In Kim Davis case, whose liberties are truly under attack?

In his return trip to the Vatican after his first-ever visit to the United States, Pope Francis took some time to answer questions with the press assembled on the plane. One reporter asked whether the pope supported individuals, including those working in the government, who claim they are unable to uphold their duties when they are in conflict with their personal beliefs. Presumably, this was in reference to Kim Davis, the elected former-Democrat-now-Republican Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. In response to the question, Francis did not specifically mention the Davis case (although it was disclosed recently that Francis did have a private meeting with Davis during his visit), but maintained that conscientious objection is a basic human right that cannot be denied, whether or not the individual practicing is a government official.

{mosads}This takes place in the wake of Davis’s recent acceptance of the Cost of Discipleship Award granted during the Values Voter Summit, wherein Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council and presenter of the award, compared her actions to those of President Lincoln, Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This, of course, is the most recent in a long line of support and adulation bestowed upon Davis by conservatives in recent weeks, who view her jailing and criticism as an attack on religious liberty. But whose liberties were truly under attack in this scenario? The county official who refused service to a portion of her community, or those members whose right to marriage, legally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, was being denied?

Conscientious objection, it’s true, is a right of an individual citizen. But when employed by the government, the role of “citizen” is subjugated by the obligations that come with representing the local, city, state or federal government. In this capacity, the individual is no longer a single voice, but the voice of an entire institution. If a government official refuses to abide by the law and perform the duties charged by that office, that official can, and should, be removed from the role of performing those duties. Particularly in this case, the county clerk’s refusal to uphold her duties directly infringes on the rights of homosexual couples to have a legally recognized marriage. Consider this as a counterargument: does a homosexual couple’s right to be married directly infringe on the county clerk’s right to disagree with the law allowing them to be married? The answer is no.

Rather than parade her around as a hero to the cause, perhaps conservatives should view Davis’s actions as direct violations of a group of Americans’ civil liberties. The constitutional separation of church and state does allow Davis the freedom to disagree with homosexual marriage on the basis of faith, but it also establishes a fully secular government which must govern its people equally.

Provisions have been made to allow government employees to perform their duties without sacrificing their beliefs in the past. But the absence of these provisions in this case does not allow Kim Davis to unilaterally prevent the enforcement of the law.

Scott is a defense contractor with experience in national policy, international trade and defense commodities. He is a former active-duty military officer and current reservist, and deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom XIII.