For those who are couching the Kim Davis debate as one of religious freedom (I'm raising an eyebrow at you, Messrs. Cruz and Huckabee), two questions:
1. Should a Kentucky county clerk have been allowed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, before Obergefell made it legal, using the excuse of "God's authority" and his personal religious beliefs (assuming his church, for example, recognizes marriage by same-sex couples)? if so, should he have been protected from firing and/or jail for contempt of court because he did so?
2. Should a Muslim DMV manager be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women because of "God's authority," without fear of being fired or being jailed if a court orders him to issue such licenses?
If your answers were no, then your concern is not over religious freedom in principle, but solely over religious freedom for the One True Religion® as you and Ms Davis define it. You can exit the constitutional debate out the side door, please.
If your answers were yes for all these cases, then congratulations on being consistent in your application of religious freedom as trumping all other law, and welcome to the breakdown of any sort of law and order in the United States.
I've also heard some folk comparing Ms Davis to Rosa Parks. To which I must ask, how did Parks' actions violate the legal and constitutional rights of others? Is the implication that white had a right to sit at the front of the bus that Ms Parks was violating in order to claim "special privileges"? Beyond that, did Ms Parks swear an oath of office (so help her, God) to sit at the back of the bus?
Civil disobedience for a cause is an admirable thing in and of itself, but being civilly disobedient at the cost of the rights of others is a lot more problematic. Similarly, religious martyrdom can be a great and noble personal act, but it does not demonstrate that the cause you're being martyred for is a great and noble one. Suicide bombers consider themselves religious martyrs as well; Ms Davis' actions are not nearly as reprehensible as killing for the sake of one's religion, but that doesn't mean her justification is any more valid.
civil disobedience and martyrdom.
Kentucky clerk jailed for defying court orders on gay marriage – BBC News
A US judge orders a Kentucky official jailed for contempt of court after she has repeatedly refused to issue marriage licences to gay couples.
Apparently the question of what conservative reaction would be would happen if a Muslim decided not to do their job because of a claim of religious freedom has been answered: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/02/geller-muslim-stewardess-refuses-to-serve-alcohol-then-plays-the-victim/
Astonishing stupidity and hypocrisy is the only accurate description of this nonsense.
Irony alert: below the comments of the breitbart article was a huge collection of click bait articles.the first of them had a standwithKimDavis hash tag.
It's an interesting case, though. The laws of her state are very explicit about marriage being between one man and one woman who are not closer than second cousins. She's saying that those are the laws she upholds.
The statements I've seen from her (e.g., http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1965) are more about Christian Scripture than Kentucky law. And even if the latter were her main motivation, it does not, under the 14th Amendment, trump Federal court rulings about rights under the US Constitution.
+Dave Hill That's true. She's a bigot. But her lawyers are savvy enough to take advantage of the laws in Kentucky.
+Paula Moore Sure. But those laws cannot stand, based on existing court rulings, any more than interracial marriage bans could stand after the Loving decision.
Very good points, OP.
I wonder if the 1st amendment is naturally biased against atheists. Let's assume the homosexual couple attempting to wed are not practicing Christians. Does Davis' right of religious freedom trump their lack of religion? On the flip side, I've seen some Christian denominations accept homosexuality. In which case, isn't Davis, a government employee, stepping on their religious sacrament to wed? Religious freedom is 2 door; often the right don't see that.
+Andrew Dieffenbach While the 1st Amendment does not (or should not) be biased against atheists (early versions referred to Freedom of Conscience, and all modern jurisprudence considers atheism a religious belief system).
But, yes, who's considered "qualified" to be married varies from religion to religion, denomination to denomination, pastor to pastor, person to person. Except for very broad state interests, the government shouldn't be deciding who should or shouldn't wed, especially when it comes to religious objections.
As has been noted by many others, Ms Davis has been willing sign off on divorcees, even though the Catholic Church would consider them disqualified to be married in the Church. Her own marriage history indicates that's not her particular religious kink, but, again, she doesn't get to decide which religious rules apply and which don't. That's not what she was elected for, and not what she can be elected to do under the Constitution.