Could the current controversy in Kentucky with court clerk Kim Davis being placed in jail and then freed because she refused to follow the law due to her Christian beliefs retard the law? Ms. Davis through her attorney has indicated that she will “follow her conscience” (whatever that means). How can this individual thumb her nose at society due to her own beliefs? If religion is a personal choice, why is she given the opportunity to frustrate the exercise of rights granted to people because she does not agree with it? It is hypocritical at best.
Ms. Davis as the standard bearer for her movement is hardly the poster child. She has been married multiple times (4) and has had children out of wedlock (6). How can you violate one of the fundamental principles of her religion (divorce) and then decide which principle she chooses to follow? Can she pick and choose which edicts to which she wants to adhere? Should she be given any credibility? Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was present at the rally when Davis was released. He is probably frustrated to some extent because his photo opportunity with the jailed Davis was taken away when she was freed. The lack of being able to see beyond their own doctrine has come across loud and clear both in print and in response to prior articles with the saying of “we will not yield”. Why not? No one is taking away Ms. Davis’ right to believe what she wants. However, if you are a public official (which she is) then she is obligated to follow the law.
A Muslim flight attendant has been suspended because he refuses to serve alcohol to passengers due to her religious beliefs. Another flight attendant complained about this practice. A reasonable accommodation to this is simple. Give her other duties and refrain from serving alcohol. At least she is consistent in her beliefs. Her beliefs can be exercised with little to no problems in the work place. The same cannot be said for Ms. Davis.
