Tag Archives: gay marriage

Things that are like Kim Davis

things that are like kim davis

{Image: the image is a Word table that can be viewed at this link.}

Things that are not like Kim Davis:

A person being drafted involuntarily into the military asserting conscientious objections to serving in the military.

The difference: the word “involuntarily.” Davis’s situation is like a pacifist enlisting in the all-volunteer army and then asserting conscientious objections to serving in the military.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), which is defined as

all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(j) (emphasis added). So if you’re a county clerk and you want to wear a yarmulke or headscarf to work, you can because it will not affect the conduct of the employer’s business. If you are a pharmacist, the whole point of the employer’s business is to sell medicine, so you cannot require your employer to accommodate your Christian Scientist beliefs by removing one of your primary job duties.

Kim Davis is not a conscientious objector; she’s a person refusing to do her job or possibly a person who has the wrong job.

Update:  Eric commented

One difference: when Kim Davis took her job, issuing gay marriage licenses was NOT part of her job.

My easy and, I think, correct response was that issuing marriage licenses was part of the job.  That should be the end of the discussion.  But it made me think:  how would I handle Kim Davis’s case if it were a real case — as opposed to a publicity stunt — and she came to me for legal advice?  Distasteful as I find her religious views, I would advocate a role for her that did not require her to personally issue marriage licenses to people she did not approve of.*  There appear to be a number of employees in the clerk’s office willing to issue all legal licenses; if the office could permit her to refuse to issue such licenses “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” I think that would be permitted.  The distinction is like a Wal-Mart employee who won’t sell guns — which should be permitted as it’s an enormous store with plenty of other tasks — and a gun store employee who won’t sell guns — which will cause undue hardship as the employer would be paying the employee to do nothing.

The problem with this analysis for Davis is that she apparently instructed the rest of her staff not to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, which did cause hardship in that the entire office ceased to be able to do one of the things it is tasked with doing.


*The test for religious accommodation requires sincerity but sadly not consistency, so she can decide to disapprove of gay and lesbian couples, while continuing to issue licenses to people of other (and different) faiths, divorce(e)s, child abusers, tax cheats, lusters, gluttons, sloths, greedy bastards and other sinners, deadly or otherwise.

Chicken and hate

I am not, repeat not, a biblical scholar.  In fact, my sum total of Bible-reading consists of (1) Christmas with the in-laws,* and (2) being stuck in a hotel room without a novel to read myself to sleep.  I do feel qualified to opine on fast food chicken, though, because I love junk food.  The best fast-food chicken is — objectively and indisputably — Popeye’s.  Why?  Grease and flavor.  Sure the Colonel’s chicken is good because it is thoroughly battered and bathed in grease.  But Popeye’s has that plus a tasty, spicy flavor that puts it over the top.  All this is to say that my total boycott of Chick-Fil-A** for their hate-based policies will  have precisely zero effect on their bottom line.

This woman, however, sounds like she could require an extra line on their next annual report.  Plus she knows her Bible.

The long and short of it– on 8/1 (the day Mike Huckabee wants Chick-Fil-A supporters to patronize the restaurant) go to Chick-Fil-A. Ask for a large water and nothing else. See if they adhere to Proverbs 25:21[***] and give it to you. If they do, yay! You took a few cents from their hate fund! If they don’t, well…I guess they’re proving their principals aren’t so “biblical.”

My favorite comment was:

The point is CHRISTIANS are ONLY under the NT not the OT! So her point was invalid on bringing up the OT when that law was abolished 2,000+ years ago.

So, I’m confused:  the Ten Commandments don’t apply to Christians?  That actually explains a lot, for example, the fact that the murder rate and the rate of both divorce and teen (presumably out-of-wedlock) birth is higher in more conservative states.  Scholars have attributed the latter to economic, historical, and other scholarly factors, but perhaps it’s simply that God repealed the Ten Commandments and the Blue States didn’t get the memo.

Balloon Juice also had this excellent photo:

Though again, for the record, KFC is only the second-best batter-dipped, grease-soaked chicken.  Popeye’s is the way to go.

* Sorry, guys, but you knew I was a heathen**** when I started dating Tim.

** When I first saw a Chick-Fil-A sign sometime in the 80s or 90s, I seriously thought it was pronounced “chick filla” — rhymes with Godzilla — because I could not believe anyone would be so backward as to be unable to say or spell “filet.”

*** “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink”

**** OK, not total heathen.  I’ve summarized/made light of my own religious views elsewhere on the blog.

Thank you, President Obama & a re-run

Thank you for supporting marriage equality!  Keep moving us forward.   If you agree that this was an important step forward and that politicians, like puppies, should be rewarded for good behavior, throw some money toward keeping us moving forward.

And in honor of this step forward in civil rights, in response to the benighted state of North Carolina, and in recognition of the fact that I’ve been in trial prep and trial for the last month or so and have not had the time to come up with a new post, I’m rerunning a post from July 2010:

If we’re going to defend hetero marriage, let’s do it right. 

Folks opposed to marriage equality argue that if gays and lesbians are permitted that state-sanctioned status, it will have the effect of destroying heterosexual marriages.  In response, they promote legislation ostensibly designed to protect this venerable institution.  Most liberals campaign against these measures, on the grounds that they are unfair (what part of “equal protection of the laws” is unclear?) and irrational (straights have done a pretty good job of marriage destruction all on their own).

My view is:  if we’re going to use the legislative process to protect heterosexual marriages, let’s pass laws that might actually reduce stress and promote harmony in those marriages.  These measures would “save” those marriages in the sense that the people in them would remain happy with one another and therefore married, rather than in the way that opponents of gay marriage think it works:  that we’ll only stay together if we can smugly monopolize the legal label for our relationships.

Warning:  what follows traffics in the basest of gender stereotypes, derived directly from my own 16-year experience with heterosexual marriage.

The Bathroom Separation Act.  Men and women were not meant to share bathrooms.  The vast genetic differences in cleanliness perception and many practical differences in paraphernalia make sharing facilities a source of stress in 55% of heterosexual marriages.*  Under this proposed legislation, all new homes will be required to have two completely separate bathrooms adjacent to the master bedroom and money will be allocated from the federal budget to retrofit houses of married heteros with one extra master bath.

The Laundry Technology Act.  All new washers and dryers will be equipped with control panels of equal or greater complexity to a sound system of comparable price.  In addition, federal regulations will require garment labels to include one of the following two statements, as appropriate:  “This Goes In the Light Wash,” or “This Goes In the Dark Wash.”  At least 43%* of the bickering in hetero marriages concerns lack of laundry participation by one of the two genders commonly found in those unions.  This measure will not only promote increased participation, but will ensure that the result is not uniformly pink.

Music Parity Regulations.  FCC regulations will require at least one station in each broadcast area to play folk rock and heavy metal tunes on a strictly alternating basis.  Imagine the heterosexual marriages — not to mention lives — saved by not having driver and passenger switching constantly among stations in search of (to take a completely random example) Boston or The Indigo Girls.

Quality Motion Picture Act.  At least five movies each year will be required to have both exciting action sequences (car chases; explosions; zombies) and a plot with believable, grown-up dialog and characters.  Hetero marriages will flourish when husbands and wives not only attend but enjoy the same movies.

Full Funding for Public Education, Universal Health Care and Assisted Living Act.  Approximately 95%* of the fights in heterosexual marriages concern the kids’ schools, the doctor’s bills, and how to care for the in-laws without having them actually move in.  The FFPEUHCALA will ensure high quality public education, availability of heath care without forgoing food and heat, and a comfortable, safe old age for your in-laws** somewhere other than your home.  This legislation will avoid at least 3.2 million* heterosexual divorces each year.  In addition, just imagine all the quality time hetero couples will have in lieu of the hundreds of hours they now spend filling out insurance forms, fighting with insurance companies, filling out more forms, waiting on hold to insurance companies, and figuring out how to pay for things they already bought insurance to pay for.

Let’s see if those anti-marriage-equality folks really want to protect hetero marriage — let’s see if they’ll support all this crucial legislation.

* All statistics in this post are invented out of whole cloth.  They sure sound about right, though, don’t they?

** Love ya, Denver & Nora!