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. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    gts109: (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.

    It’s Kim’s fault.  She should have gotten advice from Jeh Johnson on how to avoid/evade contempt-of-court orders.

    • #121
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    The Reticulator: It’s Kim’s fault.  She should have gotten advice from Jeh Johnson on how to avoid/evade contempt-of-court orders.

    This only works when one works for President Obama.

    • #122
  3. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    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.

    its all marriages that she developed religious sensibilities against.

    http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Kentucky-clerks-object-to-ruling-halt-marriage-licenses-310716881.html

    • #123
  4. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Frank Soto:

    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.

    She is a elected Democrat politician.  Since when did rules every apply to them?  She must be truly bewildered.  Year after year of working in the same position.  A law unto herself as she stretches, ignore and enforce rules and laws to her own pleasure and whim.  Then wham, here is a rule she must follow.  Of course she did as she always did which is what most the Dems in office do, ignore it.  Now she is in the center of the controversy, being sent to jail and trying to figure out how to spin it to her own political and financial betterment.   It is always odd to watch the occasional Dem falling out of favor.  It happens so seldom.

    • #124
  5. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    A couple unrelated points:

    First, there has evidently been a change in this woman’s life. She’s a convert whose pre-conversion life did not match her new principles. All that stuff about her past divorces, etc? It’s irrelevant even to evaluating the sincerity of her convictions. People change, and evidently she has. That might explain how someone with her opinions is a Democrat, too. She probably started out as a more or less typical liberal.

    Second, there are two separate issues which should not be conflated. The first one is whether the state of Kentucky should provide some accommodation to people like Kim Davis.  I see absolutely no reason they cannot and strong reason why they should. It is neither expensive nor burdensome. It involves putting someone else’s name on a certificate. There are probably lengths the state can’t go, but this is straightforward. That’s the model we want businesses to follow as much as possible; it makes sense for the government to do it as well. The other question is what Kim Davis should do if the government won’t provide that accommodation. That decision affects primarily Kim Davis. I’m not in her shoes; I can’t say exactly what she should do.

    But saying she should resign — and maybe she should — does not take away the point that Kentucky can and should accommodate her so that it does not reach that point.

    • #125
  6. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Fake John Galt:There are 31 sanctuary cities in this country that will not enforce federal immigration laws. Laws that have been on the books for decades and are settled. This is not a considered problem because of federalism or some such excuse. These cities represent some of the major population concentrations of this country and everybody knows their names.

    In Kentucky, one county clerk out of 120+ counties clerks, in a backwater part of the state that most people of this country have never heard of and even less will visit is not following one federal law that has been in place less than a fortnight and everybody is calling for her head.

    Why do mayors of cities have the right to ignore federal laws but clerks of counties do not? Oh the hypocrisy of this country and its political system knows no end.

    Why is this even in the news? Because a gay couple can not get married? Of course they can all they have to do is drive to the next county, maybe a 10 minute drive at most. No this is the left destroying any opposition to their agenda. The question to me is why is the right, why are you helping them?

    Also remember when all these mayors were marring Gay couples and trying to make it official in their city? They never went to prison for contempt of court and one was the Mayor of San Francisco a city of a few hundred thousand.  I never thought I would see the day were a Democrat has more moral courage than every single elected Republican official in the Republic.

    • #126
  7. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Frank Soto:

    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.

    I completely disagree, she is making the completely wrong argument for her stance but she is upholding the law therefore the rules. The Supreme court decisions itself is not the Law. The written law and especially state constitutions directly voted on by the people should always overrule common law.

    Only one state Hawaii and maybe you can claim Massachusetts actually followed the laws of the land to make Gay marriage legal. Claiming there is a law by Judicial Fiat is the definition of lawlessness when you have a constitution that says otherwise.

    This is what you don’t get Supreme court only has power because every other single elected officials are moral cowards and let them get away with it. They say look we can’t help it they 5 nu-elected lawyers said we are wrong even though the law passed per the currently written law in the Constitution says otherwise. The courts power is what they have given themselves and we the people have only given it to them be putting our heads in the sand not voting on it. Only a small portion of their power was every voted on and passed by the people (via there elected representatives).

    • #127
  8. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    Frank Soto: 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.

    I think it’s likely that, having been elected to the post, she feels the weight of support from a majority of constituents in her county, who would be socially conservative. Quitting could feel like letting them down. There could be more than just making a call on personal financial circumstances. Aside from that, quitting also usually has very negative implications when it comes time to ask for unemployment.

    gts109: (1) Davis, as a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue any marriage licenses to gay couples (…) 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.

    I almost want to ask why the aggrieved gay couples sued her, an individual, rather than the government department that was allowing their rights to be violated by keeping her in the position. It seems unfair to go after the weak link in the chain when the local government has some obvious culpability

    • #128
  9. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Ray Kujawa: I think it’s likely that, having been elected to the post, she feels the weight of support from a majority of constituents in her county, who would be socially conservative. Quitting could feel like letting them down.

    Also, again, this is a separate issue from whether the state should be putting her in this position in the first place. My inclination is to think that very likely she should resign on principle (though I’m not convinced and there are other arguments — like yours) — but the question of what Kim Davis should do is comparatively irrelevant to most of us. What Kentucky should do is very relevant indeed.

    • #129
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Frank Soto:

    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.

    Yo Frank – You aren’t quoting me here, you are quoting WC. Please fix your comment #119

    • #130
  11. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

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

    She has been given an accommodation for her religious convictions (being that her deputy clerks are issuing the licenses and she is not compelled to do so).

    Looks like the first victory for rights of conscience in this matter since the war opened via the battle of  Elane Photography v Willock in 2006.

    Would you care to reconsider your opinion?

    • #131
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bob Thompson:

    The Reticulator: It’s Kim’s fault. She should have gotten advice from Jeh Johnson on how to avoid/evade contempt-of-court orders.

    This only works when one works for President Obama.

    I’ll bet President Hillary could make this work, too.

    • #132
  13. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    She has been given an accommodation for her religious convictions (being that her deputy clerks are issuing the licenses and she is not compelled to do so).

    Didn’t Mrs Davis reject this solution prior to her being held in Contempt?    Has she changed her mind on its acceptability now?

    • #133
  14. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Brian Clendinen:

    Fake John Galt:There are 31 sanctuary cities in this country that will not enforce federal immigration laws. Laws that have been on the books for decades and are settled. This is not a considered problem because of federalism or some such excuse. These cities represent some of the major population concentrations of this country and everybody knows their names.

    Why is this even in the news? Because a gay couple can not get married? Of course they can all they have to do is drive to the next county, maybe a 10 minute drive at most. No this is the left destroying any opposition to their agenda. The question to me is why is the right, why are you helping them?

    Also remember when all these mayors were marring Gay couples and trying to make it official in their city? They never went to prison for contempt of court and one was the Mayor of San Francisco a city of a few hundred thousand. I never thought I would see the day were a Democrat has more moral courage than every single elected Republican official in the Republic.

    welcome to the new GOPe(tm).  no courage, gonads and spine needed.

    • #134
  15. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Herbert Woodbery:

    Didn’t Mrs Davis reject this solution prior to her being held in Contempt? Has she changed her mind on its acceptability now?

    unknown – it isn’t like we are getting the unadulterated story from the legacy media. I know she is not compelled to issue them herself.

    • #135
  16. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    She commanded her staff not to issue them; five our of six were ready to do it; only her son refused.

    • #136
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gary McVey:She commanded her staff not to issue them; five our of six were ready to do it; only her son refused.

    Nepotism! Just like the Clintons.

    • #137
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Those who say she should resign if she can’t do her duty are Bad People.

    Those who say she should resign if she can’t do her duty and then go and work hard to make sure that there is room for religion in society by supporting painful cutbacks in government spending so there will be plenty of jobs she can go to that are even better than the county clerk job are Good People.

    It all depends on where you put the period.

    • #138
  19. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Brian Clendinen:

    Frank Soto:

    […..]

    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.

    I completely disagree, she is making the completely wrong argument for her stance but she is upholding the law therefore the rules. The Supreme court decisions itself is not the Law. The written law and especially state constitutions directly voted on by the people should always overrule common law.

    Only one state Hawaii and maybe you can claim Massachusetts actually followed the laws of the land to make Gay marriage legal. Claiming there is a law by Judicial Fiat is the definition of lawlessness when you have a constitution that says otherwise.

    […..]

    Agreed, and if she had made this argument then I would have supported her (or at least recognized the legitimacy of her position). As it is, civil marriage is not religious marriage and issuing a SSM license neither impedes her religious practice nor forces others’ religion on her.

    Most versions of Christian also view gambling as immoral. Should such a person also be exempted from issuing gambling licenses as duly authorized by the state legislature? No, the only position with any solidity is that her state legislature hasn’t issued new law.

    • #139
  20. gts109 Inactive
    gts109
    @gts109

    They sued her because she was the government official denying them their (newly minted) constitutional rights. I don’t know who else they could have sued.

    • #140
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.