Monday, September 07, 2015

The County Clerk Who Cried Persecution

This was one of the most succinct summaries I have read on the topic, from Kim Davis' defenders are missing the point.
Kim Davis isn’t fighting for religious liberty. She’s fighting to get paid for a job she’s not doing.
That is about the size of it. Every job requires you to conform to something, whether that is a dress code or a start time or the salary you receive. It is doubly so with a job working for Caesar. She wants to work at this job but doesn't want to do what the job demands because she personally opposes it. I also would not issue marriage licenses for homosexuals but I don't work for Caesar. I liked this quote in the article from the Cato Institute:
“[Davis] is not in jail for refusing to violate her religion, unless her religion requires her to keep her public job.”
That stings a bit, doesn't it? Being a county clerk doesn't give one standing to defy the law, even when the law is based on a ridiculous legal notion. The author of the article gives a couple of hypothetical situations that culture warriors wouldn't be so quick to defend but thinking through a topic is a lot more work than knee-jerk reactions.

There is real persecution coming to this country but it is not here now and this isn't persecution. There is an old story about a boy who cried wolf. Today we have a lot of Christians and politicians who cry "persecution!" whenever anything doesn't go their way, like Fox News contributor Todd Starnes. We ought not be surprised when real persecution comes and no one cares because they have gotten tired of hearing anything and everything described that way.

2 comments:

Jeremy Myers said...

This is exactly right. It is absolutely fine if she does not want to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But if her job requires her to do this, then she simply needs to find another job.

As you say, this is not persecution, and when true persecution comes, these sorts of arguments will only weaken any ability to point out true persecution.

Robert Rouse said...

I can see this one both ways. She took the job before it came into conflict with her faith. Later, her choices were: recant, resign, or go to jail. Resignation is probably the better choice but at the end of the day the choice before her was: "deny your faith or lose your job." I do agree this is mild compared to what we can expect to face in the future of this country or the present reality of the rest of the world.