If you have had a chance to see the national news lately, you will most likely see the disgruntled picture of a Kentucky county clerk. Her hair is mussed and she looks exorbitantly aggravated — and I can’t say I blame her. Her mug shot is being posted everywhere, circulated more than the FBI’s most wanted fugitive. Ignoring Fidel Urbina and his horrifying crimes against women, you will see a single woman whose beliefs are strongly set. Just like yours and mine. Now, before you all get your feathers ruffled, hear me out. I see this case not as one of same-sex marriage rights, those have already been supported by the Supreme Court, but that of the freedom of religion and the rights of Christians.

This entire debate has been misfocused from the beginning. I am not condoning Davis’s actions, but I am supporting her right to take those actions on the grounds that we do live in the United States. The entire ideal system of our beautiful country is based upon the backs of a hardy group of persecuted individuals fighting for their own religious freedom. So riddle me this, when did that freedom become null and void?  When it disagreed with someone else’s viewpoint?  As far as I can see, it occurs far too often. To quote Davis’s lawyer, “there are multiple alternatives available by which individuals can obtain (same-sex marriage) licenses without voiding Davis’ conscience and stripping Davis of her liberties.”

This is not ignoring or selectively stating her many faults because she is  — well — human, and you cannot be one without slipping up here or there. However, this is looking at the bigger picture — bigger than a middle-aged woman wearing a knee length skirt because she is a solid proponent of modesty. This is looking at a woman who is staying steadfast in her beliefs, even if she is being disrespectful. This is a woman who, like the pilgrims before us, is just looking for a little religious freedom. I believe that disagreement does not have to cause controversy and discontent. Instead, she should have quietly discussed with her management a way for her name to not appear on the certificates, perhaps any marriage certificate, to completely avoid  discrimination. Or simply, resign. A statement is still made, clean and clear.

As a Christian myself, it is hard to watch the first characteristic described in many instances by the media as the religious preference of the offender. Often, when stated they are Christian, it is linked back to the horrific things supposedly based in faith that have occurred. No religion is perfect. There are rules, and guidelines, but their interpretation is one of the beauties and requirements we expect out of our belief systems, isn’t it?

We’re all just looking for that little piece of guidance we need to make it through the day. When these coincide with social norms, they can be positive or negative. When a crucifix is thrown in the mix, things tend to get downright ugly. Throwing this believer in jail because she did not want to go against her faith was an overwhelming response to a small situation. There were other ways this situation could have been handled.

And where does that leave us? The quiet Christians who were picked on in high school for wanting to attend church every weekend? Or any religion for that matter?

There is persecution in this country, it is just overlooked and forgotten. We sit and argue about the denial of our birthright for some of the population, a distinction decided by a media who is only in it for the money not the so called truth. While fighting for rights of the few, did we forget about the rights of the many? What if we stopped this game of tug of war and just respected each other? It’s back to the whole ‘play nice kids’ mantra yet again. What happened to just a little respect? And yes, I hope you sang that in your best Aretha voice.

Brushing past Davis’s past indiscretions, this debate shouldn’t be about the single woman from Kentucky who is getting more publicity than one could want, it’s about the principle. You only have the rights we grant you, the one that agree with social norms — which could spark a whole different debate.  And there aren’t enough lawyers in the world to cover every lawsuit that would result from that.