I’m vegan. That means that I won’t be applying to work at McDonald’s were I to lose my job. Unless I get really desperate for work. Then I’m sure I can wow some franchise manager to hire me to be director, burger flipping.
Of course, once hired, I wouldn’t actually handle any meat. I’d immediately claim that doing so would violate my sincerely held beliefs and that my workplace should offer a reasonable accommodation (people, I know the right HR lingo to use). My standoff with Ronald McDonald would go all the way to the Supreme Court, and I’m pretty confident that nine judges would rule against the clown. And by clown, I mean me—because it would be crazy to take a job with responsibilities I refuse to fulfill.
Kim Davis is that clown. The Rowan County, Ky., town clerk continues to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will,” said Davis. “To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word.” I’m not sure what the Lord has been whispering in her ear, but her employer, Uncle Sam, requires her to abide by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Davis has no real claim to a religious exemption because the essence of her role requires upholding the law. Unfortunately, while most people who don’t do their jobs get fired, Davis is an elected official. Her only options seem to be to do what she’s supposed to or be held in contempt of court and possibly go to jail.
As columnist Dan Savage explained, this is all part of a story that will end with Davis serving as a martyr for the extreme right. She will eventually “write” a book, give some speeches, and make some cash—all by disguising her fight for bigotry as a quest for religious freedom.
The irony is that this self-professed religious crusader “gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second,” according to U.S. News & World Report. Which led Savage to point out: “Kim Davis got knocked up by her third husband shortly after divorcing her first husband got knocked up by her third husband before she divorced her first husband and somehow managed to talk her second husband into adopting the kids she had by the man who would eventually become her third husband… and she’s now on her fourth husband? The Hapsburg family tree is less complicated.” What is plainly not complicated is Davis’ hypocrisy.
Oh, and by the way, Davis was elected to office as a Democrat. So, you know, hoorah for diversity of thought, I guess.
I feel the need to respond to this…..I’m not sure how her personal marital status or her children’s legal parent is relevant here?
As I understand it, there are 5 other clerks who can issue the licenses, so she is not preventing anyone from obtaining a license. I think it’s also relevant that this requirement was issued after she was in the position – so the vegan who applies at McDonald’s is a totally different situation. In this case, she is asking to be excused from a part of her job that conflicts with her beliefs.
It seems to me that we are all about ‘inclusion’ until someone doesn’t agree with us. Why aren’t we celebrating her for her religious convictions? Same sex couples could get their licenses from a different clerk (one of the other 5!), she would not participate, everyone is happy. Why does she have to ‘conform’? I understand the Supreme Court’s decision, but we also as employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation for a multitude of reasons, which is this case viewed differently and with such venom?
Seems to me there is some hypocrisy, as the article states, but to me it’s by the author.
Leslie, thanks for chiming in! I appreciate you sharing your opinion.
Regarding your recommendation that Davis should be allowed to excuse herself so that her deputy clerks can issue licenses makes sense—Davis has rejected this option. While in power, Davis was deciding for her entire office, which she had the legal right to do, that no clerk can issue a license to same-sex couples. In other words, while she’s entitled to her beliefs, she was actually imposing them on her entire community of people. She flat out said that she refused to issue licenses under God’s authority, and was not extending that “authority” over all the citizens in her jurisdiction. (A gay couple applying for a license, on the contrary, is hardly imposing beliefs on others, let alone an entire citizenry.)
There is nothing to celebrate about Kim’s actions. To do so would be to celebrate not inclusion but intolerance. And we should not tolerate (forget about celebrate) intolerance. Davis was, in fact, told by a judge that she has the option to recuse herself and let other deputies issue licenses. She refuses to do so, preferring her stay in jail — that is, SHE is now making the decision to reject the workplace accommodation that you suggest.
Her marital status is relevant. It points to her hypocrisy, or at the very least irony. This is a woman who is using her religion to deny the basic, legal right to marry to people because they violate her religion. And yet, she, too, violated her faith repeatedly and was — surprise, surprise — allowed to get married. No one use d that fact that she unfaithful to her marriage and getting pregnant outside of her marriage to strip her of legal rights.
For the record, I don’t care that she had an affair. I care that she thinks her religious beliefs rise above the law when it comes to the lives of other people.
I wrote: “She flat out said that she refused to issue licenses under God’s authority, and was not extending that ‘authority’ over all the citizens in her jurisdiction.”
“not” = “now” in above sentence. (Please try to overlook my many other typos — sorry!)