Davis fails to understand when one works for Caesar one is required to follow Caesar’s rules. Since she can’t follow that rule, the right and Christian course is to resign her position in protest.
But she refuses to resign and refuses to obey a local court order.
Davis appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay and it landed on the desk of the morally bankrupt Justice Elena Kagan who long before the court considered homosexual marriage presided over a same–sex wedding and then refused to recuse herself from deliberations this year.
Her appeal was rejected when it didn’t gain the support of four justices.
Now Davis has run the race, made the public aware and now should resign.
As an Evangelical Christian I’m beginning to feel my view is in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong. A Twitter acquaintance said, “I am positive the state is required to make an accommodation if feasible, which it certainly is.” Fellow columnist Terrance Jeffery writes, “Can a Christian be a county clerk in the United States?…Can a Christian be a doctor? A nurse? A public-school teacher?”
The answer is maybe, yes, yes and maybe. Both Jeffery and my Twitter pal are making the same category error by refusing to issue marriage licenses that homosexuals made when they demanded licenses.
Homosexuals were always free to get married as long as they agreed with the definition: One man joined to one woman. But that’s not what the same–sex activists wanted. They demanded a relationship of their design that is not and never has been a marriage. Then they wanted the government and society to approve and ratify this drastic redefinition of a centuries–old institution.
Davis’ supporters claim she is entitled to accommodation for belief under religious freedom laws. The go–to example is the Moslem woman being allowed to wear a headscarf on the job. Yes, that’s allowed. What’s not allowed is permitting the Moslem woman to refuse to deal with Jews.
Then there’s the Costco employee who refused to work in the fast–food kitchen because he didn’t want to handle pork, but Davis isn’t refusing to make pigs–in–a–blanket, she’s refusing to let people share a blanket.
Government official Kim Davis acting on her personal belief and refusing marriage licenses is no different from IRS enforcer Lois Lerner acting on her personal belief and conspiring to deny tax exempt status to Tea Party organizations. Sure one is passive aggressive and the other is aggressive aggressive, but bottom line is both are aggressive.
EEOC regulations don’t support Davis. The law requires accommodating: “…an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” Refusing to issue marriage licenses defines “undue hardship.”
This case has even driven me to agree with an ACLU lawyer that told the Courier–Journal “government officials must carry out the duties of public office.” If she doesn’t resign, Davis single–handedly gives homosexual activists the Holy Grail they’ve been seeking for decades: A legitimate denial of their civil rights.
Before the Supremes’ unGodly decision the civil rights argument was risible. Now it isn’t. A Kentucky clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a qualified couple in 2015 is exactly equivalent to a Kentucky registrar refusing to allow blacks to vote in 1962.
Jeffery contends nothing prevents homosexual couples from driving to another Kentucky county and get a marriage license from some heathen clerk — just as nothing prevented our 1962 blacks from moving to New York and registering to vote, proving this is ground on which believers don’t want to fight.
If Davis ran a bakery and refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding, then she would be in the right and I would contribute to her legal fund. The same goes for being a photographer, caterer or valet parking firm. But continuing to resist as a government official only helps create sympathy for homosexual marriage and undermines the Christian cause.
One final note: Davis, like all of us, is a flawed Christian. She worked 26 years in the clerk’s office before winning the job last November, possibly explaining her reluctance to resign the position now. Nothing however, can explain Davis winning as a Democrat, which is where her confusion becomes painfully evident. How can a Christian run for office as the standard bearer of a party that’s made a sacrament of abortion?
I can only assume that so far no one has asked her to sharpen a scalpel.