I had a thought. The bible does actually command the death of gay people. What if a Christian, out of sincerely-held conviction, wanted to murder a gay couple? Do they get exempt from murder laws? If not, why not?
Ah, because religious liberty can’t trample over another person’s rights. What other answer could there be (aside from “the bible clearly means the opposite of what it plainly says”)? And yet, with the SCOTUS determining that marriage is a right afforded to same-sex couples, why are we even talking about letting the same happen in Kentucky where a clerk is restricting the rights of her constituents for religious reasons?
How many Christians easily acknowledge the first while vehemently supporting the latter, completely overlooking the link between the two: being religious doesn’t grant you carte blanche to be shitty to others and avoid the consequences of laws explicitly designed to keep people from being shitty to others? It doesn’t matter how sincere your beliefs, they can only apply to what happens in your life, not to what happens in the lives of others.
That’s the crux of all of this: so long as it doesn’t impact others religious liberty guarantees that the government can’t force you to do things that violate your religion (for instance, the government can’t force you to have a job doling out marriage licenses), but it doesn’t empower you to lord over others (like denying them a service to which they’re legally entitled).
What’s more, consider the moral attitude so many Christians have about this. I mean, their stance has to be that even though Kim Davis is an adulterer, thrice divorced (no worries, sometimes it just doesn’t work out, but then again I’m not the one claiming the authority of a book that says divorce is a no-no), and a hypocrite, at least she isn’t faithful to her spouse, humble, and gay! I mean sure she allowed her second husband to adopt and raise the twins of the man who would be her third husband with whom she cheated on her first husband, but at least she’s straight, right guys? Because I guess being gay is worse than cheating on your husband? It must be for all the Jesus-loving believers in Kentucky who think Kim’s a hero, but that those gays are a threat to all that is decent.
Which segues into my next point: if you think bumping hips with somebody of the same sex has more to do with your morality than all that other stuff, it’s pretty clear your religion confuses people morally, not the other way around.
I feel like with everything that’s come to light about Kim Davis that a legal ruling for contempt, while welcome, doesn’t really capture the story in full. I feel like what we need is Jerry Springer’s final thought.