an agent of the state, issuing marriage licenses to all couples, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. Davis forced her Christian faith on the people of Rowan County, and violated their right to be able to receive equal treatment from the government, regardless of their sexuality, race, religion, or values. If Davis was able to continue serving as the county clerk, she could, in theory, continue to refuse to grant marriages licenses or provide services to everyone she disagrees with, which would, in effect, completely dissolve the religious freedoms of the people in her county.

I think together, these two takes on Kim Davis make such an important point. Davis is not some private citizen made a martyr by a rampaging federal government intent on stamping out Christianity. Kim Davis is a state employee, an agent of the government, tasked with carrying out the duties of that government. When she goes to work, like it or not, she has a duty to check her Christianity at the door and do her government job.

Our government is one that makes no special priveleges for, or discriminates against, any religion. By refusing to do her job on religious grounds, Davis is discriminating on behalf of the government she represents against the citizens who have a right to equal treatment under the law, the right to receive a marriage license from the state.

Kim Davis has no right to her government job. If she doesn’t want to do it, she can step down. If she is more interested in working for what she see’s as “God’s law” then she should go work for a church (though, knowing what kind of church she likely comes from, they probably wouldn’t let her.) Nor is she some sort of brave martyr. She is breaking the law, as upheld by the Supreme Court just over two months ago. She is refusing the serve the citizens of Rowan County, Kentucky fairly and equally. She is acting as an agent of religious discrimination, instead of a beacon of religious liberty.

The sad thing about this is, Kim Davis is merely a tool of the religious right. Her jailing will last long enough for it to play well with right wing email appeals for money to fight secular liberalism. Folks like Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson and televangelists everywhere care little for the plight of Davis outside of her use as a fundraising tool. I’m sure she will make the rounds of speaking and interviews with all the usual suspects after this, but her fame is temporary.

She’s the perfect stand-in for the religious liberty fight in that sense. The religious fears and concerns of white middle America have become fodder for raising money for right wing politicians and opinion leaders who actually can do very little for those they are taking money from. The actual contours and ideas of such a complicated idea hold little appeal for them, and thus they will never actually enact policy that could actually do anything, as 1) religious liberty is a real non-issue, and 2) to do so would eliminate it as a fundraising tool. The legislating options around this are nonexistent; instead, these guys raise money and then govern in a way that devastates places like Rowan Co, Kentucky economically.

So, when Kim Davis resigns and goes home finally, she will be forgotten. She will go back to her life, and Mike Huckabee will go back to New Iowa or New Hampshire or wherever the next “Crisis” pops up. Religious freedom will still be assured in America, but right wing politicians will continue to use things like this to rake in the cash on false pretenses.

As Christians, we should be ashamed that this is what is being allowed to be the face of our faith in America right now. It should outrage us that those we consider “Religious leaders” are more concerned with fear mongering and raising money than spending time on real injustices in America. It’s stuff like this that is at the root of the rapid decline of self-professed Christians as detailed in the Pew Report this summer.

This is not the face of a loving, compassion filled, merciful faith. This is small-mindedness, cruelty, and greed masquerading as religion. It’s infuriating, but it’s what we have come to expect from mainstream American Christianity.

Published by Justin DaMetz

Father of Julian and Evelyn, Husband of Tabitha, Christian theologian, writer, 5th grade teacher, book addict, displaced Middle-Earth resident

Published

176 thoughts on “Kim Davis is Not a Martyr for Religious Liberty. She’s a Tool of Religious Right Hysteria.”

  1. I have just a little niggle with the phrase “check her Christianity at the door.” I doubt you meant that she should suspend her beliefs when she took her job – but just to be clear let me say that at any time ANY of us feels the requirements of our job conflict with our religious beliefs to the extent that we must choose between them – then we should make that choice, not think we can shoehorn one into the other. In Mrs. Davis’ case, if she cannot carry out her government job according the the law of the land then she should give up that job.

    Of course, had she just done that she would not have made quite so much of a stir beyond her own circle. As you say, she has been turned into a Tool.

    Liked by 9 people

    Reply

    2. I think Justin meant exactly what he wrote and he is correct. That is the meaning of the “separation of Church and State.”

      When USA people have private sector jobs, they may request and must be granted “reasonable accommodations” for their religious practices and beliefs, due to the Equal Opportunity Employment Act which prohibits discrimination based on religion. Hospital doctors who practice Orthodox Judaism, for example, cannot be forced to work on Saturdays, and any of them are allowed to trade those shifts with those who are fine with working on Saturdays. The traded shifts have to be made up, however, so that all doctors work the requisite number of hours.

      But the EOEA does not allow any employee to force their employer to redefine a job to accommodate their beliefs, let alone the laws of the nation.

      If it did, we’d have more like this ridiculous situation: There is a recently-converted-to-Islam flight attendant who is refusing to serve alcohol to passengers because she claims that this job duty now violates her religious beliefs. First of all, she is incorrect in that claim, because there is no edict not to serve alcohol to others, only not to consume it themselves for practitioners of Islam. Second, she already had the job when she chose to convert to this religion, so since she wanted to convert and the job only seems to conflict with her sense of her religion since her conversion, she must do her duties as assigned or resign.

      Kim Davis must do her job or resign. Simple.

      Best to you, Justin. Thanks for your post.

      Liked by 10 people

      Reply

      1. I believe you have to upgrade your sense of logic and theory and correct your understand of what is and what is not an Islamic edict. There are degrees of piety in Islam in which no one has the right to judge. What I mean that in true essence the flight attendant would not take the job as a flight attendant knowing that the Airline serves alcohol. She would, in theory, look for a Job at an airline that does not serve alcohol. This train of logic can even be applied to Muslim passengers, they should opt to fly in an airline that does not serve alcohol. Perhaps airlines like Pakistan Airlines or some of the Gulf Countries have airlines that do not serve alcohol. However if you do not live in those countries and are perhaps a Muslim american (note that mulism came first), what are your options? Moreover, few Muslimas (female Muslims) who are deep in their faith would actually wear the contemporary flight attendant uniform – skirt does not fall till the heel and somewhat tight on the skin -. So what are we really talking about?

        We are talking about someone who probably lives in the western world and is enjoying to so called freedoms of speech and religion. Is this truly the case? A coin has two sides. You can either appreciate the fact that she is willing to be part of your society and willing to adapt and sacrifice certain elements of her religion for a job and perhaps a career to ultimately serve you and because she actually believed in her society that said she had certain freedoms that everyone apparently fought for. Or she could find another job as you put it.
        When the Phelps Family are asked if they care about peoples emotions or feelings they verbally respond with the middle finger. And your comment might as well resonate with their thinking, the ultimate expression of an ignoramus bigot. You fail to seek balance and lack compassion. This notions of the post and comments are of religious freedom. So either we are unaware of what it means, what it entails, and how it is supposed to be apply. To adhere to simple mideval concepts like “separation of Church and State” is just, retarded. You probably forgot that most of the laws in the US-of-A are based on the bible.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I get what you’re trying to express… but you’re wrong. The separation of church and state is not a mideval concept. If that were the case than so many kinds would not have wrest control of the church in their time, would they have? You’re placing an inherent value on religion that shouldn’t exist. If the laws of the US were really based on Christianity (They’re not) then so too would they be based on Judaism… and Muslim… and even the Pagani that Christianity pretends to revile. Because that is where Christianity pulled their belief system from so long ago.

        What you propose is not an “upgrade” of logic and theory but instead an enormous step backwards in our society.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. @Casual Procrastinator ::nice try but you still need to finish school. Separtion of Church and State revolves around the concept of the Church having more political power than the state. True when the Vatican was the ultimate authority or the likes of King James, and his bible. You must be mideval if you think this is what the world is about now. And let us not forget your statement “inherent value on religion that shouldnt exist”. Aside from the obvious, such as who are you to say what shouldnt and should exist, you must have no idea what religion means. Just because someone does not accept or someone neglects a higher being does not mean that person does not have religion, because ultimately in the end that persons thoughts and construct of reality perpetuated by their actions becomes their own religion, regardless if they are or not aware of it. When I WAS a catholic there was no homosexula catholics, apparently now there are. did you see how that works homsexual catholics, kind of like Muslim Americans. You think the Muslims in America lead a life that is exactly the same as Muslim Arabs? if you scroll down further you would have read another post, in which the times calls for Muslims to overview muslim affairs, transgenders to overview trasngender affairs, because labeling each other as human is no longer enough. you might have arms and legs and consider yourself to be a human but I may see you as not a human, perhaps an evolved monkey. Last but not least, when I claimed “she should upgrade her sense of logic and theory” i was explicitly referring to her knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence.

        Like

      5. I was talking with my boyfriend about this issue and remembered a coworker I once had at a health food store. She was vegan and uncomfortable unpacking, pricing and otherwise handling meat products. She had many deeply held convictions about the ethics of consuming meat, and these were no less sincere for being formed from personal reflection, instead of religious education. So what did she do? When possible, she asked me to do these tasks for her, which I was happy to do. She helped me out with other tasks plenty of times. When I wasn’t available to help her out, she sucked it up and did her job. This seems like a very reasonable standard to me.
        I can’t help but feel like religion is actually being incredibly privileged in these situations. If she had refused to do her job on the basis of her secular veganism, and been fired for that, there wouldn’t even be a debate. She would be roundly condemned, except perhaps by a few extreme animal rights advocates who the rest of the country would ignore without a second thought. Kim Davis gets to be a martyr not because of the sincerity of her conviction, but because the basis of her conviction happens to be religious.
        I really wish we could give equal treatment to all moral convictions that don’t result in the harm of somebody else. Moral issues are tricky and people need to have the right to figure them out themselves. This means people need to both act in accordance with their conscience, and allow other people to act in accordance with theirs (again, with some reasonable exceptions to prevent others from being hurt).

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Justin,

    I find it interesting that you say, “breaking the law, as upheld by the Supreme Court just over two months ago.” The Supreme Court can’t and will never be able to create laws as the judicial branch. What they did was destroy a slew of laws without any means to replace them. A little different.

    What I find more disturbing is your argument that Kim should toss away her integrity and religion because of her job. As Mrs. Davis pointed out, she is always a Christian, no matter where she is. In this country, there has been a long history of attempting to balance the conscience of the individual with the requirement of the state. It’s why soldiers are allowed a conscientious objection discharge, after enlisting. And this works both ways. We rightfully condemn those who do evil under orders as much as we would condemn the ones who give evil orders. There is a time and a place to resist and to obey. For better or for worse, we don’t get shining button prompts that tell us what to do.

    After researching, I have learned that this situation (like most of history) involved a few turns. Kim David was rejecting all marriage certificates. The couple who sued her were only trying to fine her. At one point, Kim Davis attempted a compromise. So long as her name wasn’t on the certificate, she would do her duty. Her compromise was denied, and it was the judge’s decision to punish her with imprisonment as opposed to a fine. It’s interesting at how many different intersections this whole thing could’ve been avoided.

    But it wasn’t. Instead, we have this controversial incident. What bothers me the most about this article, is the condemnation and the lack of compassion. At no point it is suggested that Christians should be right to worry about their ability to express their faith in public. That this could indeed be an incident of religious intolerance. No, the Right is wrong and deserves to be spit upon with verbal bile.

    There are two links that were praised in this article. After reading them, I couldn’t help but notice the bias and found a more moderate article.

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/kim.davis.should.she.be.in.jail/64122.htm

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Well, that was embarrassing. Here’s the correct article. I originally was going to post both, but thought you might find the Christian Today edging a little close to the Right for your comfort. Oh well.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. I have a lot of compassion for Kim Davis, because I feel sad that her faith has led her, even after her own divorces, to be so lacking in compassion and mercy, while being so full of fear. There is no danger in this country to Christians’ ability to express their faith in public. I am a Christian, and I can certainly express myself and express my faith by using my faith to ground my decisions. But those are decisions that I make for ME. I have no right whatsoever to use my faith to make decisions for OTHER people who are not my dependents. Why is there no concern here, Sam, for the fact that Ms. Davis is taking her taxpayer-funded salary while not fulfilling the responsibilities that she is being paid to do, and was elected to do? Ms. Davis at any time could have decided to follow her conscience and stepped down from the job she could not, in good conscience, fulfill. Justin is right on target in what he writes in this article. Kim Davis is absolutely in the wrong. And her refusal to fulfill her obligations as an elected official to carry out the laws of the government she was elected to represent without discrimination against citizens she doesn’t agree with. Unfortunately, her religious leaders have led her to wrongfully believe that “homosexuality as abomination” is a “central teaching” of scripture and of Jesus when that is far from the truth. Jesus’ central teaching was to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In no way is she doing either, because she is discriminating against God’s children.

      Liked by 9 people

      Reply

      1. Sheri,

        Part of loving God with all of your heart means embracing holiness and fighting sin. And God has declared homosexuality a sin.

        With the theological foundation set up, let’s take a look at her behavior. She did not discriminate since she denied everyone a marriage license. She sought a compromise to bring about a happy ending but was denied. I went the extra mile and checked out her attitude and tone when dealing with the issue when the cameras were brought to the office. While annoyed, she maintains her professionalism and does not attack anyone, merely trying to convince them to allow work to be continued.

        After reviewing the evidence, I can say with confidence that Kim Davis is doing an excellent job of showing Christlike behavior, even if one disagrees with aspects of her Christianity.

        A couple of minor notes. Bringing up her divorces is a red herring. It’s already been explained that occurred before she became a Christian and thus happened when she had a different belief system. It doesn’t apply here.

        She was elected to the position and had no desire to leave her job. Again, she was trying to find a compromise that would allow her to serve without issue and without violating her faith. As I said earlier, this country has a history of accommodating beliefs to a certain point.To simply say that she should’ve stepped down or tossed aside her Christianity at the door, ignores that history.

        Finally, why on earth would you declare that she has no right to force her beliefs on anyone? There are two issues with this line of thinking. One, the practical. She isn’t trying to force anyone to become a Christian or to change their thoughts on same-sex marriage. She is trying to preserve her integrity while serving. One would think that multiculturalism would be applicable here.

        Two, the principle.Sheri, I apologize, but I’m going to be blunt. As of right now, you are guilty of forcing your beliefs on me. You have decided to manipulate me to align my thinking closer to yours through logic and appeals to emotion. Now, this isn’t automatically a bad thing. As social creatures, humans are constantly influencing each other, whether consciously or subconsciously. What the issue is that you declare it is a sin to force one’s beliefs on another. Force here being defined as any overt attempt to shift another’s behavior, including verbal. This position is hypocritical.

        So, by all means, continue to try to persuade me. That’s why I’m here, specifically so I’m hearing from a different perspective than I’m used to. But don’t tell me it’s always wrong to stand up for one’s own conscience if it happens to affect others. That position renders common debate a sin, and the last thing the world needs are fewer attempts to understand the other side.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. Sam, first of all God has not “declared” homosexuality to be a sin. The writers of scripture are many and varied, and some of them speak of certain acts as ‘unclean’ or ‘abhorrent.’ It is far from clear that what they were referring to is homosexuality as we know it today. The bible is a book that on one hand, deems that the ‘sin’ of Ham seeing his father Noah naked is worthy of being cursed for generations, while, on the other hand, Lot – who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd of men in Sodom to be gang raped and who later has incestuous relations with them (of course, under the patriarchal guise of being ‘seduced’ by his ‘evil’ daughters), is always referred to as righteous. If that’s ‘righteous’ fatherly behavior according to the bible, then the bible is not a book that we can take as authoritative in matters of sexual morality. Same applies for where the bible has no reprimand for rape. As well, many biblical scholars see the ‘sin’ of Sodom to be a lack of hospitality to the visiting strangers, and in fact, the bible itself says that is what Sodom’s sin was, so that ‘clobber text’ has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘homosexuality’ as we know it today, as a relationship of love between two same-sex people. All of the other ‘clobber verses’ can be interpreted in various ways, and therefore are far from clear on this matter.

        Kim Davis did discriminate by not allowing all of the citizens of the county she represents to have equal access to marriage licenses, and she discriminated even further by forbidding her deputies to fulfill their duties in this matter as well.

        Bringing up her divorce(s) – as well as her adulterous behavior – is not a red herring, because although it occurred before she became a Christian, is SHOULD serve to make her more compassionate and more merciful, as Jesus always was, rather than being the one to throw the first stone at people who are homosexual – and, may I point out, created by God that way.

        The point is that it is impossible for her to serve her county in her current capacity AND be true to her faith, when her faith requires her to discriminate. If her version of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, and she wants to be true to that tenet of her belief system, then by all means she should resist having sexual relations with women, and certainly not marry one. But it is not in her purview to dictate to others what they can and cannot do in their own lives when marrying someone of the same sex is now completely legal in this country. She is not a whistleblower being asked to do things that are illegal.

        And Sam, I am pointing out MY beliefs, and MY perceptions of this case. I could care less if you change your perspective or not, I’m just pointing out another – valid and faith-filled – perspective. I am forcing NOTHING on you whatsoever. You can continue to live your life and your faith the way you see fit, as long as you don’t get in the way of me living my faith either. Have you ever thought about the fact that in denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples, Kim Davis is denying religious liberty to the Christian clergy persons who believe with all their hearts, in their deep love for God, that it is living out the gospel to marry those couples? How dare she get in the way of their expression of faith!

        Liked by 6 people

      5. Sheri,

        “Lot… and who later has incestuous relations with them (of course, under the patriarchal guise of being ‘seduced’ by his ‘evil’ daughters)

        Let’s stop right here before any more biblical exegesis is done. I’m going to return to my training as a historian to clear this up. One, was there any archaeological biblical evidence that proves this new alternate narrative? (Like a newly found scroll piece.) Two, if no direct historical evidence, was any extra-biblical evidence found? (Example: the Dead Sea Scrolls or newly discovered Mesopotamian writings.) Three, if no physical evidence, did God directly reveal this to you? (Example: He spoke to you or gave you a vision of the Truth. Not acceptable are ‘inspired feelings’ or vague accusations about Patriarchal tones in the text.)

        If you’ve said no to all three of my questions, I have one last question: why should I trust your interpretation when you are re-writing history because of simple desire? It’s like claiming the movie Gladiator was a true story.

        Now, I understand the struggle to listen or read Bible stories or passages that make us squirm. All of us go through that at some point, but that’s no excuse to throw Truth out the window. I saw a couple of intriguing points in your other sentences, but I will not deal with those until this log has been taken care of.

        “and, may I point out, created by God that way.”

        You may not. God doesn’t create behavior. Homosexuality is a chosen behavior with genetics having a soft (as opposed to hard) impact. Aka, a person may have same-sex attractions, but that’s not hard-wired by genetics, that’s what the scientific evidence declares. That is also not touching upon theological disputes, but I’m going to leave it at the biological and the practical. Since we all have free will, God isn’t responsible for our behavior. We are.

        “And Sam, I am pointing out MY beliefs, and MY perceptions of this case. I could care less if you change your perspective or not, I’m just pointing out another – valid and faith-filled – perspective. I am forcing NOTHING on you whatsoever. You can continue to live your life and your faith the way you see fit, as long as you don’t get in the way of me living my faith either. Have you ever thought about the fact that in denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples, Kim Davis is denying religious liberty to the Christian clergy persons who believe with all their hearts, in their deep love for God, that it is living out the gospel to marry those couples? How dare she get in the way of their expression of faith!”

        Watch this. ‘Hundreds of Christian clergy declare homosexuality is a sin. How dare the Supreme Court support same-sex marriage! (Well, half of them.) How dare they get in the way of their expression of faith!’

        So, who’s wrong? Which party is more important since both are offended? I don’t like this particular argument because it ignores many other factors. So, feel free to ignore that previous paragraph as I ignore yours for that form of argument is ineffective. Despite thinking you are being neutral, your entire post is filled value-judgements and truth-claims against other people and my positions.

        If it helps, keep in mind, I’m using force at its most basic sense. We are both using the force of our arguments to try to convince the other. In this case, the strength and force of our logic. I’m more than okay with that. But, understand this, one truth the Buddhists have grasped is the interconnectedness of existence. Sheri, you and I don’t live in two little bubbles of reality. What you say and do, especially about political and moral matters, affects me and I affect you in the same way.

        The only way for you not to be affecting me is by being a hermit. I don’t think you want to be one, and I don’t want to wish that on you either. For one, I wouldn’t have the honor of debating you on this topic. For that, I thank you.

        Liked by 3 people

      6. Sheri,
        You are so wrong! Please stop calling yourself a Christian, because you do not know what you are talking about!!! You need to go back & study the Bible again…Homosexuality IS a Sin, Always has been, always will be!
        Stalwart Sam is correct, and he has enumerated the facts that the left wing media has conveniently omitted…Sam, you did a great job of telling the whole truth, Thank you! I do not need to repeat the facts that you have so eloquently posted for all to read! The Left, especially mr. Obama & his minions like to pick & choose which laws they like & disregard the ones that they don’t like, and they get a pass from the media and all the other lefties. Not a peep about the laws they break! Hillary, Lois Learner, Sandy Burger, and Obama himself are the ones that should be thrown in jail, for about 100 years each, with no parole!

        Stalwart Sam is right, Sheri and all you other lefties are soooo wrong!!!

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Dale,

        I have a couple of reactions to your comment. First, the negative. We don’t know how supporting homosexuality affects her salvation. This is one of those grey areas where I think it’s going to come down to how God sees it. Even as Christians, we aren’t immune from sin. Her salvation, ultimately, rests on the Resurrection. Finally, political incompetence, while very damaging, isn’t enough reason to throw those individuals in jail. (Clinton’s e-mails are a different issue.) Is Sandy Burger supposed to refer to Bernie Sanders?

        Now the positive. Thank you for the encouragement. It’s good to see that not everyone is unaware of the bias in most of the media these days.

        Like

      8. I was just saying that it seems crazy that they throw her in jail for such a minor issue, and the politicians I named (among others) have committed far worse offences and they are still scott free, with nary a mention about the infractions they committed! That is so hypocritical, just because she broke a PC “law”.The courts can not make laws, or add a new twist to an old law. THEY have violated their oath to the Constitution, yet nothing is happening to them…As you posted—
        >>>>This particular situation has an air of hypocrisy because in 2012, a LGBT judge named Tonya Parker was refusing to marry straight people because LGBT people weren’t being married. Since this was in 2012 and in Texas, the law and her own duties required that she marry straight people and not LGBT couples. She didn’t suffer any kind of legal reprimand, unlike Kim Davis.

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709

        For a more modern example, we have ‘sanctuary cities’, cities that ignore federal immigration laws because of strong beliefs on how illegal immigrants should be treated.<<<<

        You are right on, keep on speaking the truth……

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Sam, are you my new resident contrarian? 😉 haha I suppose I can live with that; at least you’re intelligent and articulate.

      The Supreme Court has a duty, established under Marbury v. Madison, to assess and rule on the Constitutionality of laws in this country. To change this would be overturning over 200 years of legal precedent and upending the entire American legal system. The Court absolutely has the duty to rule on the constitutionality of marriage laws, and they did so, and determined that such laws are unconstitutional. There is no need to legislate a “new law” here; that’s not at all what they did. All they did was rule that laws cannot be made that discriminate against a group of Americans. That is clearly within the bounds of their duties.

      I don’t believe Kim Davis needs to give up her religion. But she does have a duty to the people who elected her and the government she works for to do her job, to apply duties she has equally. She is not a court or a legislator; she doesn’t get to determine who the law does and doesn’t apply to that broadly; her duties in issuing marriage licenses are fairly narrow. She only gets to address the fitness of applicants within current law, which at this point, also includes gay couples.

      No one is asking her to go against her religion. No one is demanding she take part in a same-sex marriage. They are only asking her to do her job in issuing marriage licenses to qualified couples under the law. If she doesn’t feel right, she can have a deputy do it. The compromise you mention was her asking her name to be removed from the seal, but as the elected county clerk, that can’t happen. Her signature must be affixed. She is abusing the power of her position to discriminate against people who have a constitutional right to a marriage license. That is the definition of infringement of religious liberty.

      If she wants to spend her own time demonstrating against gay marriage and homosexuality, that is her right. But when she goes to work, she needs to do her job, and stop restricting the religious liberty and basic rights of others.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Justin,

        I’m here to make sure I don’t lock myself into a conservative echo chamber. The reason I’m still here is pretty much the same reasons you listed: while we don’t agree, you are definitely intelligent and articulate.

        I’m not disagreeing that the Supreme Court has a duty toward law. What I’m disagreeing with is their ability to create new laws. In this case, they struck down marriage amendments in a number of states, but this also left a vacuum of laws that would be needed to transition to the new definition of marriage. Because, before this point, marriage, in both the secular and religious sense, was understood to occur only between a man and a woman. A compromise point were the civil unions for homosexuals, which means that we, as a nation, had a host of laws missing that would apply to the new definition, especially tax codes. So, your interpretation of simply freeing current laws to affect everyone is inaccurate. Especially in states that had civil unions, there are law codes that need to be specifically modified or introduced to accommodate the new definition. In other words, there are states that now need new legislation that can’t be done by the Supreme Court.

        “No one is demanding she take part in a same-sex marriage.” Except affixing her signature is making her a part of the process of same-sex marriage, which she does not agree with. Again, I think she’s in the right due to the manner in which she was trying to resolve her moral quandary, but overall I’m a moderate on the issue. If Judge Tonya Parker can deny and lecture straight couples when same-sex marriage was illegal without legal repercussion, then Clerk Kim Davis should not have been penalized or taken to court as well. They are both government officials refusing to enact one duty among many.

        And it is this double standard that disturbs me. Combined with the deceptive tactics utilized by the SSM movement, I’m not reassured by the direction we’re going now. Some people mistakenly comparing this to the Civil Rights movement, but, as a historian, I’m seeing more parallels to Roe v. Wade. If there’s any truth to that, it means as a nation we’re in for a rough couple of generations of cultural/societal struggle, at the very least. I can go on about the socio-cultural ramifications, but that’s beyond this (hopefully) minor incident with Kim Davis.

        Like

    4. The judge did the proper thing in jailing her and also dod hos job which is more than could be said for her. I hope he ups the ante if need be and give her a taste of prison life. Also why does the Kentucky legislation not impeach and remove her. If you or I refuse to do our jo
      b we would be fired immediately. She has no right regardless to tread on people’s rights.

      Like

      Reply

  3. I think it should be noted that there are 3,144 counties in the US, and Ms. Davis is the only clerk among them to deny citizens equal access to government services. Surely, there are a fair number of Christians among the other 3,143 county clerks, and we’ve heard nothing about them using their government office to enforce their religious beliefs on their counties. To my mind, Ms. Davis is an aberration in the extreme, and should be identified as such to keep her from smearing the rest of us.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Exactly. That’s one of the key points I’m trying to make here: I hate, as a Christian, that this women has become the face of our faith for so many people here and around the world. I believe in a Christianity exemplified by humility, love, mercy and radical, expansive acceptance and grace. Kim Davis has shown herself as the antithesis of Christianity as I experience and practice it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. I love this article, especially how certain people are hyping this up for fundraising and pew-filling purposes. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom already, these are just people looking to take advantage of others’ anxieties so they can pay for their homes and cars and even planes. I’m pretty sure the whole reason the Liberty Counsel is taking this job is because they get donations for taking up the case, and those donations keep the lights on and the partners in business.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      1. They’re in the same boats as faith healers and cult leaders. Maybe some of them have some sincere belief, but it’s wrapped up in greed and entitlement.

        On the bright side though, they’re running out of options. Latest news suggests the Liberty Counsel is getting desperate, filing appeals that sound weak to my ears and will probably sound weak to a judge. One law professor quoted in the article I read jokingly called it a Hail Mary pass. If it is, maybe this whole saga will end soon and we can all get on with our lives.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Let me see if I have the timeline straight.

    People flee Europe and start their own country to escape religious persecution.

    They agree to a set of rules that separates church and state and puts state first to provide a level playing field.

    A few centuries later, a portion of them decide that the persecution thing really works well as a marketing tool and power ploy as long as they’re not the ones being persecuted.

    The highest courts allow it in a baffling number of cases because many of the judges are from the “right” religion.

    The world laughs their ass off at the “freedom” being touted by said country.

    Atheists watch the whole thing, bemused at the “In God We Trust” still appearing on the currency, and wonder when the freedom part will kick in.

    Liked by 9 people

    Reply

      1. Oh No, Getit TogetherHannah- SailorDale can send NO ONE to hell! It is YOU that does not listen!!! You need to read the Bible for yourself. Then you would see that GOD does not wish ANY ONE to go to hell, but He (GOD) created this world, and made the rules, and even sent His own Son (Jesus) to pay the price for our sins! And He (GOD) even lets YOU CHOSE. You can follow His rules, OR disobey them, thus you send YOURSELF to hell, by not following His Rules, and accepting Jesus’ sacrifice for your sins….So, if anyone ends up in hell, it will be because they rejected Jesus as Lord & Savior! I (SailorDale) want you & everyone else to repent & accept Jesus as your Lord & Savior!!!

        Liked by 1 person

  7. I think Davis is the American Taliban. The “Religious Righties” have been inflitrating politics with God for over thirty years now–think Regan. Although I’m Catholic, and I do believe in many of the ideologies of my religion, they are MY ideologies and mine alone. I don’t care what others’ beliefs are. People like Davis and the Duggars and all those fund-a-Mental cases are no different that extreme islamists or any extremist in their beliefs. She uses her ideologies to disguise the hatred and bigotry that she has in her soul. Don’t get me started….here. read my interview with Satan instead. It’s more entertaining! http://atypical60.com/2015/08/23/my-interview-with-the-devil-josh-duggar-blames-satan-thats-what-he-said/

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. @ Catherine-
      Sorry pal, but there is NO comparison between Christianity and islam! And to compare the two in any way just shows your own ignorance of BOTH Christianity and islam!
      And you also obviously don’t know your history either, because this country was FOUNDED by “Religious Righties” aka Christians and the Bible! Our whole Government and our laws all came from the Bible! And don’t bother with your drivel about “errors” in the Bible, because there are NONE, ZIP, ZERO!!!
      You fail on all accounts, so Strike 3, You’re OUT!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Actually, there is quite a bit of common ground between true Islam and true Christianity. In fact, in Islam, they revere Jesus quite a bit.

        And as for your assertion that Christians founded America, I think you need to research the Christianity of our founders. I think a better descriptor would be “cultural Christians.” Very few were committed, practicing Christians; many were Episcopalians or Congregationalists (the forerunners to UCC and Disciples), not exactly bastions of evangelical, conservative Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was an avowed deist.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Justin,

        They think they revere Jesus, but what little common ground between Christianity and Islam there is, isn’t much compared to the differences.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. CAtherine,

      Thanks for reading, commenting and sharing. More people in this country need a lassiez faire attitude towards the beliefs of others, instead of telling everyone how wrong they are and forcing their religion on them.

      Grace and peace

      Justin DaMetz

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Thanks Justin, I was debating replying to the other replies I read. But—my point was extremists …. Fuggedit. It’s not even worth going there. I’m glad you got what I said! Best, Catherine

        Liked by 1 person

  10. We are free in this world, but yet we are not free. Everyone has their own believe. Some of us agree with most law of the USA laws and some of us don’t.
    If this world was prefect then everyone will believe in only one thing, but this world is not prefect so that is why we are here today talking about it. I don’t believe in judging others , but I do believe in upholding my faith. Believe and bigot are two different words and state of mine read a dictionary.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  11. We all have own opinions, and that is all it is. Our Creator looks at all of this and more likely “chuckles”. The people out in the world always try to put in their “two bits”, because of ignorance. We will all face God Almighty some day and be Judged by the Righteous Holy Judge. We will all know the Truth soon enough in the near future. Agape Love will always “WIN”. People of God, already knows the outcome at the END”. It was “Finished” at the “Cross”.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  13. I have to say, I agree with you. I don’t necessarily believe that she should “check her Christianity at the door,” your faith is something that shouldn’t be absent from you wherever you go; BUT I think I understand what you were implying…. She is not the one who gets to make the decisions on whether or not to issue a license to these couples, and for her to think that she holds that power is absurd. In my humble opinion; she is no martyr. I really enjoyed reading your article, by the way, I have seen this story briefly on the news but this is the first article I have read about it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. Thanks Elizabeth. You are exactly right: she is abusing her power as county clerk by discriminating against people in her county she is supposed to be serving, and she is attempting to usurp the prerogatives of the courts and legislators by trying to redefine laws and how they apply. Her stand is a threat to the American democratic system.

      Grace and peace

      Justin DaMetz

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. Everybody Be Honest for a minute and think about this question-

    What would you (Left OR Right) do or say if Kim Davis was a muslim…….

    Would you let the PC attitude kick in and say / do nothing because she was muslim?

    BE HONEST……….???

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. No, as some others here have mentioned, the recent actions of a Muslim flight attendant who refused to carry our her duties due to her religion fall under the same standard. If people can’t do a job because of their faith, then they need to get a different job they can do. Employers have job descriptions and expectations of employees, and while reasonable accommodations will be made, employees must carry out the basic duties of their job, or find other employment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  17. Agree, should leave religion at the door. Religion is a private choice and freedom that has no place in public places of business. What next, I just shake my head some days. Personally, I miss some good old fashioned manners out there. Most of all I am so sorry to see so many grown adults forgetting the meaning of respect. I don’t care if people disagree, I appreciate differences and respect others rights to those differences.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    2. She hasn’t broken a law but she has failed to carry out the duties she was elected to carry out. The Supreme Court is empowered, by precedent set over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, to rule on the constitutionality of laws. They did so, and ruled laws restricting the ability of certain couples to get married unconstitutional. It’s not a new law; the absence of a restriction of a right. In a country where the default setting is freedom, they extended that freedom to all people.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. She is an elected official…and can’t be fired.
      My question is why haven’t Obama, Hillary, Lois Lerner, Sandy Burger, and all the other lefties that break the law at will been thrown in jail??? They certainly have done FAR WORSE than Kim Davis!!!

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  21. I suppose, I would like to know exactly where we draw the line for this sort of behavior. For example, if I went to work today and my boss was wearing red shoes, could I simply not do the job that I am being paid to do? What if I felt that it was against my own personal belief system to look at red shoes?

    The Bible utilizes the color red to be symbolic of sin. If someone has red hair, do they not have the same rights because they are sinners? I mean, with modern conveniences..red hair is a choice..

    While Ms. Davis was at work and refusing to do her job, for whatever reason, was she being paid? Did she clock out or exempt the time from her pay? If not, that is dishonest and the Bible states that it is wrongful to be dishonest..so, that too would be sinful, that is, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God. Is one sin less sinful than another? Is judging others a sin?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  23. Wow, I just stumbled across this post and the comments made me sit back open mouthed.
    I’m from the UK and this is the first time I heard this series of events.
    The religious mischief makers are clearly out in force, and revelling in an opportunity to stir up a fuss and criticise anybody who holds a different view to their own.
    This seems a simple case of somebody refusing to carry out a job she is paid to do. The consequences of this, in this particular case led to her imprisonment, and that’s the law of the land so no excuses can be made surely. This isn’t about the Bible, homosexuality, Islam, Christianity or any other tag being proffered in the responses to this post. In my view, if there are certain aspects of her job which this lady feels she is unable to carry out for whatever reason, then she should resign and find a job which doesn’t carry the same difficulties for her. Nobody can simply decide not to carry out their employment duties and not expect some form of reaction. It seems that all the peripheral arguments are simply that..peripheral. This lady may have strong personal views on this subject, but they should remain exactly that, personal.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    1. Greetings from across the Pond,

      Let me give you some context to the situation. In the United States, there is a degree of accommodation offered to employees, ie, there’s an attempt to find a balance between personal conscience and the public good.

      In this case, Kim Davis is sincere in her beliefs and did attempt to find a compromise to the situation. Her compromise was denied.

      This particular situation has an air of hypocrisy because in 2012, a LGBT judge named Tonya Parker was refusing to marry straight people because LGBT people weren’t being married. Since this was in 2012 and in Texas, the law and her own duties required that she marry straight people and not LGBT couples. She didn’t suffer any kind of legal reprimand, unlike Kim Davis.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709

      For a more modern example, we have ‘sanctuary cities’, cities that ignore federal immigration laws because of strong beliefs on how illegal immigrants should be treated.

      As you can see, there are examples of personal belief which the government, state or federal, give accommodation too.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    2. I would like to comment regarding religious freedom. When I was working in the Pharmacy, for a short period of time. (Another story in itself) We had a pharmacist of the Muslim religion. He refused to fill prescription orders for women receiving the morning after pill on religious grounds. He was an excellent pharmacist but he had religious views that prevented him from performing this aspect of his job. Who here would request he be fired? Is the situation with Kim not the same idea?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  25. Reblogged this on At Heaven's Gate and commented:
    “This is not the face of a loving, compassion filled, merciful faith. This is small-mindedness, cruelty, and greed masquerading as religion. It’s infuriating, but it’s what we have come to expect from mainstream American Christianity.”

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Kim Davis doesn’t get to stand for her beliefs by refusing to do her job. If she feels she is violating her conscience, she should resign. She has no right to her government job. And the “truth” you speak of is proof of why the separation of church and state is so very important; who is to judge which “Truth” is more valid, and thus should be the law of the land, yours or mine? In the absence of any way to reconcile our two religious truths, the necessity of keeping them out of the legal code becomes readily apparent.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. This entire situation is ridiculous. If the woman is not capable of doing her job, she should resign or be let go. If she refuses to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, she should go to jail..end of story.

        Why this person has managed to monopolize the news, when there are so many important things happening in the world is quite beyond me.

        If she does not believe in the law of the land and feels that God’s law is greater, she should a. go work for God or b. she should have stayed married to all of those men that she vowed before God to love.

        Anyway, I hope that with this new found fame, she writes a book, sells it to the fundamentalists who support her, buys a new pair of gauchos, and fades back into obscurity.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. I think your premise is faulty because, as one post pointed out, you failed to address the entire story. You have assumed that the state of Kentucky has been innocent in its actions. The government officials that surround her have been intentionally stubborn to address her issue. Follow that up with a symbolic extended weekend jail sentence; it would appear that neither side is acting in the best interest of liberty. I believe that Kim, by revolting against the government, is not completely acting in a Christian manner. However, the liberal officials who refuse to find a compromise are guilty of subverting her freedoms. This is not a cut and dry issue as you propose. What is the difference between her refusal to sign the marriage license and the governments demand that she must? Seems two sides of the same coin.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. The difference is that she has no legal credential, and the government is in charge of specifying both the laws in question AND her duties as a government functionary. Just as a person whose job is law enforcement has no standing to judge the justness of laws they are expected to enforce, a clerk has only the right to estimate the qualifications of those requesting forms within the boundaries of laws they are not empowered to redefine.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Does Kim not have the constitutional right to freedom of religion, that includes religious practice. If the job she has performed for many years suddenly changes and causes her to violate her religious values should the ‘company’ not accommodate?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. If it was most sorts of private enterprise, there is more responsibility for accommodating the religious preferences of employees. But government has a stricter hierarchy, more like the military. Elected officials take oaths, and that oath becomes their primary legal responsibility. It’s like how when in uniform, an active military member’s First Amendment rights are subservient to taking orders, unless the order is provably illegal.

        There’s accommodation and accommodation, so to speak. Mrs. Davis at first demanded one where nobody gets (or gives out) the licenses without her permission. Then she wanted one where her name isn’t on the documents. To me that sounds reasonable, but it might be a legal requirement to have the name of the official in charge of the office on the document. I don’t really know. Any compromise that actually provides the service to those legally qualified to receive the forms is fine by me.

        Many thousands of people work under oaths, solemn promises, or covenants. Law enforcement personnel don’t get to pick and choose which laws to enforce. I’m a medical asst. I don’t get to choose to refuse service to a wounded gang member, even though I KNOW they participate in an evil lifestyle. Why? I took oaths to get my licenses, and they specify the same service to every patient without exception. If I can’t fulfill that promise, my obligation is to resign. Same goes for Mrs. Davis.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. I was working as a pharmacy technician for a short time.We had a pharmacist who, because of his Muslim religious belief, would not fill the morning after pill prescriptions. The company made accommodations for him in this case because it went against his religious values. This is what makes me wonder why accommodations wouldn’t be used in this case.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Health care professions have built-in opt-outs as part of the licenses. I’m a medical asst. and imaging tech. I can decline any patient I find difficult or object to for any reason, so long as I myself get someone else to help them. Nurses all have the same rule, and MDs or above can refuse to see a patient for any, or no specified reason, sometimes without referral. It has something to do with being in a profession with high risk and liability.

        But I have family in law enforcement and the military. There are fewer accommodations for any different needs, religious, physical, family leave. Conformity is stressed as a virtue in that culture.

        I don’t know how that balance is in government, but this was surely a violation in a hierarchy by a clerk of lower rank, acting without a law degree outside her scope of practice. If that’s allowed, then your fast-food server, your garbageman, anyone with a high school diploma becomes magically qualified to weigh in on the validity of laws.

        I don’t expect that to happen. I’m only illustrating why personal beliefs don’t equal training and credentials.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. “Does Kim not have the constitutional right to freedom of religion, that includes religious practice. If the job she has performed for many years suddenly changes and causes her to violate her religious values should the ‘company’ not accommodate?”
        Not in this case, no. For one thing, the company didn’t change out of the blue. She knew our government has systems in place to create new laws and amend old ones, and that it does so quite frequently. She also knew this issue is one that is a big matter of debate. There was plenty of forewarning and she could easily have resigned in protest at anything. For another, she wasn’t just defending her right to privately practice her religion. She was actively obstructing other people’s right to act in accordance with their beliefs.
        Imagine you wanted to buy a Bible, but when you got to the cashier they said, “sorry, I don’t believe in the Bible. It’s a book full of lies and distortions. I will only sell religious texts that line up with my beliefs.” Would that be okay? Absolutely not! That cashier has the right to not read the Bible, to go on their blog and Facebook and rant about all their reasons for not believing the Bible, to clock out and walk straight to a protest of their own place of employment, and of course to quit and go work somewhere else. They don’t have a right to obstruct your religious freedom.
        This is like that. Kim Davis subscribes to the version of Christianity that says homosexuality is evil. Okay. I’m not a fan but she has the right to think that. But lots of people interpret their religion differently. They have different interpretations of Christianity, they belong to a religion that was never anti-homosexuality, they have no religion and form their moral principles along secular lines. All of them have a right to follow their belief that getting married as a man and man or woman and woman or person of complex gender identity to any other type of gender is simply an expression of love and commitment.
        Even in my metaphor, of course, the cashier at least left you the option to go ring up your Bible at another cash register. Kim Davis’ actions are more like those of someone who manages a book store, and refuses to let anyone stock or sell Bibles, and also for some weird reason it’s the only bookstore in the entire county, and Amazon doesn’t exist…

        Liked by 3 people

      1. Both Justin and Mikey had similar responses, I will respond with one.

        When she took office, marriage law had been unchanged since the dawn of Western Civilization (and before). At the time of her election, it was safe for her to assume it would not change. For the state to not accommodate, seems suspicious. I don’t defend Kim as martyr (read my blog). However; to fail to admit that the state officials she works with or the judge that jailed her on a 3 day weekend, don’t have their own agenda, is either blindness or ignorance.

        For example, if a Muslim had been elected. After her election the county put her in charge of ordering pork the jail system. She felt that being the pork supplier for the jail was against her religion and asked if someone else could be given responsibility for signing off or if she could keep her name off the purchase order. Would it make national headlines? Of course not because they would have accommodated her. As much as you chastise Kim and her supporters, you need to also call out the stiff necked supporters of Gay marriage working in the State government and judicial system.

        Liked by 1 person

  30. Thank you for your post. As a Christian and a Kentuckian, I can’t state strongly enough that Kim Davis does NOT stand for me. By the way, according to local news, she has taken off work all this week to recuperate from her jail stay at taxpayers’ expense.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  32. I believe its time christians took the WORD for what it is other than try to compromise everytime a sin re-branded. The struggle for rights in some aspects of our lives is just what is wrong with this world.
    Today we legalize LGBT tomorrow who knows what will become legal.
    Christians should just stand for what they believe in and remove secular logic from their way of thinking. Compromising on sin is never sound christianity

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  33. The infiltration of religion has attracted and shattered so man life’s through history; she seems be just an angry bitter person who is giver more power from the media, She looks like one more person the Christian media used, to her to push the Christian business. She just one of those people who wanted power and attention. many jealous that the guys were happy and she was not. Gay bashing happens in all continents and religions. There was reason to take unfortunate Christian event that for the
    couple was a personal out rage, that I hope they are compensated for.
    How many national stories that had life and death consequences that make national news was ignored.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  36. I agree with this article for the most part. I think it’s funny that all these right wingers, like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, only point out the fact that she feels it invades her religious freedom. They never raise that fact that she is forcing herself on others. Like this author says that is an invasion on me. She is in a government job not a church. If she is that prejudice towards same sex marriage then let her raise even more prejudice children and leave me out of it. I applaud this post

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  38. Thank you for this post. I’ve had a hard time finding Christians who agree with me. I believe that if I am salt and light in the world, I should season and shine. That means doing my job with a smile and showing love to everyone. I’ve wondered why Kim couldn’t simply do that. I’ve wondered what the world thinks of Christianity as a whole at this point.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Bible says follow the laws of the land, take the log outta your own eye before u tell your brother he has a stick in his, and judge not or u will be judged. Now it does also speak out against homosexuals to. So i say let jesus deal with it. I will deal with myself. Pray she finds her peace.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  40. First, I don’t think any one group can claim to “own” God. Organized Religion is man made and standing in judgement of others has nothing to do with God, it has to do with humans. God is love in the purest sense and we all have access. Good post!

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  42. Not that my 2 cents is worth much. I feel it is the reason we separate “Church and State” as it would be impossible to get things done around the government. And the courts may make the laws? But I feel what she is doing is another form of Gay Rights Civil Rights being violated.

    Only GOD judges others, not Kim’s job. And I feel she is trying to use GOD and Religion or being a Christian as an excuse to discriminate. She is an elected official, if she feels that strongly about what the gospel tells us about marriage being only with one man and one woman, that men and women should fornicate with the same sex as it is Sinful, then Kim needs to step down and find another job.

    Many are forgetting that this is NOT a religious problem or political. It is about gay the LGBT having the same “Civil Human Rights and Benefits” same sex married couples receive. The same “End of Life Rights and Medical Rights and benefits” as other couples. And it is THE LAWS that state they need to be married in a “Civil Union” in order to have those same rights. I wish others would understand this. 🙂

    Author, Catherine Townsend-Lyon ~ Great Post!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  46. At the end of the day, if she felt so strongly about that aspect of her job and the conflict that it caused her with her religious beliefs then why did she not resign? I have had to resign from a job because it conflicted with my moral code, I did not for one moment expect my employer to change the way he ran things just to accommodate me.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  50. I work with the military. When the order came down to admit LGBT to the service, it barely registered a blip, even though a LOT of people were opposed to it. Why? Because it was an order, making it the law.
    My pastor noted that while he’s not thrilled with SSM, we should look at ourselves before dealing with that issue. You know, people in the church having relations outside their marriages. How can we say we don’t want SSM while traditional marriages are ending up as train wrecks? From what I’m told, God hates divorce, yet we continue to engage in it.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

Tell Me What You Think