Four Reasons Christians Should Support Kim Davis

I will try to end with this.

You have some how warped my words to make me sound like some ogre out to crush Kim Davis’ rights.

I don’t think I warped them. Kim Davis has the right, under our law, to make a religious/conscientious objection (whether we agree with the objection or not) and her employer (the Commonwealth or County in this case) has the duty to make reasonable accommodation for that. You seem to think either she doesn’t have the right or she should give it up.

I simply think that claiming “religious objection” as a civil servant is the wrong road to go down. I think it will set a dangerous precedent that other people will use to do things we don’t like. But, I don’t even think the argument will work in the present political climate.

I don’t think it will work in the present political climate, but I could see it working in the long term, perhaps. But more importantly, you seem to want to make a political calculation about whether or not it will work. I think that’s the wrong approach. If this is a matter of principle (both of US law and of individual conscience), then you don’t judge it by whether or not it will work or whether it is the most expedient thing. You judge by whether it is right.

I think Kim could have easily let others sign the form rather than insist the form not even refer to her office.

I think that was one of the suggestions that was refused. That was something the legislature could have very easily done. But they didn’t. Again, Mark, there were numerous suggested accommodations that sound very reasonable to me.

But in the end, whether we agree with her and her actions or not, she still has the right as a citizen to make a religious objection and there were options that were refused.

No, rather than scream at the top of our lungs to get our names off of legal documents, we should be praying and preaching the gospel even more.

I think this is a false dichotomy as if she should do one or the other. Why? Why not both be a citizen and a Christian?

If Kim is not willing to make an accommodation she should quit.

On what basis, though? That’s what I am still trying to get a good answer for. People have repeatedly declared this but so far, I haven’t seen a convincing reason for it. People (like Mark) have made rather absurd hypotheticals in an attempt to bolster it, all of which had easy answers (easier than this one). That, so far, seems to be the approach: Just give up and give in or resign.

But more than that, I think you are missing the point of religious freedom and accommodation. It is the employer that must make reasonable accommodation, not the objector. It has always been that way. It is not open-ended accommodation, but reasonable accommodation. And the employer in this case is the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

I think the arguments have been well laid out in numerous places that she was (perhaps not now, given reports of new steps she has taken) well within her rights and the burden of reasonable accommodation lies with the employer (the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Rowan County in this case), not the employee. I also think a strong strong argument has been made that there is currently no law regarding SSM marriage licenses, particularly no law regarding SSM licenses in Kentucky. The proof that that is incorrect would be the citation of a law regarding SSM licenses. Can you cite that law for us? What actual law is she breaking? The invalidation of a law does not also create a alternative law. It creates a vacuum of law which then must be addressed by the legislatures. There is a law regarding marriage licenses that has been ruled unconstitutional. That still leaves no law under which SSM marriages licenses can be issued until it is changed. Since the 14th amendment has been made to apply to marriage licenses, the laws should be changed to reflect that. But let’s leave that behind since that is all stuff …

Here’s the bigger issue and the reason that I respond. You appeal to your conscience and your actions and the actions of others as if that matters. I would suggest that could not be more irrelevant and your citing it as support indicates that you are missing the point of religious freedom and conscience.

Freedom of conscience is to protect the individual in cases just like this, to prevent them from being bound by someone else’s conscience (even your’s, as good as it might be ). One person’s conscience (Kim Davis in this case) cannot be bound by another person’s conscience (your’s in this case, or Anthony Kennedy’s, or mine, or anyone’s). In other words, you are welcome to do what you want, but you cannot force that on her. Nor should she be able to force her conscience on you. Quite apart from biblical Christianity (which I don’t know if either Kim or you espouse), that is a fundamental tenet of our constitution. It should be honored.

Remember, I am not defending Kim Davis or her tactics per se. I am talking about the principle of religious freedom and conscience.

But I am curious as to what you think should happen if a Christian police officer was required to do undercover work in a strip club? (This is not an emergency call in a strip club, but an undercover operation.) Should he be forced to choose between his job and his conscience? Or should reasonable accommodations be made for that? Let’s say your are mid-40s, 5-6 years from retirement and you are given this assignment to do undercover work in a strip club. What would you have done? Should you be able to appeal to conscience to avoid such an assignment, or should you have to walk away? Isn’t it obvious that reasonable accommodations should be made?

Your example of protestors at abortion clinics is not similar. The officer has no problem arresting people; he does it all the time, and in such cases, the law is clear about where these protestors can be and what they can do. He can’t make a religious objection to that because it would be clearly inconsistent with what he has already done and there is a clear and unambiguous law. This case is entirely different. She has never authorized SSM licenses and there is, as of now, no law under which they can be authorized.

This is not an issue about changing hearts and minds. Of course we should do that through the gospel. But this is not a gospel issue. It is a basic civics issue. I think people are tending to confuse Christianity and citizenship. Citizens are entitled to their rights as citizens even if, and especially if, someone else doesn’t like it and would do it differently.

In the end, Joe, neither you nor Mark nor anyone else has made a good case as to why this clerk should be denied her freedom of conscience when there are other means by which to accomplish the same ends. In our system of government, that matters.

Remember what this whole thing stemmed from—the idea that a majority of people (the voters who passed marriage laws/amendments) should not be able to deny a scant minority (same sex couples who desire to get married in the states in which it was illegal) their freedom. Suddenly, that gets flipped upside down where a minority of people (Anthony Kennedy and a few same sex couples who want marriage licenses in Rowan County Kentucky) can deny an even smaller minority (Kim Davis) her freedom of conscience.

Is she making a political point? Possibly. I don’t really have a problem with that either. But simply on the merits of this case, I don’t see any legitimate argument that she should be forced to issue the licenses with her name on them.

Changed the marriage license document herself for ssm licenses. She personally removed the words “Rowan County Clerk” from the form, then let her deputy sign it.

Was that smart?

Was that legal?

I ask again, is this the right way to oppose same-sex marriage?

I would appreciate it if you would realize I NEVER tried to say Kim should be denied any rights. All I ever said was that this is a HORRIBLE way to go about dealing with ssm. It won’t help at all. Kim will lose. And Christians that oppose ssm will be made to look, once again, like fools.

Freedom of Religion Only Applies To Christians.

If you have read anything I have said, you know that I never said anything of the sort. I believe that religious freedom applies to all. Not just Christians. That was the point of Mark’s attempt at examples above, and I pointed that out, that all citizens have rights, not just Christians. So if a Jew or a Muslim or a atheist or whatever has an issue of conscience, reasonable accommodations should be made. It’s not that hard, Joe.

Furthemore, I have never said anything in support of Huckabee, Cruz, or any dominionist (though I am not sure they are actual dominionists). I think any kind of dominionisn is wrong—both civilly and biblically. I have been clear from the beginning that this is a citizenship issue, not a Christian issue. For you to say otherwise is simply incorrect. It seems like you are not actually reading what I said.

Kim’s a public servant she either does her job with accommodation that the employer will offer and allow same sex licenses to be given or resign period.

So far, they apparently have not made accommodations, although if the news reports are accurate, that may have changed. I don’t know. Again, I am not defending her per se. It is the issue.

In regards to a Christian Undercover Police Officer being forced to go into a strip club that would never happen.

Of course not, because it never happens until it happens. But when it does, what then? We are already at a place that many thought was unimaginable. Although I know of a police officer who was forced to do something against his conscience. I am not sure what the outcome was.

Mark’s point still applies change hearts and minds through Christ not a militant campaign by Christians for a political agenda who are dragging corrupt luggage along ie Cruz being the anointed one and Huckabee being in bed with Gothard and Josh Duggar.

I have been of the view that we should try to change hearts and minds long before Mark was saying that here, and long before I was saying that here. I am not for a militant campaign by Christians for a political agenda. I am fairly radical on that point. The issue is not one about Christianity or a Christian agenda. It is about civic freedom and conscience. If you want to make other points, then make them against someone who is arguing for them. I am not arguing for other points. If you want to argue against Huckabee and Cruz, have at it. I am not arguing for them.

Was that smart?

Was that legal?

I ask again, is this the right way to oppose same-sex marriage?

I am not sure whether it is legal. It is something that the Kentucky legislature could have very easily done and it would have solved the problem. As for the “right way,” I am not sure. It is one way. There are probably a number of facets to the “right way” or a number of different “right ways” to do this.

I would appreciate it if you would realize I NEVER tried to say Kim should be denied any rights.

I don’t think you tried to say that. But I think you do end up denying her rights in this case unintentionally.

All I ever said was that this is a HORRIBLE way to go about dealing with ssm. It won’t help at all. Kim will lose. And Christians that oppose ssm will be made to look, once again, like fools.

I am not sure it is a horrible way to oppose it. It may or may not help; we won’t know for a while. It may be that this causes Kentucky to do what other states have already done and protect people in these situations. That would be a win. In the short term, she will probably lose. This won’t increase the chance of looking like fools. Christians and people of proper moral character already look like fools to the world around us. This makes it more visible, but it raises an issue that people need to consider more carefully.

As long as we roll over every time, then we will keep getting rolled over. Again, it’s not a Christian issue per se. It’s a civic issue. IMO, it’s as good a time as any to take a stand as a citizen.