|Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 274):|
along with any other extremists who'd like to have their religious laws recognized differently...
The thing of it is: she's not being forced to put aside her beliefs. She willingly chose to be in that position. She knew that the day would come when she'd have to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. She had a choice: she could comply with the federal ruling (both the one that established SSM and the ones that ordered her to do her job) or she could step aside and allow someone else to hand out the licenses (at the very least, allow her deputies to do so).
This isn't an infringement on her religious freedom. She's not told how to believe, but religious freedom isn't us conforming to her beliefs either. Because no one is being forced to violate their "sincerely held beliefs" and because they also have a choice when it comes to doing something that WOULD force them to do so, any court challenge will fall flat on its face. At most, a judge may reassert the right of refusal as long as the office/place has someone to carry out the task at hand.
As a cashier, if you don't want to check out a customer because they bought bacon? Fine. Bring someone to check out the item for you and continue. As a priest, if you don't want to marry same sex couples, excellent. You're given the right to refuse and church is not liable for it. As a county clerk/probate judge/magistrate/government official, you don't want to provide a service to same sex couples? Excellent, but don't bar other people in your office from doing it.
Own a bakery and don't serve gay couples? That is your prerogative, but at the very least, own it: place a sign saying who you serve or do the kind thing and refer them to a bakery which will be more than happy to take their cash.
Kim Davis is not testing religious freedom: her argument is not that she doesn't have accommodations; her argument is that I can't license gay couples because Jeebus.