Religious Freedom, As Defined By Our Forefathers and Our Constitution, Is No More
For the record, she now should resign her job.
Why, pray tell, haven't they just fired her? Because they want to make a spectacle, an example of her? They should release her unvilified and free from jail (they did nothing to Barack Obama, Eric Holder or other officials when they ignored and broke laws they swore to uphold), and she should find work elsewhere, but I'm glad she has obeyed God. By doing so in the way she did, she has helped to bring this supreme hypocrisy into the light for all to see and for those who choose, to be forced to ignore. Funny thing about hypocrisy, though: ignoring it doesn't make it any less real:
Yet the Davis case also underscores a glaring double standard. In response to Judge Bunning’s decision to jail Ms. Davis, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “The success of our democracy depends on the rule of law, and there is no public official that is above the rule of law.”from the op-ed "My Old Kentucky Double Standard: Vilifying a county clerk while lauding other official disobedience," Wall Street Journal, Sept.3, 2015
We don’t recall President Obama insisting on “the rule of law” when his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in 2011 that he wouldn’t defend challenges to what was then the law—the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton—in the courts. Nor did we hear about upholding the law when mayors such as Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state laws.
Officials such as Messrs. Holder and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis of elevating personal preferences over the law. Yet they were lionized by those now holding up an obscure Kentucky clerk as a national villain...
Certainly the losers in the marriage debate need to recognize the new legal reality. But how much easier acceptance would be if the winners did not insist on hunting down every last dissenter and making federal cases out of disputes better worked out elsewhere.
Let's start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis, a Democrat, and what it tells us about the state of American political debate and policymaking in 2015 -- because as you may have noticed, the rule of law only seems to be sacred when it happens to comport with liberal values.by David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, Sept. 4, 2015.
As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be "discriminated" against, the right to have an abortion and the right to have a gay marriage. In the eyes of liberals, nothing -- not the freedom of association or religion or anything else mentioned in the First Amendment or Second Amendment -- will ever supersede these consecrated rights.
The rest? Well, it's malleable, depending on the situation.
When GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio commented that Kentucky should probably respect the beliefs of county clerks, John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: "SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period. What's next, Professor Rubio?"
Professor Podesta, you may not know, makes his living advocating that presidents should ignore the rule of law by circumventing the legislative process and creating regulatory regimes to battle climate change. Now, obviously, there are legal distinctions, but in the grand scheme of things, Podesta embraces the same kind of moral authority to exhibit contempt for the rule of law. But a pliable deference to law is not unique. When Democrats say states should find ways to undermine the First Amendment by weakening the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United -- as unfettered political speech from a couple of libertarian billionaires is problematic to their mission -- they are applauded for the effort.
In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. In this country, people who are here illegally can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. Moreover, we have cities across this country that ignore immigration laws they don't like and create sanctuaries from law. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. Yet no one finds himself in jail. When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse.
But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.
Yet a Christian struggling to come to terms with the implications of a decision that the Supreme Court reached only a couple of months ago -- and our progressive president embraced only a couple of years ago -- is hauled off to jail. In the end, the state is creating martyrs. Christians will have no choice but to take more obstinate positions in these battles of the culture war -- battles that could easily have been avoided if a judge had exhibited more compassion and come to an accommodation. There are about 125 other marriage clerks in Kentucky who can issue licenses to gay couples. And they should.
Or we could go the other way. And if we're going to be rigid about the rule of law, let's throw all officials who ignore it into cells. We can start with the president and work our way down.
(all emphases this blogger)