Kim Davis Is No Martyr

 

Kim-Davis-mugshotTed Cruz made his feelings clear about defiant county clerk Kim Davis: “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.” Mike Huckabee said, “having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

Mat Staver, who is representing Davis in court, compared her to several Christian martyrs. “Kim joins a long list of people who were imprisoned for their conscience,” Staver said. “People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jan Hus, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more — each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.”

Balderdash.

Kim Davis is not being persecuted for her faith, she is facing the consequences of violating the law. Davis was elected to execute the clerk duties of Rowan County, Kentucky, and she refused to do that. I agree that tossing her in the clink seems like overkill, especially when federal officials can violate Americans’ rights with near impunity, but she suffered this fate due to her illicit actions, not her spiritual beliefs.

The Davis story reminds me of an ancient Christian sect Ricochet member Midget Faded Rattlesnake brought to my attention. Seeing how much reverence was given to martyrs, a bizarre little group called the Circumcellions decided to get in on the action.

On occasion, members of this group assaulted Roman legionaries or armed travelers with simple wooden clubs to provoke them into attacking and martyring them. Others interrupted courts of law and verbally provoked the judge so that he would order their immediate execution (a normal punishment at the time for contempt of court)…

Because Jesus had told Peter to put down his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:11), the Circumcellions piously avoided bladed weapons and instead opted for the use of blunt clubs, which they called “Israelites.” Using their “Israelites”, the Circumcellions would attack random travelers on the road, while shouting “Laudate Deum!” (“Praise God!” in Latin.) The object of these random beatings was the death of the intrepid martyr, who sought to provoke the victim to attack and kill him.

Circumcellions weren’t executed for boldly living their faith in an intolerant society. They were executed for being violent, lawless jerks. Their “martyrdom” pointed not to the glory of God, but to their own moral vanity. Even if we assumed the Westboro loonies were Christians, they are loathed for their hatred, not their holiness.

Davis and many other Americans of all faiths disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, but it is now the law of the land. Many conservative believers disapprove of no-fault divorce, free speech rights for pornographers, and many other irreligious laws, but that is the result of living in a secular, pluralistic America. You may choose not to engage in those behaviors, but you can’t stop others from exercising their rights.

If Davis wants to live her faith with a clear conscience, she should render unto Caesar by tendering her resignation. Refusing that, she at least should allow her staffers to issue marriage licenses in accordance with the law. If, after that common-sense decision, secularists continue to attack her, she will have legitimately earned a small measure of martyrdom.

What Davis, Cruz, and Huckabee don’t realize (or more likely, won’t admit) is that being a Christian puts you in tension with a secular world. My faith has impacted my professional life repeatedly, but that hardly means martyrdom.

Fresh out of college, the best paying graphic design jobs I could find were among the glitzy new casinos opening in Vegas. They offered not only large paychecks, but high budgets so I could create the most luxurious, Trumpian full-color ads, brochures and mailers. But I didn’t apply. I don’t oppose gambling but did I want to spend 50 hours a week enticing spendthrifts to blow their paychecks at a craps table? It felt wrong.

Another well paying job was for a rapidly growing adult superstore chain (I believe they’re national, but won’t check their website in case the Mrs. scrolls through our web browser history. [“Really honey, I was researching a story on Christian martyrdom; I promise!”]) As with gambling, I’m fine with people flying their freak flag in whichever position they choose, but it’s not my scene.

As I grew in my career and faith, I grew even more selective. A bank offered a fantastic art director position, but their primary marketing technique was “You deserve a new boat/nicer car/larger house!” Their largest money maker required false flattery and poor stewardship; I rejected the job. (A year later, the easy-credit economic collapse hit. Glad I followed my conscience.)

I could have gone the Kim Davis route and taken one of those jobs anyway. When my boss yelled at me for only designing Bellagio flyers hyping nearby churches, or sex shop ads insisting on abstinence outside of marriage, I could have claimed persecution. But these companies would have tossed me out on my halo — not to violate my religious liberty, but because I wasn’t doing my job.

A devout Muslim won’t work as a pulled pork chef. An observant Jew won’t take a job where she’s forced to work on the Sabbath. If Kim Davis wants to exercise her faith in the public sphere, she should take a job that doesn’t violate her conscience.

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

There are 132 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    katievs:

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Mollie Hemingway: She’s not asking for martyrdom, for crying out loud, she’s asking that her conscience not be violated and there are *any number* of easy fixes that would accomplish this.

    But several politicians are calling her a martyr for Christ.

    Where? The quotes you cite refer to conscience, not Christ.

    MLK, Jr. was thrown in jail for defying a court order, not for refusing to deny his faith in Jesus.

    The right to serve in public office without being forced to violate your conscience is among the most fundamental guarantees of the Constitution.

    I heard a wonderful talk on the subject last night by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik.

    The American system isn’t secular, it’s pluralist.

    The quotes I cite refer to Christ:

    Ted Cruz made his feelings clear about defiant county clerk Kim Davis: “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.” Mike Huckabee said, “having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

    Again, she is in legal trouble due to her failing her earthly office, not because she is a Christian.

    • #91
  2. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Nick Stuart: First they came for the florists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a florist. Then they came for the bakers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a baker. Then they came for the county clerks, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a county clerk. … etc.

    The florists and bakers are being persecuted for their faith. They are private individuals who have every right to practice their beliefs in their own businesses. The county clerk is elected to serve the general public and allow that public to exercise their freedom in the way they see fit. Government officials should not stand in their way.

    • #92
  3. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    BThompson: Which politicians are you referring to, Jon? You didn’t cite any quotes which say this in your OP. Can you provide actual quotes of politicians calling Davis a martyr? It seems to me that the politicians you did cite are merely claiming that she is being persecuted for following her faith. Enduring persecution and suffering martyrdom aren’t the same thing.

    I’m referring to Sen. Cruz and Gov. Huckabee who both claimed Davis was suffering for — and only for — her Christian faith. To wit:

    Ted Cruz made his feelings clear about defiant county clerk Kim Davis: “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.” Mike Huckabee said, “having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

    This is neither a criminalization of faith, nor of Christianity. She was placed in jail for civil contempt.

    I don’t see the word “martyr” anywhere in those statements, Jon. Saying that someone is being persecuted for their faith is quite distinct from saying that they’ve been murdered for their faith.

    If I say that someone was arrested for refusing to pay their taxes, is that the same as saying they were murdered for not paying their taxes?

    • #93
  4. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:The county clerk is elected to serve the general public and allow that public to exercise their freedom in the way they see fit. Government officials should not stand in their way.

    County clerks are also allowed by law to refuse to act in ways that they believe violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Davis had the legal right to not act. She even has the right to not just refuse to act out of conscience, but to actively pursue the defense of her religious belief. No one was denied a marriage license or the right to marry, by Davis. They simply had to go to a different government office.

    You seem unwilling to address this very clearly worded religious accommodation statute, Jon.

    • #94
  5. Big Green Inactive
    Big Green
    @BigGreen

    BThompson:

    You may not like religious accommodation statutes, but they are perfectly legal and acting in accordance with them doesn’t constitute “not following the law.”

    I don’t have an issue per se with religious accommodation and I think, in this instance, one should be granted to her.  That really isn’t the main point I am driving at.  The main point is this notion that judicial review is somehow counter to the constitution and somehow gives the SCOTUS unwarranted status as a final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law.  The federalist papers make clear that the SCOTUS is there to determine the constitutionality of the laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

    I even agree that the SCOTUS has, in recent, years usurped lawmaking powers rather than simply interpreting laws and this is not a positive development.  That said, just because I have an issue with some of their actions, I am not going to then try and eviscerate the original rationale for certain of its duties.

    • #95
  6. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Nick Stuart: First they came for the florists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a florist. Then they came for the bakers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a baker. Then they came for the county clerks, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a county clerk. … etc.

    The florists and bakers are being persecuted for their faith. They are private individuals who have every right to practice their beliefs in their own businesses. The county clerk is elected to serve the general public and allow that public to exercise their freedom in the way they see fit. Government officials should not stand in their way.

    Respectfully Jon, an elected official is treated at law as an employee, same as any other.   The tax code backs that up.  The same rules apply in worker’s compensation and any other legal matter.

    Accordingly, the distinction you (and many many others) are making is no distinction at all.  It’s legally inaccurate.

    The religious accommodation statutes I cited in #17 apply to her. Media keeps acting like religious accommodation is a favor we can give out or not give out as we like.  It’s not.  It’s the law.

    The entire conversation should be about that, and most are acting like they don’t know of it.

    But they will –  she’ll win an accommodation in state court.  But that won’t get a fraction of the media coverage when she does.

    • #96
  7. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Nick Stuart: First they came for the florists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a florist. Then they came for the bakers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a baker. Then they came for the county clerks, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a county clerk. … etc.

    The florists and bakers are being persecuted for their faith. They are private individuals who have every right to practice their beliefs in their own businesses. The county clerk is elected to serve the general public and allow that public to exercise their freedom in the way they see fit. Government officials should not stand in their way.

    actually they are being persecuted / prosecuted for not following anti-discrimination laws.  Do you think a baker or florist who said he would not serve gays because of health concerns would not be sued under these statutes?

    • #97
  8. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Big Green:I don’t have an issue per se with religious accommodation and I think, in this instance, one should be granted to her. That really isn’t the main point I am driving at. The main point is this notion that judicial review is somehow counter to the constitution and somehow gives the SCOTUS unwarranted status as a final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law. The federalist papers make clear that the SCOTUS is there to determine the constitutionality of the laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

    I even agree that the SCOTUS has, in recent, years usurped lawmaking powers rather than simply interpreting laws and this is not a positive development. That said, just because I have an issue with some of their actions, I am not going to then try and eviscerate the original rationale for certain of its duties.

    I agree with everything you say here. I don’t agree with anyone making remarks that Davis was acting unlawfully.

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

    Herbert Woodbery:

    Well according to Bob that would only be true if someone higher up in your branch of government had authority(and desire) over you to impose those consequences. So back when there were valid laws restricting marriage, there would be no consequences to public officials marrying gays …

    Sanctuary cities? might be illegal but if the governor approves then, so what…. and even then… do mayors have to abide by the dictates of the governor? What is the governor gonna to do? tell them to stop? The Mayor replies back “this is our city, we will run it the way we like”. Then what?

    Lawlessness can and should have consequences.  For example, a judge can be lawless and issue rogue decisions that clearly violate the plain wording of statutes.  But would anyone argue that the judge should be jailed for his decisions?  There are consequences for judges like that and they don’t include incarceration.  Moreover, the judge wouldn’t have to show he was acting on a religious belief to avoid incarceration.  That’s why I think the religious issue with the clerk isn’t even the real issue.  She may in fact be legally entitled to accommodation, but what if she just had general reservations about gay marriage based in reason and not religion? She might lose the accommodation but she still shouldn’t be ordered to jail by a judge…unless what she did was a violation of a statute for which jail was a penalty.

    • #99
  10. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    BThompson: I don’t see the word “martyr” anywhere in those statements, Jon. Saying that someone is being persecuted for their faith is quite distinct from saying that they’ve been murdered for their faith.

    I didn’t quote anyone saying “martyr.” I said they said she was in jail for her Christianity, which is a false statement.

    • #100
  11. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Herbert Woodbery: actually they are being persecuted / prosecuted for not following anti-discrimination laws. Do you think a baker or florist who said he would not serve gays because of health concerns would not be sued under these statutes?

    We agree on this. They are being persecuted by the state for peaceably observing their faith as private citizens. If they were somehow blocking cakes/flowers from a state office, that would be much different.

    • #101
  12. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Bob W:

    Herbert Woodbery:

    Well according to Bob that would only be true if someone highedesire) over you to impose those consequences. So back when there were valid laws restricting marriage, there would be no consequences to public officials marrying gays …

    Sanctuary cities? might be illegal but if the governor approves then, so what…. and even then… do mayors have to abide by the dictates of the governor? What is the governor gonna to do? tell them to stop? The Mayor replies back “this is our city, we will run it the way we like”. Then what?

    Lawlessness can and should have consequences. For example, a judge can be lawless and issue rogue decisions that clearly violate the plain wording of statutes. But would anyone argue that the judge should be jailed for his decisions? There are consequences for judges like that and they don’t include incarceration. Moreover, the judge wouldn’t have to show he was acting on a religious belief to avoid incarceration. That’s why I think the religious issue with the clerk isn’t even the real issue. She may in fact be legally entitled to accommodation, but what if she just had general reservations about gay marriage based in reason and not religion? She might lose the accommodation but she still shouldn’t be ordered to jail by a judge…unless what she did was a violation of a statute for which jail was a penalty.

    i agree with the above bolded.

    • #102
  13. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    I didn’t quote anyone saying “martyr.” I said they said she was in jail for her Christianity, which is a false statement.

    Jon, now you’re just getting lawyerly. The title of your post plainly implies that people are calling Davis a martyr. Then there is this quote below where you explicitly say that politicians are calling her a martyr.

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Mollie Hemingway: She’s not asking for martyrdom, for crying out loud, she’s asking that her conscience not be violated and there are *any number* of easy fixes that would accomplish this.

    But several politicians are calling her a martyr for Christ. That is what I’m addressing.

    • #103
  14. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Herbert Woodbery: actually they are being persecuted / prosecuted for not following anti-discrimination laws. Do you think a baker or florist who said he would not serve gays because of health concerns would not be sued under these statutes?

    We agree on this. They are being persecuted by the state for peaceably observing their faith as private citizens. If they were somehow blocking cakes/flowers from a state office, that would be much different.

    Thats not what I said or agree with.  The fact that they are claiming their faith compels them to break the law, is not why they are being persecuted or prosecuted.   If they refused to serve gays because of any reason (for example, health concerns, just general dislike or bigotry, or because they were beaten up by a gay when they were little)  do you think they would be any less likely to be prosecuted under the anti-discrimination laws?  I don’t.

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

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: This is neither a criminalization of faith, nor of Christianity. She was placed in jail for civil contempt.

    There is always a rationale to cover up the real reason.

    • #105
  16. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:… they said she was in jail for her Christianity, which is a false statement.

    This is just relying on pedantry to avoid the point. Technically, Davis was jailed for refusing to authorize her subordinates to license marriages. However, the reason she cited for her refusal, her Christian religious belief, was rejected as being legally justified. So, in fact the judge did indeed rule on the merits of her belief and the legality of her conscientious practice of her religious beliefs. This is blatantly a violation of her religious conscience which is in fact explicitly supposed to be honored and protected under state law. A fact that you have yet to acknowledge.

    • #106
  17. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    BThompson: Jon, now you’re just getting lawyerly.

    In that case, I fear we both are. Again, she is not suffering for her faith; she is suffering for her lawlessness.

    • #107
  18. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    BThompson: Jon, now you’re just getting lawyerly.

    In that case, I fear we both are. Again, she is not suffering for her faith; she is suffering for her lawlessness.

    It wasn’t lawless. The law that protects her actions has been repeatedly cited and it’s language is clear. You seem to have a filter which makes references to and explanations of that law invisible.

    Kentucky statutory protection of acting on religious belief

    Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities. 

    • #108
  19. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon, you plainly stated for all to see that politicians were calling Davis a martyr. Do you stand by that claim, or are you modifying that claim?

    • #109
  20. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Ted Cruz made his feelings clear about defiant county clerk Kim Davis: “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.” Mike Huckabee said, “having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

    Again, she is in legal trouble due to her failing her earthly office, not because she is a Christian.

    I don’t see anything to disagree with in Cruz’s statement there. He didn’t call her a martyr; he said she was arrested. She was.

    From the point of view of the judge, she was arrested for defying a court order or whatever. From her point of view, though, she was arrested for adhering to her religious convictions.

    From the point of view of fundamental constitutional rights, it’s a distinction without a difference.

    • #110
  21. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    katievs:

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Mollie Hemingway: …

    But several politicians are calling her a martyr for Christ.

    Where? The quotes you cite refer to conscience, not Christ.

    MLK, Jr. was thrown in jail for defying a court order, not for refusing to deny his faith in Jesus.

    The right to serve in public office without being forced to violate your conscience is among the most fundamental guarantees of the Constitution.

    I heard a wonderful talk on the subject last night by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik.

    The American system isn’t secular, it’s pluralist.

    The quotes I cite refer to Christ:

    Ted Cruz made his feelings clear about defiant county clerk Kim Davis: “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.” Mike Huckabee said, “having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

    Again, she is in legal trouble due to her failing her earthly office, not because she is a Christian.

    I don’t see where either Huckabee or Cruz used the term. Cruz is a lot of things including precise with his supreme court level oratory skills.

    I don’t think she fits the definition.

    Full Definition of MARTYR

    1

    :  a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 

    2

    :  a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

    • #111
  22. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    “don’t see anything to disagree with in Cruz’s statement there. He didn’t call her a martyr; he said she was arrested. She was.”

    Wouldn’t you say surely there have been other Christian women arrested for living their faith? I’m thinking faith healers, nuclear protesters, environmental protesters, abortion protestors for/against, civil rights protesters (rosa parks?), aids activist protesters…..

    http://www.antiwar.com/comment/plowshares1.html

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0218/Nun-sentenced-to-35-months-in-prison-for-antinuclear-peace-protest-video

    http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/

    http://www.thenation.com/article/sixty-four-arrested-moral-monday-abortion-access-protest-north-carolina/

    • #112
  23. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    BThompson: Jon, now you’re just getting lawyerly.

    In that case, I fear we both are. Again, she is not suffering for her faith; she is suffering for her lawlessness.

    More importantly than her particular case, should we not avoid wherever possible a situation in which a government employee (or any employee) is forced to choose between her conscience, her job, or lawlessness?

    Again, should not American government set the example here? Do we not want businesses to provide fairly simple accommodations whenever possible lest people with certain convictions be forced out of the public square? If so how not the government? If we simply accept “quit your job, Kim” as our response to this dilemma, recognize the impact of that in the broader culture. You have a problem with some aspect of your company’s mandatory diversity training? Quit your job: problem solved. This is no fringe issue. I realize there’s a legal distinction. I suspect it will be lost in the culture.

    What about the public school teacher who has a conscientious objection to the state-mandated sex education program? I am not creating a theoretical hard case, I am talking about something that will happen.

    I am at least halfway inclined to think she, personally, should resign, or at least that I would do so in her situation. But that question is a minor sideshow. The larger issue is that she should not have been put in the situation to begin with.

    • #113
  24. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    “What about the public school teacher who has a conscientious objection to the state-mandated sex education program? I am not creating a theoretical hard case, I am talking about something that will happen.”

    What happened to the teachers who conscientiously objected to integrated classrooms? Anybody remember?
    Were they shuffled off to administrative positions? I’m guessing they didn’t prevail in keeping their classes segregated. Did they refuse to teach the classes? Did they claim that they should get religious accommodation? Were they jailed or fired? Did they file lawsuits? What has changed between that period and the current period?

    • #114
  25. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    BThompson:Jon, you plainly stated for all to see that politicians were calling Davis a martyr. Do you stand by that claim, or are you modifying that claim?

    I said that politicians are calling her a martyr for Christ. I had assumed the fact that (A) I didn’t put that in quotation marks, and (B) that I led the article with two quotations from presidential candidates saying she was jailed for her Christianity, made my meaning clear to all. Apparently that was not the case.

    • #115
  26. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    Herbert Woodbery:“don’t see anything to disagree with in Cruz’s statement there. He didn’t call her a martyr; he said she was arrested. She was.”

    Wouldn’t you say surely there have been other Christian women arrested for living their faith? I’m thinking faith healers, nuclear protesters, environmental protesters, abortion protestors for/against, civil rights protesters (rosa parks?), aids activist protesters…..

    Of course there have been other Christian women arrested for living for their faith. What’s your point?

    • #116
  27. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:I said that politicians are calling her a martyr for Christ. I had assumed the fact that (A) I didn’t put that in quotation marks, and (B) that I led the article with two quotations from presidential candidates saying she was jailed for her Christianity, made my meaning clear to all.

    It comes down to misusing the word “martyr,” Jon. That is a loaded term which isn’t applicable to Davis and which no one has actually used. Claiming that people are describing her that way exaggerates the tone being used and makes the concerns over what she is enduring seem unserious and hysterical. It also makes it seem like her supporters are trivializing those who have given their lives for their faith. It’s just not fair to mischaracterize the nature of her support that way.

    Now I don’t like seeing the presidential candidates try to exploit her situation for publicity and political gain. That borders on unseemly to me. But Davis didn’t ask for that. Perhaps she should be refusing to be part of that show, it would probably add to her credibility. But at the same time, she feels she is being wronged and her civil rights are being violated. Plus she has been the subject of social media mobs and nasty news coverage for weeks, so I can’t blame her too much for being grateful for some sympathetic attention from prominent figures and crowds of defenders.

    1/2

    • #117
  28. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    2/2

    I’d also still really love to hear why you are dismissing or at least ignoring the fact that Kentucky has a religious accommodation law that seem to actually justify her behavior and should have protected her from all this. What Davis was asking for was not unprecedented or unreasonable. The state of Kentucky as I pointed out before makes accommodations for matters of conscience on matters much more trivial than this. If vegetarians don’t have to issue fishing or hunting licenses, why do devout Christians have to issue marriage licenses?

    • #118
  29. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    “Of course there have been other Christian women arrested for living for their faith. What’s your point?”

    Just pointing out the absurdity of Cruz’s statement.

    • #119
  30. Big Ern Inactive
    Big Ern
    @BigErn

    Nick Stuart:

    A-Squared:I’m shocked that a news story this big hasn’t created much discussion on Ricochet. Hopefully, this is the thread that will get a discussion going.

    There have been posts on the Member Feed. Perhaps it just took a Main Feed Contributor to get it past the filter.

    No, it’s hasn’t been green-lit to the main feed because the editors are more in agreement with Jon than with the counter-arguments.

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