Kim Davis is now in defiance of a court order compelling her to do her job and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Christian right-wingers are falling behind her proclaiming her heroism and her stand for religious liberty.
Except she's standing against religious liberty.
She's not acting in a private capacity being asked to participate in a ceremony or practice she finds objectionable. Rather, she's acting on behalf of the government and refusing to grant a government license on the basis of her religious belief.
This is what's called "establishing religion", in that the government reflects a specific religious viewpoint and acts within the religion. It becomes the official religion of that government office.
What Conservatives are defending now is the opposite of religious freedom - theocracy.
Don't believe me? Try these other examples:
Note that the last one is actually being done by officials in DC. Not on religious grounds, but of the grounds that DC officials don't like guns.
Once you accept a position in the government, you accept that you have to apply the law fairly and without bias. If your religion or conscience places you in a position where your governmental duties offend your belief, your only option is to resign. You do not have a right to a government office.
But Davis feels that not only should she not resign, but people who fall outside her faith's conception of marriage should be denied government service.
Can Catholics' refuse to issue to issue marriage licenses to non-Catholics on the grounds that you can only be married within the Church? Or refuse to issue divorces on the grounds that the Church doesn't recognize them?
Can Muslims refuse to grant any license if their particular faith holds that dhimmis cannot possess them?
Can a pagan require an animal sacrifice to Gaia before issuing a permit?
Can a Mormon refuse to grant a food service license to a shop that primarily sells green and black tea?
Can a member of the Church Of The Broken God only issue permits to people who have some kind of technological device (pacemakers, artificial limbs) augmenting their life?
And if low-level elected officials can impose their religious views on the people they serve, can a governor declare the state government his own religion for the duration of his administration?
No. Prohibiting elected officials from imposing their faith is not only a basic principle of America, but it's also how we avoided the religious wars that plagued Europe for centuries. A government agent imposing their religious views on others should be run out of office, not celebrated as a hero.
That's a frightening precedent to be defending.