King Nebuchadnezzar or Rodney King?

Susan Houg, who commented on my “Kim Davis, welcome to Babylon” column, asked a good question: “Should it be okay for Ms. Davis to refuse marriage licenses to couples who are ‘unequally yoked’? Or to couples who are divorced and marrying another partner? (In first case assuming she is a Bible-believing Protestant; in second case, if she were a traditional Catholic.) So there’s an inconsistency, not only with our modern ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ but also with our modern ‘Daniels.’”

Yes.

Lives are full of inconsistencies. Many beliefs are full of inconsistencies. But they are still lives and beliefs, so here’s a question: Do we want to base our government, as much as possible, on the dictatorship of King Nebuchadnezzar or the hope of Rodney King?

Some 2,600 years ago, according to Chapter 3 of the Book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar demanded that all Babylonians bow before a 90-feet-high golden statue. In 1992, Rodney King, an African-American whose beating by Los Angeles police officers led to riots in which 52 died, asked, “Can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids? … Please, can we get along here? We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out.”

Politics is often a zero-sum game: One candidate wins, another loses. Legislation is often the same. But both the U.S. Congress and the Kentucky legislature have decided that, when it comes to religious belief, the goal is not to have winners and losers. Both have passed what I’d call Rodney King laws: Let’s all try to get along and work it out. Both have pushed for “accommodations.”

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, “Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an ‘undue hardship,’ meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers—for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties—then the employer must accommodate them.”

We’ve had that preference for accommodation rather than win/lose since 1972. During that time a Muslim flight attendant hasn’t had to serve alcohol, pro-life nurses haven’t had to be involved in abortions, pacifist postal workers haven’t had to process draft registration forms, a Jehovah’s Witness hasn’t had to raise a flag, an IRS employee hasn’t had to work on tax exemptions for groups promoting devil worship and other activities he religiously opposed, and a vegetarian hasn’t had to hand out hamburger coupons.

You and I may find some of these concerns serious and others silly, but they were serious for the individuals involved so, based on the Rodney King principle rather than “I am king of the forest”’ ego, we should respect them. In this area of law we will inevitably find inconsistencies, because—as Volokh writes—“if the accommodation would have been quite difficult or expensive (beyond the inevitable cost that always comes with rearranging tasks), then the employer wouldn’t have had to provide it.”

Finding ways that we can all get along requires judgment, analysis of specific facts, and the risk of slippery slopes, but the principle overrides the “Kim Davis should resign if she doesn’t want to issue same-sex marriage licenses” approach. And, while Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act does not cover elected officials, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires government agencies to accommodate religious objectors unless doing so will unavoidably mess with a compelling government interest.

Davis believes that having her name on a same-sex marriage license constitutes an endorsement of what the Bible says is wrong. Others may say that’s not the case, as others argued in 1924 that running in an race in the Olympics on Sunday is not breaking the Sabbath, but moviegoers cheered the stand of Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire, so why not respect Kim Davis?

Her legal filing says she could live with “Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name.” That’s a very inexpensive accommodation. Sure, some want to make an example of Davis: Do it my way or go to jail. But can we all get along?

Five years after the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Rodney King said policing had improved: The LA police “used to be like, ‘I’m gonna kick somebody’s ass today and so I hope I can catch somebody in a bad situation or breaking the law.’ I think that attitude has changed.”

In 2015, some officials and judges seem to have a jail ’em attitude. Between now and 2020, will our vision improve? Can our latter-day King Nebuchadnezzars learn from Rodney King? Can we all try to get along?