Boy, how do we see parallels here between this one Kentucky clerk Kim Davis and a certain individual by the name of…. Rosa Parks? (We just didn’t make that kind of comparison now, did we….)
Watch the lynching, anti-religious left-wingers. Let us explain with a bit more detail about such a comparison between Kim Davis and a certain civil rights figure. And it’s not what you think.
The Law Must Be Unequivocally Impartial With Respect to Kim Davis
And here’s why. We don’t doubt that many of the right-wing politicians (like Huckabee) would hail Kim Davis as a pioneer of religious piety, standing up against the supposed ‘tyranny’ of the courts, the ruling of gay marriage as a licensed institution promoting civil rights and spitting in the face of Christianity. Morality, truth, maybe even justice — it’s obvious there are some in that “left wing” mentality that will go ahead and continue singing “Eye of the Tiger” to a lady that said NO to issuing out a license that was completely against her religious beliefs.
And dare we say this: it was a bit of a boundary breaker to imprison her! We would agree that Kim Davis going to jail was not exactly an endorsement for civil rights all around for plenty of reasons. Hypocrites bleeding from the walls here. Why punish her for her beliefs? Is that not any different than Rosa Parks being imprisoned for not giving up her seat?
We give the nod here to Kim Davis and applaud her for standing up for her rights, her faith, and her ability to petition the government against the developments involving gay marriage. But here’s the thing:
This Isn’t About Religion, or Even Civil Rights — This Is Ultimately About Job Duties!
Separation of church and state: that phrase couldn’t mean as much for anything else as it does here. Because the fact is this — Kim Davis had a job to do. And she chose not to do it. If the government should’ve done anything regarding Kim Davis, it was to simply reprimand her, give her a warning, perhaps fire her from her position.
Not imprison her.
Kim Davis does have beliefs. That is true. She’s free to exercise those beliefs. She’s free to speak freely about them. What she probably shouldn’t do is let those beliefs interfere with her job.The law states it unequivocally — gay couples have the right to be licensed in marriage. Therefore, if she refuses to give them what is civilly bestowed upon them, that is not necessarily a civil violation as much as it is a corporate violation. She simply didn’t do her job. For whatever reason.
Don’t Get Us Wrong, Though: There Are Legal Consequences!
Trust us when we tell you that a defined internet legal plan will spell it out very simply. Law doesn’t have to be complicated. In fact, it’s our duty to un-complicate things as much as possible. We should be traditionalists. Simple interpretations. We’re not going to throw gasoline into the fire with thoughts of religion, life, love, revolution, and what a minority or majority think.
What matters is what’s written — in the Constitution. What is truth? You decide. Should your religion give you license to just not do your job for a select people? Should you be imprisoned for what you believe just because you violated someone’s civil rights?
We’d be interested to see just how far people will think on the issue — on either side. We’re sure Kim Davis would be just as interested as well.Share