​Protecting Kim Davis’ right to religious freedom

Earlier this week, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis was released from jail where she was being held for contempt of court by refusing to license same-sex marriages. Davis previously refused to authorize her office to issue licenses with her name on it to same-sex couples as an act against her conscience and religious convictions. The debate around her choice and its legal ramifications centers on the question of if your sincerely held beliefs can excuse you from doing your job, particularly as a public servant. Although society largely disagrees with Davis’ view on same-sex marriage, we must recognize that the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion be respected by the law and citizens.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), private and most government-side employers must offer accommodations for employees with religious beliefs that conflict with their jobs provided those accommodations can be reasonably made—typically a requirement of feasibility—and the beliefs are sincere.

No matter the associated prejudices, religious freedom must be protected, and Davis’ actions were compliant with the legal rights afforded her conscience. Even outside of a legal paradigm, we believe Davis rightfully acted and sought proper recourse for her beliefs. The case seems similar to those pointed out in a recent Washington Post column, including one where pacifist postal workers had religious objections to processing draft registration forms. There have been other cases that have taken up laws in the past based on similar violations of conscience, and Kim Davis is simply pushing the issue into a space that was never open to challenge before this summer.

An argument in the dissenting opinions of a few Supreme Court justices is worth noting. This and similar situations regarding same-sex marriages would be avoided if legislatures had prepared religious liberty laws alongside same-sex marriage laws. The North Carolina legislature enacted such a law this summer in anticipation of the decision that allows those in magisterial positions to refuse performing such marriages. This kind of law avoids the type of litigation and dragging up of controversy that will plague same-sex marriage for years, and Utah is the only other state currently with a similar law on the books.

In this broader question, you also have to ask if the legislative route is as effective for these national issues grounded in large social movements. In today’s political and social climate, social movements have long term undercurrents that ignite quickly at different points, but legislative agendas often move much more slowly. When the nation is heatedly divided over an issue, the legislative process is a double-edged sword. It is and always will be a part of any government built on people feeding into representatives who reflect the people’s ideas in laws, but it also can move too slowly or in discriminatory ways as history has shown. Social tides move to and fro and frequently determine how an individual feels about legislative and judicial actions.

Although many may not agree with Kim Davis’ beliefs or actions, the fact remains that a right to religious freedom and the exercise thereof is fundamental to this country and its legal system. Any tolerant individual must be consistent in their application of accommodations and tolerance to others. While the bigger legal and political questions are still being explored and debated, we urge respect and the taking of charitable views for all those different from you.