We've talked several times here on W4 (though I don't want to take the time to look up the links) about possible responses that conscientious bakers, florists, and photographers could make to the Rainbow Mafia. I've generally recommended ceasing to offer special services for weddings altogether, while recognizing that this will amount to a significant drain on a business.
Enter Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who has done exactly that. Despite the fact that rulings against Phillips are usually headlined in some way such as, "Court Rules that Baker Must Make Cakes for Gay Weddings," it appears from details in various stories that Phillips has been able to avoid further charges while the case wends its way through court by ceasing to make wedding cakes altogether. But that's cold comfort to Phillips, who has lost about 40% of his business because of his decision not to make wedding cakes at all.
I also have not been able to get hold of the original court order to determine if, in fact, it allows (!) Phillips to avoid future discrimination charges if he stops making wedding cakes altogether. That he has stopped for the duration of the case is some evidence to that effect, but a sufficient number of reports state that the order required him actually to make cakes for homosexual "weddings" that I don't want to be dogmatic about it. If anyone can get clearer and more decisive information on the subject, feel free to post it. I may try to make contact with the ADF, which is representing Phillips, for clarification.
And there's more: If Phillips loses his court case, he will be required to document that he has "educated" his employees (who appear to be mostly family members) "comprehensively" (whatever "comprehensively" means) about Colorado's anti-discrimination law. Even more onerous is the requirement to turn in regular compliance reports to the state and to report for a period of two years on orders he refuses and the reasons for the refusal. Those requirements will presumably remain in place even if he can avoid further discrimination charges by continuing to give up the 40% of his business that previously came in from baking wedding cakes.
What this means is that if giving up wedding business is a "way out" at all for the florist, the baker, and the candlestick maker, it won't help you to avoid harassment unless you preemptively give up your wedding business before somebody files a complaint. If that first complaint comes down the pike, and you don't bend, then the state will find a way to make you rue the day you "discriminated." And that's not to mention all the death threats and other nastiness from the tolerant left that Phillips has had to endure. (To be fair, Phillips says he's gotten calls from people self-identifying as homosexual who say that they support him and are concerned that this behavior is making them look like terrorists. No kidding. Maybe y'all should have thought of that before you compared all social conservatives to vile racists and supported anti-discrimination laws.)
Side point: Has anyone else noticed how ho-hum death threats have become in the Internet age? Anti-jihad writers like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer get them all the time. David Wood of Answering Muslims gets them constantly. An ordinary guy like Jack Phillips, who apparently never set out to be a pundit or public figure of any kind, gets them. And when was the last time you heard of anyone getting arrested for making death threats against a conservative author or figure in the news? I certainly can't remember a time. It used to be that the police investigated death threats, which are in fact a crime. Now, I get the feeling that the system is overwhelmed. Death threats are so numerous that there is no time or manpower to investigate even a tithe of the most horrendous and vicious ones. This is a depressing thought, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
In any event, the main point is just this: The activists are trying very hard to make a no-loophole world for moral traditionalists. In fact, it's not clear that getting out of the wedding cake business really constitutes a loophole. After all, what this means is that the set of ways in which Christians and other traditionalists can make a productive living is continually shrinking. What we are looking at is institutionalized dhimmitude, and if one can find a way not to be actually forced to celebrate sodomy, that is a rather somber victory if it comes at the cost of being forced into poverty and dependence when one was previously an entrepreneur and contributor to the community.
It is at least worth knowing that, if one plans to take that route in one of these business areas, one should consider doing it preemptively. If one is sued, one will end up having to take that route in the end, and on top of that one may end up having to send one's employees through "comprehensive reeducation" and file paperwork for years. Finding a different business model ahead of time may well be a more prudent route than simply crossing one's fingers and hoping to fly under the radar and avoid (forever) that nuclear-force first discrimination complaint.
Comments (38)
I know this would not help in any of these cases, but nonetheless I would love to hear that a baker told a same sex couple that he would love to make either of them a wedding cake just as soon they are having a wedding. With the clear implication that what the couple is seeking to do is not a wedding at all, and then to hold the story throughout the legal ordeal and never concede an inch…never say anything other than of course he would make anyone a wedding cake that is having a wedding. Yes, it is a losing strategy, all strategies are once the “discrimination” charge is made…but why not go down swinging so to speak?
Also, as an aside…I have wondered what would happen if two straight men wanted a “wedding” cake from a baker and if that baker declined because they are not engaged in a homosexual relationship. Could those men win a discrimination suit against the baker? I really do not know, but I am thinking that in order for them to win that the reasoning behind Obergefell and all similar cases involving people who identify as gay would have to be invalidated in order for two straight men or women to win. This, I admit, amuses me. (Maybe the ADF lawyer would have some thoughts on this?)
PS I don’t mean that the results of Obergefell and these “discrimination” would be overturned just the reasoning behind them.
Posted by DR84 | August 31, 2015 2:03 PM
Ah, well, as you say, it wouldn't work. It's rather like those nominalists who will say that it's foolish for Christians to resist calling a man another man's "husband" or referring to them as married without scarce quotes. The law _defines_ them as spouses and _defines_ it as a wedding, so voila!, it is one. Because these things are, on their view, created by pure human will.
Posted by Lydia | August 31, 2015 3:57 PM
Right, the judges will hammer them regardless, but this may throw the media off because they will be unable to latch onto any statement by the named (or other wedding vendor) in which they acknowledge the event as a wedding or mention the sexual orientation if the customers. By my observations the media has latched onto these admissions every time and claims they prove the intent to discriminate based on oreintation.
Also, I'd like to see someone maintain they make no assumptions about the orientation of their customers and had no idea how these two men or women identied. Furthermore, if the customers declared an identification they would not know what it meant anyway.
That all said...in all reality this is just wondering on my part. I would never recommend someone take this course of action nor want to see it happen in reality. I assume the person would still get hammered, probably even worse, and could face contempt charges to boot if they really stuck to it.
Also, about Jack Philips stopping making wedding cakes entirely, I think that someone could consider this a form of discrimanatory signaling because of the reason he stopped. This would be perhaps similar to the ruling about judges in Ohio who stop performing all marriages. That said, as bad as things are I don't believe anyone has gone there yet.
Posted by DR84 | August 31, 2015 5:32 PM
I actually wondered about that for someone who stopped preemptively. I think there would be a "tiger robbed of its prey" feeling about activists who showed up at a bakery and were told, "We don't do any wedding cakes." They would _know_ that was the reason, but how would they proceed? They might just have a feeling of unpleasant satisfaction, knowing that any such baker was losing a lot of proceeds in order to comply with the letter of the non-discrimination law. Or they might try to get the baker to say why and then use _that_ statement made within the place of business as the basis of a complaint about discriminatory signaling. I think at that point it just depends on how totally crazy our society is whether such a complaint would go through, especially since in all these cases the people have been able to show that they _do_ serve openly homosexual customers in other ways, so signaling of what? Not an intent to discriminate, if they are in fact not discriminating in any of their sales.
I'm waiting right now for a response from ADF with further info. about whether Jack Phillips can continue indefinitely baking no wedding cakes.
Posted by Lydia | August 31, 2015 6:37 PM
I doubt it got much media attention, but I remember self-styled "pro-choice terrorist" Theodore Shulman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Shulman
So it is does happen even if it seems one has to leave an obvious trail of stark raving bonkers to get someone to take it seriously.
Posted by Scott W. | August 31, 2015 6:56 PM
That's interesting. He got a light-ish plea bargain deal, but that's sufficiently common that I'm not fussing about it too much. One would like to think that such convictions have some deterrent effect, even though the punishments are too light to represent much in the way of justice.
Posted by Lydia | August 31, 2015 7:06 PM
I actually recall his comments on Priests for Life, and I actually might have responded to one of his rants, but I cant recall.
To get us back to the main topic, this whole mandated "educating" your employees in the law is astonishing. Is there anything like this in U.S. precedent because it sounds downright Soviet in style.
Posted by Scott W. | August 31, 2015 7:31 PM
Hopefully he can keep it to, "This is the content of the law, folks," and probably they've already been talking about the subject so much among themselves there's little or nothing they don't know about the law, but it's still super-creepy.
Posted by Lydia | August 31, 2015 11:06 PM
It's stuff like this that makes me think this country needs a Pinochet.
Posted by Mike T | September 1, 2015 11:46 AM
Rant alert.
Why so defeatist? Yes, we can and should disobey these court orders. It is our duty, and frankly it is a sin to cave. Call this action "civil disobedience" and compare yourself to the Marxist civil rights movement in your defiance. If Charles Martel can beat back the invading Muslim hordes at Tours when hope appeared to be lost we can beat back the rainbow warriors. It's clear these soft tyrants only have the power we give them. Donald Trump has shown that with regard to political correctness.
At any rate, we need to push back to see how far they will go. Kim Clark, the Rowan County (KY) clerk who refused to offer marriage licenses will be a good test case. Let's say they fine her. Refuse to pay and continue to sue until you find a sympathetic judge. Or persuade the gutless state legislatures pass laws nullifying these judicial rulings. Appeal to the 10th amendment (which is the law), not the Supreme Court (which IS NOT). Appeal to God's law, not man's tyranny.
Or let the eventual Republican nominee flat out say he will pardon everyone who has had his religious freedoms violated by left-wing judges. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz could use a boost in their poll numbers. Let them fight for their constituency instead of secular mega-donors. Imagine how quickly the debate would turn once the public sees religious conservatives as the victims and homos as the bigots.
It's not tough to beat these pansies. They're a minority of a minority that leverage power illegitimately because they use our sense of fairness, justice, and the rule of law against us. Don't play their game, and they crumble. Trump has shown that regarding the immigration debate. We need to quit being so passive.
Posted by GW | September 1, 2015 11:48 AM
GW, here is why it is worse than you think. I'll give you one name that epitomizes it, though I could have chosen others: William Pryor.
Look him up. Pryor was an example of the Christian Republican who believed that it was his duty as Attorney General of Alabama to prosecute Judge Roy Moore for "ethics violations" because Moore refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. A harrowing scene has been caught on tape in which Pryor asks Moore, "If you are returned to office, will you continue to acknowledge God?" Granted, the phrase "acknowledge God" was taken from Moore himself and was intended by Moore to mean that he would defy the higher court ruling that the commandments had to be removed. So Pryor wasn't just making up that uncomfortable wording. My point, however, is that Pryor is an example of the person who is personally sensible but who will take what the relevant court says to be "the rule of law" and act upon it, to the point of prosecuting and punishing someone he agrees with, because of a confused fear of some kind of wild anarchy if he does not do so.
There are many, many such.
Put together the crazies, the judges who will rule with the crazies, and the men of otherwise good will or at least decent mind who will reluctantly do whatever the courts and crazy-passed laws tell them to do, and you have a hefty majority of the guys with the guns. To put it crudely.
This is why we need organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom. _They_ are the nearest thing we have to people helping with defiance. In fact, they are defending two different bakers--Jack Phillips and the Kleins. Phillips has decided to bake no wedding cakes at all for the time being. The Kleins have made no such public statement and have sounded more defiant. ADF is defending them both, and we will see what happens in the end.
But make no mistake: We live in a world in which people like this *would* be sent to jail if they defied the laws and wouldn't pay the resulting fines. And we should make our plans accordingly. Different people will respond to this in different ways. Some, for example, will actually end up going to jail. (Pastor Ken Miller went to jail for helping Lisa Miller and her little girl escape from her former lesbian partner, and he may be charged again.)
Various forms of defiance may still be in order, but let's not be under any illusions about the likely result thereof.
Posted by Lydia | September 1, 2015 3:29 PM
Lydia, when Cuomo wanted to effectively decree a confiscation of certain types of guns and supplies, the police in his state said "you can pass it, but we won't enforce it." You know why? Their main state-wide union rep said it would be a death sentence for a significant amount of NY police as they expected that it would finally cause the gun owners to lock and load on them.
The men with guns aren't stupid. They are keenly aware of the fact that even the bluest blue state has enough armed hunters and veterans to make any attempt at armed tyranny a very hazardous decision.
Posted by Mike T | September 1, 2015 5:22 PM
Even if that is true, there are enough things (in the vicinity of what we are actually talking about) that would not evoke such a response. After all, the Ten Commandments _were_ removed from Judge Moore's courtroom, he _was_ removed from office, the Kleins _have_ had a 135K fine (or whatever it was) levied against them, Terri Schiavo _was_ killed by dehydration, and so on and so forth, all under the aegis of the rule of law, and not a shot fired. In fact, in the Schiavo case there was a very interesting jurisdictional issue right there that involved the very definition of "rule of law." At one point, Jeb Bush was actually sending the state troopers (by my recollection) in to rescue her because by some technicality the judge's court order decreeing her death had lapsed for one hour (or some such time period), and the _local_ sheriff's deputies said they still considered themselves bound by the court order and would fight to keep her where she was. Not wanting an actual shoot-out between two branches of government, the state guys backed down. At least, that's how I remember it.
So, I continue to maintain: "Just defy them" is not really a _winning strategy_. Don't get me wrong: Sometimes it may be the right thing to do. Sometimes it may be the only thing to do. If the day comes when we all literally get told at gunpoint to affirm homosexual "marriage," then we have to just defy them and get shot, and that's all there is to it. But we shouldn't fool ourselves that if all the ordinary guys just got defiant enough the whole thing would crumble because the bad guys are really in the minority, etc. It doesn't work that way. Once they have captured the structures of _law_--the ordinances, the courts, etc.--then there are many, many otherwise good people who will go along with enforcing what they say. It would take a much more _coordinated_ defiance at _multiple_ levels of government to do anything effective.
Posted by Lydia | September 1, 2015 6:35 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens to this Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis. Bless her heart. I strongly suspect she's going to be harshly punished. And in the chain of command of those who levy fines against her, lock her up for contempt of court, garnishee her bank accounts, etc., there will be, mark my words, plenty of people who are unhappy about it and would not have made the court orders, even some Christians, and even some conservatives. They'll say they have to "uphold the rule of law."
Posted by Lydia | September 1, 2015 6:39 PM
I think you are right, Lydia, that the big problem with "just defy them" is all the people - decent, mostly upstanding people - who feel that they are required to follow "the law of the land as spoken by the Supreme Court". This probably represents the middle 60%, with 20% heartily in favor of gay "marriage" and willing to push it even had the decision gone the other way, and 20 % who would be willing to defy the former 20%. (But probably would not be willing to shoot the 60% in the middle "just doing their jobs").
We need to change minds about things in 2 areas. First, we need people in the executive branches and legislative branches of government, or RIGHT and Republican-led governments, to take back their proper authority to act. When Andy Jackson said (of the courts) "now let them enforce it", he was saying just exactly what the founders had intended by the separation of powers, that the courts' have the power to SPEAK but not the power to actually levy force, the executive branch actually commands force. So, let the governors and mayors say "we won't enforce it." They have that power. They have that RIGHT. That's why there are separate arms of government. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, and the other branches ought to put them in check. We need to get the middle 60% (of those in government) to recognize they have a power they have not exercised significantly. Imagine if just one state had both its governor and its legislature make and sign a law that said "not one dollar shall be spent obeying the SC, not one hour of government employees' time shall be exercised upon it, not one form shall be modified to reflect it, not one citizen shall be put inconvenienced by our government for refusing to comply with it, not one iota of the state apparatus shall support the insane Obergefell decision."
Secondly, we need the clerics, the priests, the ministers, etc, to get up and speak out. No, I don't just mean speak out against gay "marriage", they have been doing that. No, they need to exercise their duty to lead their flocks by saying, explicitly from the pulpit: the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell cannot possibly be the "law of the land" because it is in direct defiance of God's law, and no person in office in any position of authority has the right, much less the duty, to give effect to that decision. Every official in the land should be hearing from his church "do not obey those orders, they are invalid orders, they cannot be binding on you, you are obliged to reject them instead." Every church, every minister should be calling up the members of his flock in government and discussing it by phone. They should be writing letters to the newspapers, going on radio, and telling their flocks "as God has made me a teacher, it is my duty to remind you of what Peter and John said to the Sanhedrin: It is better to obey God than to obey man. As Christians, you must recognize when this teaching applies, and I tell you that now is one of those times."
Posted by Tony | September 1, 2015 8:11 PM
Tony, your prescription is mostly right--but movements always start out by someone just defying what is commonly held as reasonable/moral/just/the law. Rosa Parks was essentially a Communist plant who got arrested on purpose as a way of gaining sympathy for her cause. Lexington and Concord helped shape colonial opinion of a repressive crown, but this wasn't due to servile colonists. In order to move the 60% in the middle the other side has to go too far--or be seen as going too far. The other side has to be on the defensive. This may be tough without the media, then again Trump has single-handedly neutered the media re immigration and Mexico. Why can't millions of conservative Christians have a similar impact on social issues?
I can assure you one thing, the battle won't be won by waiting on the courts to do the right thing.
Posted by GW | September 2, 2015 12:11 AM
I have been belaboring the point that the Christian political philosophy is in shambles. The old directive "Obey authority" turned out to be catastrophic when the German bishops applied it to Nazis. There is still no certain or even probable opinion how to deal with an authority that is insane and has turned itself upon law-abiding people.
So, when to resist, civilly or otherwise, how to resist, role of guns etc etc-there is no guidance from Christian political philosophers, theologians, bishops etc etc beyond vaguest generalities.
I would again call upon a discussion of the question-when and how it was possible to resist the commands of the Nazi Govt?. For the Nazis offer the most pertinent model for today.
Posted by Bedarz Iliaci | September 2, 2015 1:13 AM
Mike T,
The men with guns are only going to use them when the Govt will come for their guns.
But then why should the Govt come for their guns?
The gun-owners are going to accept whatever the Govt wants them to accept (except an order to relinquish the guns).
It is a fallacy to think that private guns protect against tyranny. Russia was swimming in guns during and after Bolshevik coup and so was Saddam's Iraq.
And it were not guns that kept liberty in England.
Posted by Bedarz Iliaci | September 2, 2015 1:22 AM
The idea that we need a majority is part of the problem here. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was 3% of the population and the Bolsheviks were nothing in terms of popularity when they took over. If we can't (relatively) peacefully accomplish with 20% with that they did with less than 5%, then shame on us.
The civil rights movement started out as a minority and was willing to defy civil authority with impunity to make its point. Martin Luther King even reminded folks on occasion that they had a choice. They could deal with men like him or ignore him and let Malcom X's radicals become the majority and see where that goes.
Or elected officials. The case of Roy Moore shows the futility of exhorting politicians to stand up when it's easier and more lucrative to stand down.
I was going to condemn Pryor, but then it occurred to me that the coward's choice is the default choice for moneyed men in respectable professions with respectable families and neighbors. Do you bet that his wife would have honored her vows if he had stood with Moore and ended up in a federal prison on contempt of court charges (which can last, I believe, as long as the judge lets them in some cases)? Probably not.
In general, change comes from two groups: the radicals among the elites and those with a lot less to lose.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 8:04 AM
England today is arguably the most policed, spied-on and regulated society in the Western world. The only rights you have in England today are the right to be drunk, promiscuous, gay, have an abortion and use welfare services.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 8:49 AM
Mike, for crying out loud, shut the heck up. Just shut up. I cannot tell you how weary I am of your idiotic, random misogyny. Leave it to you to manage to bring a slur on a woman neither you nor I know anything about into a discussion of political philosophy and civil disobedience. I am leaving your stupid, slanderous comment here only because I am rebuking it and warning you that future such comments may well be deleted *in their entirety*, including the other content in them, just because I am about ready to throw up at your way of dragging in slurs against wives into any topic whatsoever, be it, "The sky is blue." ("Yeah, but I bet your wife would divorce you and treat you horribly if you told her the sky was blue.") Shut up, or you will be forcibly shut up, at least on my threads.
Actually, there is an interesting legal point concerning the Moore case in that there was no court order personally against Moore to remove the commandments. I have met Moore, briefly, and had an interesting short discussion with him. This was approximately ten or twelve years ago. At the time he pointed out that technically he did not engage in civil disobedience as there was no court order against him. The same would be true of Pryor. There was no court order to him to prosecute Moore for "ethics" charges. It would actually have been pretty cumbersome to try to penalize him for failing to do so. The worst that would likely have happened would have been that he would have lost his attorney general's position in some way. If that is an elected position, moving on from such a position is the kind of career move that happens to people normally at some point in their lives.
Moore's repeated point about civil disobedience is an interesting one, and he has already used it in Alabama in this most recent dust-up. I _think_ Kim Davis does have a court order against her, but most clerks do not. Only if a court order is issued directly to a person to do something can they be held in contempt for failing to do it.
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2015 9:14 AM
Lydia, my comment had nothing to do with what you are talking about it. It's an accurate reflection of the ethics of the country club set. I would sooner expect aliens to land and try Justice Kennedy for blasphemy than I would expect the country club set to actually rock the boat or stick through it if the boat is rocked. The country club set is overflowing with scumbags of both genders who are both highly ambitious and conformist. Change doesn't come from that sort. It just doesn't. Look at the lives of our founders, you won't find a single man there who would fit in with our modern upper classes.
The reason why most male politicians won't martyr themselves is that they are cowards and they know that their wives, being cut from the same cloth as them, will probably not stand by them if "consequences get serious." You know serious like spending 20 years in a federal lock up because you refuse to abide by a judge's condition to have the contempt charge removed. You know like this.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 10:04 AM
I will say that I probably should have worded my original comment better, as it was intended to highlight that he is a conformist and coward, not focus attention on his wife.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 10:05 AM
You're incorrigible, Mike. You don't even know how to bag it without quite really bagging it.
Anyway, there would have been no civil contempt charges against Pryor, and actually, I think he was sincere in believing that his actions were required by the rule of law. He was just wrong about that. And there are many like him. Sure, there are also cowards, but there are also sincere people who think things are somehow morally required--like prosecuting someone for disobeying an outrageous court order or immoral law, and many other things--which are not in fact required. There is a deep fear of anarchy and of "cheating," and that's good up to a point, but it often crosses that point when simply *not prosecuting* a judge on "ethics" violation charges for *not consenting* to the removal of the Ten Commandments becomes an immoral omission.
Similarly, if Kim Davis is found in contempt, there will be plenty of sheriff's deputies who will think that simply refusing to lock her up would be immoral on their part--just not participating.
By the way, I think Moore definitely regarded Pryor as sincere, not as cowardly. He made that quite clear when he spoke about the case.
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2015 10:22 AM
If he had actually stood with Moore, then who knows where it would have gone.
I would say that it's still a form of cowardice when you are willing to be a party to legally sanctioned madness for fear of some man, somewhere getting the idea that he can do what he wants in defiance of "the law." Let me ask you this, what breach of the peace would be caused by Pryor telling the Supreme Court to go eff itself? None. The police would hardly know that there is a disturbance except when they get off the shift and see the news. The average person wouldn't even notice or care.
That's what makes this so outrageous. The courts are risking real disturbances over mandating bovine excrement.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 10:46 AM
Exactly. This was Jefferson's adopted personal motto:
This spirit still lives on in the United States (although apparently not at this blog), but it is almost wholly absent among the upper classes who become politicians. Not surprisingly, the most defiant candidate is the one poised to run away with the Republican nomination. There is a lesson to be had here. Hand wringing gets us nowhere.
Posted by GW | September 2, 2015 12:03 PM
Okay, maybe I'm just a little grumpy today (see my above comments to Mike), but y'know what? You're being a jerk, GW. Bag it.
I have recommended civil disobedience again and again on this blog. In this very thread I have _explicitly_ stated that civil disobedience may sometimes be morally required, and I have clearly indicated disapproval of those who believe they are required by the "rule of law" to punish others who engage in civil disobedience.
What I have said is that civil disobedience is not, as you said it was, a winning _strategy_, because there are too many who will reluctantly go along with punishing those who engage in it, enforcing the court orders, etc.
Apparently this position is just too goldarned nuanced for you. Ironically, your idea of being brave is saying that if we're brave we'll win, because the bad guys are in a minority. Any disagreement with you about prospects for such as Kim Davis or Jack Phillips (main post) is supposed to be a sign of abject capitulation. Or something like that.
This just shows that you utterly fail to understand the actual position. And until you do, I suggest you be a little less mouthy.
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2015 1:14 PM
Speaking of Kim Davis, werent there clerks who despite the law issued marriage licenses to homosexual couples? I vaguely remember this happening multiple times and these clerks being generally lauded for their courage. Not sure what the difference between them and Kim Davis is.
Posted by DR84 | September 2, 2015 1:55 PM
I could be mistaken, but I think GW's idea is closer to "molon labe" than a sit-in.
Posted by Mike T | September 2, 2015 3:04 PM
GW also ignored my comment, in which I explicitly called for people not to comply. Go figure.
That I, personally, would not consider it "civil disobedience" as that is properly understood, if the president or governor or legislature, acting in their _proper_ spheres, refused to treat the SC's words as binding is irrelevant - everyone else would. And certainly the clerks and bailiffs under threat of force would be engaging in civil disobedience.
Posted by Tony | September 2, 2015 5:25 PM
What Judge Moore explained to me, which I found very interesting, was that you are not engaging in civil disobedience unless you are breaking a law or defying a court order, where a "court order" has to be addressed specifically *to you*. So if a court says, "We interpret the constitution as meaning that homosexuals have to receive marriage licenses" but no court order is directed specifically to any clerk to issue said licenses, then clerks who don't aren't engaging in civil disobedience, properly so called. And in his own case, the court ruled, "It's an unconstitutional establishment of religion to have this ten commandment monument in Judge Moore's courtroom" but never ruled, "It is hereby ordered that Judge Moore hire someone to remove the monument," so he wasn't technically committing civil disobedience. That was why the only way they got rid of him (temporarily, before he was re-elected) was by prosecuting him for "ethics violations" for not hopping to it and getting the monument removed. Or such is my understanding.
I thought it was an interesting example of the way that nit-picky legalism can actually be used in the service of the good.
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2015 6:56 PM
Pete Spiliakos at First Things today makes an intriguing point that the business class is able to disproportionately influence the Republican policy because it acts like a community.
He compares this organizational strength of the business community with the relative scarcity of social capital among other segments of the population.
Political power is achieved by a community acting as one. Not by a multitude even if it possesses guns. The evidence is before our eyes. The Christians do not act as if they are a community.
Posted by Bedarz Iliaci | September 3, 2015 1:18 AM
Lydia,
Civil disobedience is not cost-free but no attempt at political power can be cost-free. Do you think that a strategy of devising and exploiting loop-holes is a winning strategy, given that the law as it stands is basically irrational?
What makes you think that the judges will not arbitrarily rule out loop-holes?
If you estimate 20% sympathy for traditional marriage, then it is HUGE. Acts of civil disobedience could do well. Far better than the legal nitpickings that have a tendency to bore people not deeply engaged.
Posted by Bedarz Iliaci | September 3, 2015 7:54 AM
I try to pick loopholes that are unlikely to be ruled out. It's one of the boring things I do decently well. In fact, I think it_likely_ that Jack Phillips will be _allowed_ (oh, how gracious!) to continue to cripple his business by baking no wedding cakes. I'm still waiting to see if ADF gets back to me to confirm that.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm a big believer in the glory of lost causes. I believe in being realistic however unpleasant reality may be. There may _be_ no winning strategy. If so, then we leave it in the hands of God. The strategies I'm mainly looking for are those that keep Christians and moral traditionalists right with God and their consciences. If they can keep on making a living as well, doing something in the neighborhood of what they were already doing, and doing good, that's a good bonus and one I tend to look for. Winning *political* strategies are things I'm no expert on and generally dubious about.
Posted by Lydia | September 3, 2015 8:51 AM
A winning strategy often incorporates multiple tactics. Civil disobedience should only be part of it.
Everytime someone on the right uses the Alinsky playbook on them, they can't handle it. Part of the winning strategy is a rejection of the Bill Buckley idea that extremists are bad people and embrace the Alt Right view that extremists are actually our "shock troops" for attacking the other side.
As we have seen time and again, more moderate folks that you call "decent minded men" will very often end up attacking their own ostensible side rather than the left. It is clear that they are generally useless and should not be preferred to the true blue believers who might alienate the more moderate types.
Posted by Mike T | September 3, 2015 10:48 AM
Bedarz is right:
The fact is, Christians are not a community. There are too many denominations and no reasonable agreement on how to define what a Christian is. You take your pick among the cults and among the unbiblical denominations and tell me among which of them you would consider yourself included in "community"! Some of us, who sound like very narrow sectarians, have sounded for long ages over the need to get our own house in order. You may consider yourself more liberally inclusive, but many in your widened circle would stand against you in the culture wars. Better accept nothing less than Bible and attach yourself to the remnant.
Posted by John Krivak | September 3, 2015 4:22 PM
Lydia,
I think you are neglecting the broader political dimensions of the situation. Legal nitpicking is fine when the objective is to save a particular individual. But it is doubtful it could lead to political heightening of the sort that would be desirable.
In particular, Kim Davis must be aware of the political implications of her stand. She is an elected public servant, if I am not mistaken. She could have just resigned and avoided the trouble.
I am of the opinion that a political confrontation now would be better than a confrontation later.
Posted by Bedarz Iliaci | September 4, 2015 12:22 AM
Allow me to clarify: Christians will win in the end. The final, final end game is God coming in, blowing the whistle, and saying to all the goats, "you who defied me, off to the fires prepared for you..." In this final result, we who stick with God are assured the victory. Sticking with God is a winning strategy. Period.
Speaking of ends, goals, and objectives for BEFORE the end of the world is to speak relatively rather than absolutely. RELATIVELY speaking, civil disobedience is not likely to be a winning strategy, if the goal at issue is "getting society to accept and live with the fact that this Kentucky office does not issue marriage licenses." Lydia is right about that. It also is not likely to be a winning strategy for any goal that can be achieved in the next year.
But relative to more long-range goals, that's less clear. I am sure the Christians being fed to the lions were not saying to themselves "it's all good, because the Roman empire will, in 180 years, turn around and accept Christianity". They weren't focused on THAT goal - but it happened anyway. Whatever plan God has in mind for America, or its successors, it is more reasonable to think that the outcome in 50 or 100 or 200 years will be good if Kim Davis and people like her engage in civil disobedience by obeying God's law than that it will be good if everyone including officials knuckle under and disobey God because "that's the law".
Now, it is certainly the case that Davis could refuse to disobey God's general law by resigning her position and thus not issuing fraudulent licenses. But it is by no means clear that she would by that be obeying God's actual will _for_her_. Surely a Christian can reasonably say "God put me in office at this troubled time for reasons of his own, and that includes my being an example of integrity even when the going is tough and sticking to my office even if that hurts me personally." Refusing the challenge because there is a LAWFUL way out doesn't mean refusing the challenge is what God actually wants of her. It would be comparable to a Christian who was a Roman official when the order came down to capture Christians and force them to sacrifice to idols. Such an official might have said "If I resign my position I can legally avoid doing something heinous...but that's not what MY particular challenge is."
Posted by Tony | September 4, 2015 6:58 AM