RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Epps writes: "Is it possible to agree on what religious freedom is not? It's not a right to wear a Marine uniform but refuse to fight. It's not a right to be a county clerk and decide which citizens you will serve and which you won't."

A same-sex couple is denied a marriage license in Rowan County, Kentucky. (photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP)
A same-sex couple is denied a marriage license in Rowan County, Kentucky. (photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP)


When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public

By Garrett Epps, The Atlantic

16 August 15

 

Government employees have an obligation to follow the letter of the law despite their religious convictions—or else resign the offices they hold.

hirty-five years ago, as a reporter for The Washington Post, I spent 13 weeks following young recruits through Marine Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. That February, 226 candidates entered OCS; in April, 117—about half—got their lieutenant’s bars.

One of the candidates wanted to be a Marine aviator. He was fit, fast, and smart—good officer material. But as he neared the halfway mark of the training, he underwent a crisis of conscience. OCS training is demanding and martial. Instructors emphasized the realities of combat day after day. (One went so far as to read the candidates “Dulce et Decorum Est” by English poet Wilfred Owen—a vivid description of a World War I gas attack that left blood “gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs” of dying soldiers.)

At some point, this candidate realized he could not in good conscience engage in warfare. “Can I put a squad of men up against enemy fire?” he asked himself. “Can I permit my men to kill other human beings?” He struggled with his beliefs—even debated them respectfully with the battalion commander—but concluded he could not stay.

It was a painful parting on both sides. He lost a coveted career, the Corps lost a promising candidate. But it had to happen.

Here’s what didn’t happen: Nobody suggested that dropping him from OCS was a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of “the free exercise” of religion. He did not say, “I think that in recognition of my sincere religious opposition to war, you should let me stay in the Corps and get my pilot’s wings. I will do the job, except for one thing: I won’t drop bombs or shoot guns.”

I thought of that incident on Thursday, when I read Miller v. Davis. In that decision, released Wednesday, District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Kim Davis, Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, to issue state marriage licenses to all qualified couples who seek them.

After the Supreme Court decided in June that states must allow same-sex couples to marry, Davis had announced that she and her staff of six deputies would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone. Barring any couples for getting licenses in Rowan County, Davis claimed, would protect her religious rights without discriminating against anyone. Judge Bunning brushed that argument aside and issued an injunction requiring her to issue licenses. On Friday, she defied the order.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” said a statement from her public-interest lawyers, Liberty Counsel. “At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated.”

Is it possible to agree on what religious freedom is not? It’s not a right to wear a Marine uniform but refuse to fight. It’s not a right to be a county clerk and decide which citizens you will serve and which you won’t. Religious “accommodation” doesn’t mean what Liberty Counsel thinks it means. If a person can perform the duties of a job with some adjustment for religious belief, that’s an accommodation. If they’re not willing to do the job, they have to leave. That’s not just a requirement of law; honor requires it as well.

Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. It’s not good enough to say, “Go to another county if you want a license.” It’s not good enough to say, “I won’t let anyone get married.” Those aren’t a clerk’s decisions to make.

“Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance,” wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy,in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans.

Since the decision in June, many commentators who should know better have been spreading a false narrative. After its decades-long fight for marriage equality, they say, the gay movement has become an intolerant juggernaut crushing anyone who dares to question same-sex marriage. Soon, they warn, federal officials will begin pulling pastors from the pulpits, and judges will order the IRS to strip tax-exempt status from religious schools that do not embrace marriage equality.

Just how all this is supposed to happen eludes me. There is no federal statute forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the major federal anti-discrimination law, applies to public accommodations, but does not even cover bakeries. As for tax exemptions, racist schools lost their tax-exempt status as a result of decade-long public administrative process initiated by the Internal Revenue Service. Only the IRS can do this, and only after public debate. There’s no reason to believe it is inevitable—consider that although sex discrimination is also banned under federal law, single-sex schools still retain their exemptions a half-century after passage of the Act.

Colorado’s Court of Appeals Thursday affirmed an order requiring a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, to accept wedding-cake orders from same-sex couples. That claim arose under state law, and each state’s civil-rights laws are different. Bakers and photographers claim that participating in same-sex weddings—even to the extent of baking cakes or taking pictures—violates their religious-freedom and free-speech rights. My sympathies lie with the customers, but the business owners’ claims are serious ones; taking photographs and baking message cakes involve expression, and First Amendment claims deserve serious consideration.

But any discussion of those issues should take place in a realistic framework. First, discrimination against same-sex couples is not solely a difference of opinion about marriage; it is also discrimination against individuals—the members of the couple and their families—on the basis of sexual orientation. In some cases, legislators may choose not to forbid discrimination; but that’s not the same thing as pretending it isn’t discrimination at all.

Second, the Kim Davises of the world have no monopoly on faith or conscience. Many same-sex couples have married because of their religious beliefs, and many religious bodies, and people, regard those marriages as sacred. Allowing others to disrespect those unions offends some consciences as surely as forbidding it offends others. Civil-rights laws must balance the harms carefully, with attention to both sides. Religious freedom cuts both ways.

Third, religious objections to same-sex marriage do not belong on a special and privileged plane. After Obergefell, the law no longer recognizes a distinction between “gay marriage” and “traditional marriage.” Instead, it simply recognizes marriage. Married couples have to have the same benefits and protections regardless of sex or sexual orientation. If employers or businesses can’t discriminate against married straights, then they shouldn’t be allowed to do so against married gays.

Finally, no matter what settlement emerges after reasonable debate, Kim Davis needs to find another job—now, today, before Judge Bunning throws her in jail. Government serves everyone, and the preferences of its employees aren’t relevant in that regard. Whether it’s flying a fighter jet or issuing a license, an honorable government worker will do the job or quit. Full stop.

The “religious freedom” backlash is, at bottom, not really about the right to order two grooms atop the buttercream fondant. It’s about locking in second-class status, not just for same-sex marriages, but for gays and lesbians generally. Under the banner of “religious freedom,” for example, conservatives in Congress are now seeking passage of the “First Amendment Defense Act,” which would, among other things, sanction employment discrimination against gays by federal contractors.

Human equality is as important as religious freedom, and any sane discussion has to balance the two.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+35 # Billy Bob 2015-08-16 13:42
The fact that the marine, in the example at the top of the article had the courage to stand up to the evil he was asked to commit, and back out, is precisely why I don't have the proper amount of boot-licking "respect" for our military. It's why I don't hero worship people who volunteer to kill people for other's profit - even if doing so helps them pay for college.
 
 
+16 # jsluka 2015-08-17 02:51
Agreed. The 'cult of the military' is hogwash, to put it politely.
 
 
-5 # mmcmanus 2015-08-17 13:56
Is it really necessary for you to desecrate and denigrate all who serve in the military, based on your own personal ignorant and misplaced views of the millitary? I say ignorant because you have no way of knowing the intent of all, some, or any more than a handful of soldiers' reasons for service. I say misplaced because my father is 96. He fought in WW2, Korea and Vietnam, and I can assure you that he did not do so for "others profit".
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2015-08-17 16:47
Quoting mmcmanus:
Is it really necessary for you to desecrate and denigrate all who serve in the military, based on your own personal ignorant and misplaced views of the millitary? I say ignorant because you have no way of knowing the intent of all, some, or any more than a handful of soldiers' reasons for service. I say misplaced because my father is 96. He fought in WW2, Korea and Vietnam, and I can assure you that he did not do so for "others profit".


I perfectly happy to let military personnel go about their business unmolested. I DO NOT feel that they deserve any special "respect" from me for being in the military. I do not thank the troops for serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and Viet Nam because I wish they had not done it. If they hadn't, the wars would not have been possible. I agree with Billy Bob. The only ones I "honor" are the whistleblowers and dissenters. The others may just be ordinary people, but ordinary people generally don't expect extraordinary deference. And, of course, some are sociopaths.
 
 
-1 # mmcmanus 2015-08-18 07:56
Your ignorance is appalling.
 
 
+38 # babalu 2015-08-16 16:26
I'm afraid that these religious objectors are actually spending way too much time thinking about SEX and sex acts. Just bake the damn cake.
Just issue the paperwork to let them marry.
Or else, it's a self-righteous act - I'm better than you and refuse to treat you equally when I believe you are wrong/evil. Sadly this is encouraged by people who run some churches and get better attendance/pay from riling up their visitors about the inferior OTHER guys!
 
 
+2 # Karlus58 2015-08-17 17:25
Your response is beautiful! Thank you!
 
 
-38 # tedrey 2015-08-16 19:18
Every county clerk's office should issue same-day marriage licences without discrimination. But some sensitivity should be shown to religious recalcitrance, especially when laws have changed since a clerk was employed. In this case would it be so hard to say "Don't send gay couples to window #6" and let clerk #6 know that she's endangering her next pay raise? Does everything have to be turned into a war zone?
 
 
+33 # jsluka 2015-08-17 02:53
That's ridiculous! Should racist nurses or doctors be accommodated in the way you suggest? If you are going to work in public service, rather than private business, you have an obligation to serve the whole public, not just the part of it you personally approve of.
 
 
-14 # MidwestTom 2015-08-17 08:41
We elect people, if we do not like what they do, we elect someone else. Let the voters decide.
 
 
+9 # Karlus58 2015-08-17 17:27
So folks have to wait til the next election to carry on with their lives? Poppycock. That clerk needs to go...somewhere else.
 
 
+45 # Dongi 2015-08-16 19:54
Kim Davis is not doing her job when she refuses to issue marriage licenses to those who request them. Solution: fire her. Her boss in the interest of peace and friendship may warn her first that she will be fired if she doesn't perform her duties. Either way, Kim Davis should not be allowed to defy the law of the land. If her religious beliefs forbid her issuing licenses, then Kim Davis should resign. At once.
 
 
+17 # Texas Aggie 2015-08-17 00:29
I gather that since she is in an elected position that she can't be fired.

She can go to jail for contempt of court, however.
 
 
+4 # jsluka 2015-08-17 02:54
Can a person in an "elected position" be fired for not fulfilling their job description? Or don't they have "job descriptions" or proscribed duties? Like, what if they choose to simply not show up to work any more? I can't see how that would be "contempt of court," unless the enforcing agency that ensures even elected officials do their basic job functions is the court?
 
 
+8 # JSRaleigh 2015-08-17 09:37
Quoting jsluka:
Can a person in an "elected position" be fired for not fulfilling their job description?


A state court can remove an elected county official for willful failure to perform the duties of the office to which they have been elected.
 
 
+4 # backwards_cinderella 2015-08-17 05:30
Clerks aren't elected, at least not in NY. They're hired through taking a civil service test. Anyone can become a clerk.

The head of the County Clerk's Office is an elected position. However, I do not think she is in that position or else she would not be issuing marriage licenses.
 
 
+35 # MainStreetMentor 2015-08-16 22:29
The can be no "mix" of church and state - period.
 
 
+35 # guomashi 2015-08-16 22:30
Human equality is not AS important as religious freedom.
Human equality is MORE important than religious freedom.
No religion is valid in modern society which holds some humans to be sub humans.
Persons so inclined should find themselves some theocracy to hide to hide in.
They have no place in America.
There is no sane discussion and no balance in this matter.
 
 
-8 # MidwestTom 2015-08-17 08:45
No religion is valid in modern society which holds some humans to be sub humans.

So are you against Islam, and it's many anti-female rules?
 
 
+20 # jsluka 2015-08-17 02:50
Kim Davis, Clerk of Rowan County, should be fired forthwith for refusing to do her job. I'm sure there's nothing in her job description that allows her to make personal judgements about who she will or will not provide public services to as a government employee. Like any other employee, she should get her formal written warning, and if she chooses to ignore it then she should be fired. And she can answer to Jesus for her sin of bigotry. Another "Christian" in name only.
 
 
-13 # MidwestTom 2015-08-17 08:39
We have a system to correct these, it is called elections.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2015-08-17 16:57
Fundamental rights are not subject to electoral whim. They are protected from "the tyranny of the majority". And it was the SCOTUS that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, not any elected official. Besides, you are behind the times as usual. Approval of same sex marriage is now over 60%.
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2015-08-19 04:38
Quoting MidwestTom:
We have a system to correct these, it is called elections.

So what you're saying is that in cases like these, in which an elected official flat-out refuses to do his or her job because that would mean serving people she doesn't want to serve, nothing can or should be done except at the ballot box?

Imagine if that standard were applied to, say, interracial couples. would you tell such couples to wait for the next election?
 
 
+3 # Sam Seaman 2015-08-18 12:12
I think it was Lincoln who said that one has the right of religious freedom, but that right ends at the tip of one´s nose.

Meaning one has the right of religious freedom but not the right to impose one´s beliefs on anyone else.

The Kim Davises of the world have no monopoly on faith or conscience.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN