# Kim Davis and conscientious objection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072 "2015-09-30T19:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/61 "2015-10-01T16:50:19Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > For one thing, if a major wanted to be relieved of her duties, she would have to go to her superiors, not to a captain. Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean to imply that two people were involved. I just lost track of whether my conscientiously objecting protagonist was a major or a captain. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Actually, the military would have the major in question jolly well shut up and soldier. Filing for conscientious objection is a long Kafkaesque process and they don’t just take your word that you’re a Quaker now - you have to demonstrate that those are sincere beliefs that have affected multiple facets of your life for a long time. Suddenly finding the good lord before a suicide mission ? Not so much. Sure, sure - but my point it is, they don’t cancel the whole plan just because one person is determined to gum it up. The army might end up arresting her, but the entire army isn’t confounded by her objections. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/62 "2015-10-01T19:42:23Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Yep, I don’t want to work in a slaughterhouse, so I don’t. If I was the receptionist at a slaughterhouse, and they told me they needed me to slice up a few hogs today, I guess I’d have to do my job or quit. The difference is that squeamish is not a constitutional right. The First Amendment guarantees people freedom of religion. Under Title 7 of the Civil Rights act employers have an obligation to exempt employees if their duties conflict with their religion as long as the exemption does not create an undue burden. Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees. Some people seem to think that just because religion is not important to them it should not be important to anyone. History shows that forcing people to act against their religion is dangerous and tyrannical. Thus the law sensibly states that people can not be forced by their employers to act against their religion as long as it does not create an undue burden for the employer. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/63 "2015-10-01T19:49:24Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The difference is that squeamish is not a constitutional right. The First Amendment guarantees people freedom of religion. Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees. The First Amendment does not allow you to force your religion on others under color of authority. You’re taking away the other person’s right to practice their religion or lack thereof. The Constitution overrides that religious freedom restoration act. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/64 "2015-10-01T19:58:35Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The difference is that squeamish is not a constitutional right. The First Amendment guarantees people freedom of religion. Under Title 7 of the Civil Rights act employers have an obligation to exempt employees if their duties conflict with their religion as long as the exemption does not create an undue burden. Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees. > Some people seem to think that just because religion is not important to them it should not be important to anyone. History shows that forcing people to act against their religion is dangerous and tyrannical. Thus the law sensibly states that people can not be forced by their employers to act against their religion as long as it does not create an undue burden for the employer. Keywords being “create an undue burden”. Now I ain’t no high fallutin’ lawyer, but I expect a worker who won’t issue legal paperwork to people, and furthermore will prevent every other worker from issuing legal paperwork to people, when their employer’s entire business model entails issuing legal paperwork to people, would non-creatively fall under “undue burden”. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/65 "2015-10-01T20:02:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The difference is that squeamish is not a constitutional right. The First Amendment guarantees people freedom of religion. Under Title 7 of the Civil Rights act employers have an obligation to exempt employees if their duties conflict with their religion as long as the exemption does not create an undue burden. Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees. > Some people seem to think that just because religion is not important to them it should not be important to anyone. History shows that forcing people to act against their religion is dangerous and tyrannical. Thus the law sensibly states that people can not be forced by their employers to act against their religion as long as it does not create an undue burden for the employer. That would make sense if she only refused to sign the licenses herself. Instead her intended actions were to make it impossible for same sex couples to get a marriage license in that county. It is the equivalent of establishing a state religion, the opposite of religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/66 "2015-10-01T20:57:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Some people seem to think that just because religion is not important to them it should not be important to anyone. History shows that forcing people to act against their religion is dangerous and tyrannical. Thus the law sensibly states that people can not be forced by their employers to act against their religion as long as it does not create an undue burden for the employer. She was not being forced to do anything. She could (and did) refuse to issue marriage licenses under her own signature. No court in the land would find that having her name on a piece of paper in her capacity as a public official was any sort of burden on her. Deputy clerks who don’t want to personally sign licenses have a vaguely colorable argument. Davis has none at all. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/67 "2015-10-01T21:45:34Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Kentucky’s religious freedom restoration act extends that right to public employees. Let’s look at the two big legal tests applied to Religious Freedom cases and which RFRAs were designed to implement. Does the government have a compelling interest to override those freedoms. The SCOTUS ruling underlying this is about preserving constitutional protections. That’s a pretty clear case for compelling interest. The other test is if the infringement of religious freedom is narrowly tailored. A small number of county clerks in KY who might have religious objections to signing a marriage license is pretty narrow. There’s no requirement to like it, wish them well, participate in the ceremony, etc. The clerk simply has to issue the thing saying that the couple meets the legal requirements to be married. That’s pretty damn narrow. ---
**Author:** ![purplehearingaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@purplehearingaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehearingaid)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/68 "2015-10-01T22:02:11Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > The Vatican has now confirmed the meeting. The Pope apparently praised her for her courage, thanked her and gave her a rosary. She isn’t a conscientious objector in any sense that I’m familiar with though. The pope said he was not one to judge gay people , will this sure look like he was only trying to made the church look better b/c people been turning away b/c the sex scandal . They had to sell some churches to pay off their lawsuits . I really think the church should clean up their mess and stay out of other people lives! If the pope really is OK with people being gay he would never had gone to see Davis ! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/69 "2015-10-01T22:06:16Z")
He’s an old Argentine guy who lives with other old people in Italy and speaks minimal English. He doesn’t know the first fucking thing about Davis. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/70 "2015-10-01T23:03:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think that’s what a political prisoner is. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner), it’s “someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible”. > > By this definition, Davis doesn’t fit – she wasn’t jailed because she opposed or criticized the government; she was jailed because she broke the law. > > By your definition, someone who opposed the government’s action on arresting them for murder, fights off the arresting cops, and is finally taken into custody could be a “political prisoner”. Huh, is Kim Davis the daughter of Lee Harvey Oswald? ---
**Author:** ![Wallaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dc4da7/32.png) [@Wallaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallaby)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/71 "2015-10-02T00:24:35Z")
I honestly don’t care what a guy who believes in a magical Sky-Fairy thinks should be human rights. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/72 "2015-10-02T00:29:53Z")
Can anyone explain why she was sent to jail rather than just fired? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/73 "2015-10-02T00:32:36Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Can anyone explain why she was sent to jail rather than just fired? She can’t be fired, she’s an elected official. She can only be removed by the Legislature who only meets a couple of months each year. The Governor refused to call a special session. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/74 "2015-10-02T00:33:04Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Can anyone explain why she was sent to jail rather than just fired? I was wondering too: I just did a google: Davis is the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who stopped processing marriage licenses due to her “Christian” beliefs, after the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality. Firing seems the obvious thing to do. But Davis is an elected official, which means there is no supervisor with the power to terminate her employment. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/75 "2015-10-02T00:33:11Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Can anyone explain why she was sent to jail rather than just fired? There isn’t the authority to fire her, because she’s elected. The state legislature was out of session, so they couldn’t do anything about it until they came back in session. Edit: NINJA! ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/76 "2015-10-02T01:03:30Z")
Thank thee. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/77 "2015-10-02T01:11:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s still civil disobedience. She’s breaking a law she thinks is wrong. If the law forbid SSM and a clerk issued SSM licenses, wouldn’t that be cilvil disobedience? What if we lived on a deserted island that had no laws. It was common practice on this Island to throw babies to starving wolves, to appease the god of the Island. We form a constitution that says this is now illegal. Kim Davis, however, continues to throw babies to starving wolves. Would you still praise her for civil disobedience? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/78 "2015-10-02T01:29:09Z")
I think, but am not sure that the county manager would have the ability to fire any of her staff. Just not her. The BOCC (Board of County Commissioners, also elected positions) should be putting SERIOUS pressure on her. Unfortunately, considering how the population leans, they have not said a word. They want to get re-elected. Munnings, the Federal Judge that found her in contempt is the judge that will rule if Davis’s lawsuit against the Governor can move forward. That should be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/79 "2015-10-02T02:43:46Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > There have been COs who’ve enlisted into the Armed Forces and served with distinction; at least two have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Three. Cpl Desmond [Doss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss) CPL Thomas W [Bennett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Bennett_(conscientious_objector)) SP4 Joseph [LaPointe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_G._LaPointe,_Jr.) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/80 "2015-10-02T02:50:21Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What if we lived on a deserted island that had no laws. It was common practice on this Island to throw babies to starving wolves, to appease the god of the Island. We form a constitution that says this is now illegal. Kim Davis, however, continues to throw babies to starving wolves. Would you still praise her for civil disobedience? I don’t see John Mace praising her for civil disobedience - just observing that what she is engaged in is civil disobedience. And he’s right, IMV. She _is_ engaged in civil disobedience. I strongly disagree with her and I don’t like what she’s doing, but don’t see that the term “civil disobedience” can justifiably be limited to the actions of people who agree with me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072.md?page=5)