Kim Davis and Faith in the Workplace

 

Kim DavisKim Davis, the court clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples is going to jail for contempt of court. Her reasons for refusing to do so are because, in her own words, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

So quit your job, Kim. Problem solved.

I worked for ten years as a commercial/advertising photographer, and there were jobs I turned down on moral and religious grounds. I took a hit in the wallet for doing so, but I walked away with a clear conscience and good feeling knowing that there were just some things I would not do for money. Come to think of it, I’ve had moral qualms of one kind or another at just about every job I’ve had because I’m surrounded by people who don’t share my convictions. It’s not that I was asked to do anything illegal, but in every job, there are corners that can be cut and rules that can be bent. There were/are some lines I will not cross.

Yes, it’s more difficult to act like a Christian now than it was in, say, 1957 or thereabouts. However, how difficult was it for Paul, Barnabas, Aquila, Priscilla, et al., to live their lives in a culture and legal system that offered them no help whatsoever when it came to taking a stand for Christ? Despite that hostile environment, an environment in which thousands were killed for their beliefs, Christianity flourished and covered all of the Roman empire and the world. Maybe we need to take a long, hard look at the relationship between our faith, our culture, and our politics, and ask ourselves which of the three is truly most important in our lives.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 140 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tom Riehl Inactive
    Tom Riehl
    @TrinityWaters

    Of course Ben Shapiro says it eloquently:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/standwithkim-davis/

    Tar and feathers is too mild.

    • #91
  2. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Larry Summers’ signature is on all the money in my pocket. Can Obama’s present or former secretary of the Treasury object to how I spend it? The money bears his signature, after all. Does that give him veto power? I say it doesn’t. And the same goes for this clerk. Some on this thread have said, “someone else could do it–why did it have to be her?” Because she ordered them not to do it, until she was jailed.

    If the SoCons want a martyr, they’d better choose better.  Drudge’s headline screamed “Jailed For Refusing to Marry Gays!” She doesn’t “marry” anybody. She’s the most minor of minor bureaucrats.

    • #92
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    KevinC: So quit your job, Kim. Problem solved.

    It’s perhaps the way it has to be, but it’s not a “problem solved.”

    In an ideal world, the government would be prohibited from discriminating against people for the usual reasons, while individuals and their private businesses would be free to do so.   And even in a less than ideal world, it’s probably not good for agents of the government to be discriminating in the way that, say, the IRS does.

    So Kim probably has to issue the licenses or go to jail, and she has made her choice. And just because Obama and Holder give themselves extremely wide latitude as to whether they will uphold the laws doesn’t mean Kim gets the same latitude.

    But the problem isn’t solved if Kim leaves her job.   It’s one thing to tell a person to quit her government job if government jobs are only 5 percent of the total opportunities available.  It’s another if government jobs account for over half of the good jobs.   If Kim has to quit her job, we shouldn’t wash our hands of the issue and say “problem solved” without first saying, “OMG, we need to make the government a lot smaller to provide greater scope for people to follow their religion!”  Only after we have done that will the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment have any practical meaning, and will we be able to say, “problem solved.”

    • #93
  4. Raw Prawn Member
    Raw Prawn
    @RawPrawn

    So, the lady is not your ideal martyr. She should have been better looking too. With all of the scoff-laws in American government, from the White House down, this is the one that goes to jail?

    This case should be played up as much as possible because it perfectly illustrates the “tolerance” of the left.

    Is there a procedure for expelling someone from the Democratic Party? Has it been commenced for Ms Davis?

    The left’s, particularly the “marriage equality” advocates, concept of “fairness” is that, if you don’t like the soup, piss in it so no one can have any.

    • #94
  5. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    This is rather enlightening.

    Here is a crucial question to which I cannot find an answer: Does Kim Davis, under current Kentucky law, have to put her name on a license to make it valid? I ask because Davis is on record as supporting compromises in which gay citizens could receive marriage licenses without a signature from the local clerk or with the signature of another willing clerk appointed by a judge or the state. As I have stated in previous posts, she is willing for licenses to go out, but she refuses to give her consent. She does not want this taking place under her authority, but under the authority of someone else recognized by the state.

    However, there is no law allowing that approach in Kentucky, as opposed to, let’s say, North Carolina. Right? If Davis was in a different state, she would have other options. That’s an important fact in this standoff.

    . . .

    I can’t quote the whole thing, but we have a situation of both journalistic malfeasance (as per usual) and possibly a completely unnecessary (illegal?) jailing.

    Of course, she’s already guilty in the court of public opinion, and has been duly shamed by sneering lefties for have been married four times (and shamed by people who insist we not shame others for such a thing). But was jailing her the only option available? Of course not. Of course not.

    • #95
  6. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I live in a country where HRC, can spin up an unsecured serve and spill state secrets to all while running a “private charity” for her families personal gain. Notice there is nobody is in jail for this despite more federal laws violated than we can easily count, but she will most likely be our next president.

    I live in a country that has an IRS that can persecute citizens that are of a different ideology than the ruling class, delete all evidence for the same and nobody go to jail.

    I live in a country where one county officer in a backwater part of one state that does not enforce a new law immediately that the ruling class embraces is jailed immediately when she resisted.

    I live in a banana republic where the rule of law is dictated by the whim of the powerful and where the weak have little or no say.

    • #96
  7. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Sheila S.:

     

    What planet do you live on where “But everyone else does it” makes it okay? That’s not an excuse I ever accepted from any of my five children, and it’s not an excuse I accept from government officials. By that standard corruption and crony capitalism are things we should also be defending.

    I believe in the Rule of Law. I think the Supreme Court over-reached, and I don’t think the govt has any business regulating marriage. But I also believe that it would be hypocritical of me to endorse someone I agree with doing the same thing as people I condemn.

     

    I too used to believe in the Rule of Law.  Then I realize that it is as it has always been.  The rule of power.  The power of one person or group of people to enforce and inflict their will upon the others.  The Law is nothing more than a fictional tool used as a justification to project that power.

    Political corruption and crony capitalism and other such things are the way of the world.  Those that understand that and can master it may rule this world those that do not have can have their children wash up on beaches in the middle of nowhere.

    All your belief in the Rule of Law does is help the corrupt get their way.

    • #97
  8. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    DrewInWisconsin:I can’t quote the whole thing, but we have a situation of both journalistic malfeasance (as per usual) and possibly a completely unnecessary (illegal?) jailing.

    Of course, she’s already guilty in the court of public opinion, and has been duly shamed by sneering lefties for have been married four times (and shamed by people who insist we not shame others for such a thing). But was jailing her the only option available? Of course not. Of course not.

    All that is happening in KY is political theater, it is the elite letting it be known that this law is to be followed no matter what.  To defy this law means the loss of all, including your freedom.  Before this is over this Clerk may / can / will lose her job, her family, her friends, her freedom and maybe her life.

    • #98
  9. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    What if a judge started issuing decisions that violated Supreme Court precedent because he said it violated his religious beliefs? Could he be incarcerated? No. Impeached maybe, but not incarcerated.

    What if a legislature started passing laws that that did the same. Could a court order the elected representatives in the legislature to change the law or else go to jail? No.

    What if a governor did the same? Could he be jailed? No.

    So why is this elected official in jail?

    • #99
  10. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    I’m a little late to the party but I agree 100%.  The proper response is to resign your position if your job qualifications require you to violate your convicitions.

    • #100
  11. Adriana Harris Inactive
    Adriana Harris
    @AdrianaHarris

    KevinC:

    Adriana Harris: When Kim Davis took the job marriage in Kentucky was between a man and a woman. She is being made an example of by the left; comply or we’ll crush you.

    The hypocrisy between the outrage over this and the silence on the non-action by the left on gun laws in Washington DC, California and elsewhere is breathtaking.

    Is this thread about Kim Davis or gun laws in DC…..? There are dozens of issues the left is delinquent on, but the press doesn’t report on them so you don’t hear about the outrage. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    • #101
  12. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    The King Prawn:Are there other public official positions for which Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims need not apply?

    I think it quite telling that the US Supreme Court created a religious test as a qualification for public office.

    • #102
  13. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Sheila S.:

    Misthiocracy:

    Sheila S.:Isn’t Clerk of the Court an elected position? Doesn’t that make it a little different? They can’t simply fire her, they would have to go through an impeachment process (or whatever the equivalent is at the county level.) Otherwise she’d have been fired already and this would be yesterday’s news

    If they have to go through an impeachment process to fire her, why don’t they have to go through an impeachment process to jail her?

    Because one has to do with her performance of the duties of her elected office and the other is an “unrelated” contempt of court charge would be my guess.

    Nope – it is a fiscal reason, that being the legislature is not in session and it costs money to hold a special session.

    • #103
  14. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Concretevol:I’m a little late to the party but I agree 100%. The proper response is to resign your position if your job qualifications require you to violate your convicitions.

    I completely agree.

    But I find it interesting that back in Kentucky (according to that piece from GetReligion I linked above) legislators are trying to find a compromise. Perhaps this should have stayed a local issue.

    But it has to be turned into a national issue pour encourager les autres, and one little nobody from nowheresville has to be destroyed because Alinsky sez so.

    • #104
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    DrewInWisconsin:

    Concretevol:I’m a little late to the party but I agree 100%. The proper response is to resign your position if your job qualifications require you to violate your convicitions.

    I completely agree.

    But I find it interesting that back in Kentucky (according to that piece from GetReligion I linked above) legislators are trying to find a compromise. Perhaps this should have stayed a local issue.

    But it has to be turned into a national issue pour encourager les autres, and one little nobody from nowheresville has to be destroyed because Alinsky sez so.

    Another option, instead of resigning, is for the person to become a public martyr and call attention to the injustice of it all.   Both have been known to have been tried.

    The dangerous thing here is that this may become a greater precedent for the feds taking control of elected local officials and removing control from the local electorate.  We found that to be desirable during the civil rights era; hardly a day goes by that I don’t curse the southern racists and bigots for bringing matters to such an intolerable state that we now have formed the habit of thinking it’s automatically proper for the feds to step in and overrule the locals.

    • #105
  16. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    [Moved to start a new conversation.]

    • #106
  17. iDad Inactive
    iDad
    @iDad

    Ryan M:

    Frank Soto:

    The King Prawn:Are there other public official positions for which Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims need not apply?

    Certainly. If you are Christian who firmly believes that the death penalty is immoral (I know many), serving as a judge in a state that utilizes the death penalty is a job you should not apply for.

    But if you’re a liberal pacifist hippie who doesn’t believe in the death penalty, you take that job and refuse to uphold the law. I don’t like our consistency on these questions.

    Exactly.  It’s unilateral disarmament in the culture wars and far too many people here support it.

    • #107
  18. Pete EE Member
    Pete EE
    @PeteEE

    Ensuring the civil service is judenrein, christianrein and, were it not for taqiyya, muslimrein.

    • #108
  19. The Forgotten Man Inactive
    The Forgotten Man
    @TheForgottenMan

    Free Kentucky Kim D. ky and lets get the States out of the Marriage business.

    • #109
  20. Roadrunner Inactive
    Roadrunner
    @Roadrunner

    The oligarchs have spoken.  It is time to move on.  Who knows what they will decide next.  How about the minimum wage based on some wage fairness principle that has never been heard of or how much is appropriate for carbon taxes based on some other legal mumbo jumbo?  Frankly the First and Second amendments are probably in for some radical interpretating.  They are a justice or two from all kinds of mischief and enjoy an increasingly more compliant population.  Well at least we will be able to watch porn and abort our children.  Our dear leaders are very generous.

    • #110
  21. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    A-Squared:Let me remind people that our Constitution includes a ban on religious tests for public office.

    If we get to the point where people of deeply-held religious beliefs are not allowed to work in any specific government office without abandoning their religious beliefs, we have violated the constitution.

    Well, Protestants are arguably not really allowed on the Supreme Court much anymore.  Republican presidents nominate Catholics as a way to stand up for abortion rights and tempt Democrats into saying something anti-Catholic.  All Supreme Court justices are now essentially required to attend either Harvard or Yale while New England, New York, and New Jersey are areas completely dominated by Catholics except for perhaps one small corner of sparsely-populated Vermont.  I’m not sure that Harvard or Yale have a lot respect for Catholics, but I think that they have complete disregard for Protestants.

    1NewEngland-relg

    • #111
  22. TeeJaw Inactive
    TeeJaw
    @TeeJaw

    I understand that all viewpoints are welcome here, but to say, “Quit your job, Kim,” to this woman is so obnoxious I just don’t understand that any conservative, which is what I thought this place was about, could take such a cavalier attitude to religious liberty.  Especially since the Supreme Court opinion which imposed this travesty on Kim Davis and on America is as lawless as Dred Scott.

    Same sex marriage is not the law of the land, it is the personal preference of Anthony Kennedy and four leftist goose steppers.

    • #112
  23. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Religious liberty is a winnable fight until you start picking battles as terrible as this.

    • #113
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Frank Soto:Religious liberty is a winnable fight until you start picking battles as terrible as this.

    Sometimes the battles pick you.   And if you fail to fight because there is some flaw in each battle that comes along, you send the message to yourself and everyone else that the fight isn’t so important after all. And you’ll find you won’t fight it when the next battle that comes up is just right, because you’ve gotten into a habit of saying, “No, not this one. A different one.”

    I’m currently listening to A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic” by John Ferling.  One of the things I’ve learned is how some of the agitators in Boston kept trying to provoke an over-reaction from the British in an environment in which they needed to counter a lot of the establishment-people in Boston who were saying, “No, not this battle. Not stamps. Not tea.  Maybe a different one.”  Something similar may be happening now.

    • #114
  25. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Frank Soto:Religious liberty is a winnable fight until you start picking battles as terrible as this.

    The battle picked her.

    • #115
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    The Reticulator:

    Frank Soto:Religious liberty is a winnable fight until you start picking battles as terrible as this.

    Sometimes the battles pick you. And if you fail to fight because there is some flaw in each battle that comes along, you send the message to yourself and everyone else that the fight isn’t so important after all. And you’ll find you won’t fight it when the next battle that comes up is just right, because you’ve gotten into a habit of saying, “No, not this one. A different one.”

    I’m currently listening to A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic” by John Ferling. One of the things I’ve learned is how some of the agitators in Boston kept trying to provoke an over-reaction from the British in an environment in which they needed to counter a lot of the establishment-people in Boston who were saying, “No, not this battle. Not stamps. Not tea. Maybe a different one.” Something similar may be happening now.

    This is a great point. Very important. We should not make the mistake the Left makes with jihadists — believing they’re rational actors and if we just explain things to them, they’re open to reason.

    Our opponents on this matter are the same people morally inverted enough to declare CO2 a pollutant and AGW the greatest crisis of our age. We can’t wait for the perfect conditions for this fight.

    • #116
  27. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    Kim Davis took her stand because she recognizes that words mean things.

    “The debate here, you see, touches on fundamental questions about law, justice, nature, and reality. An unjust law has no binding force. A law that violates the laws of nature is an unjust law. A law that contradicts reality is an absurdity.” (Lawler)

    We, as conservatives, recognize that it is through the instruments of our minds that it is possible for us to know truth. To abdicate on that principle is to turn away from our responsibility as citizens of a country with a republican government. Ultimately, it is a question of who owns the government.

    • #117
  28. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Ray Kujawa: To abdicate on that principle is to turn away from our responsibility as citizens of a country with a republican government.

    She need not abdicate any principles.  She must do her job or leave her job.  The third option of I keep my job, but don’t do my job, is not nearly so noble as it has been presented here.

    • #118
  29. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Instugator: This is a great point. Very important. We should not make the mistake the Left makes with jihadists — believing they’re rational actors and if we just explain things to them, they’re open to reason.

    No, she decided the rules don’t apply to her.  Or if you prefer, that if she doesn’t like her government, she need not change it, but may simply implement it according to her wishes.

    • #119
  30. gts109 Inactive
    gts109
    @gts109

    It seems like there’s some confusion in this thread about Ms. Davis’ legal situation. This is my understanding of the course of events:

    (1) Davis, as a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue any marriage licenses to gay couples (she may have declined to issue any marriage licences, but I can’t find confirmation of that) in the wake of the Obergefell decision, which held that the U.S. Constitution grants gays the right to marry.  

    (2) The aggrieved gay couples sued Davis in federal court, presumably under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arguing that Davis’ actions, in her capacity as a government official (county clerk), violated their constitutional rights.

    (3) The federal district court judge agreed with plaintiffs, and ordered Davis to issue the licenses sought by plaintiffs. He did, however, stay his order pending appeal both to the 6th Circuit and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither appellate court took her case.

    (4) After her appeals had been exhausted, Davis still refused to comply, and the federal district court judge jailed her as a sanction for her contempt of the court order.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.