A couple things I want to bring to your attention: Are you saying that once you become a member of the state, all of your rights are stripped? Because that's the issue I raise, they it can be argued that her rights are being violated, specifically her freedom of religion. Do government protocols outweigh the constitution? She was a clerk before the Supreme Court ruling.

Not all your rights but if your beliefs are in direct violation of federal law, like Rastafarians smoking marijuana, you can't just claim to be immune to the law because of your religion. Her job is to give out licenses to couples who are eligible for marriage. Gay and straight couples now fit that criteria now. If she denies a license for an eligible couple, she can be laid off as she is not doing the job she was appointed. Because she is a government worker she has to uphold the laws related to her work. Otherwise what she does is technically unlawful. Freedom of religion protects you from not being allowed to worship or announce your faith, It does not allow you to deny others unlawfully because your religions morals are against it. Nobody is stopping her from practicing her religion. If anything she is by working for an agency that upholds things against her morals. She should have issue with the government not the people wanting a legal marriage license.

[quote]Not all your rights but if your beliefs are in direct violation of federal law, [/quote] No it doesn't work like that. None of your rights can be violated. [quote]like Rastafarians smoking marijuana, you can't just claim to be immune to the law because of your religion.[/quote] They have no religious basis. [quote] Her job is to give out licenses to couples who are eligible for marriage. Gay and straight couples now fit that criteria now. If she denies a license for an eligible couple, she can be laid off as she is not doing the job she was appointed. Because she is a government worker she has to uphold the laws related to her work. Otherwise what she does is technically unlawful. [/quote] Since we are speaking in technicalities now, it's against her religion to issue those licenses to gays. And you are technically infringing on her right to practice her religion by upholding her faith. [quote]Freedom of religion protects you from not being allowed to worship or announce your faith, It does not allow you to deny others unlawfully because your religions morals are against it. [/quote] To force someone to do something against their religion and punish them otherwise is in violation of their rights. The Law's enforcement is unconstitutional. [quote]Nobody is stopping her from practicing her religion. If anything she is by working for an agency that upholds things against her morals. She should have issue with the government not the people wanting a legal marriage license.[/quote] The agency didn't present that issue until the Supreme Court made the Law. And she's not on the offensive, she's defending her stance.

No it does not work like that. If it did anyone can make up a religion, get enough followers and declare that their religion declares that all Mexican Americans are sinners and must be segregated and converted. That goes against federal laws, but according to your religious freedom logic, they are legally seen as a religion and they have the right to do that because of the first amendment. That is not so. The right to freedom of religion has limits, just like free speech and press. You can't yell bomb in a plane, and you can't publish liable material even though you are allowed to publish what you want. Where in the bible does it say she can't give marriage licenses? There is no such passage. Maybe saying homosexual acts themselves are sins, but no mention of just doing your job and what's lawful. Who are you to say they have no religious basis? They feel it makes them one with Jah and it is extremely ceremonial for them. They have basis in history as old as Christian history. They believe they all came from Israel and are basically Jewish in a way. Who are you to say they have no basis? The government sees them as a religion yet they can't just go smoke bowls at services. No, no one is denying her the right to be a Christian and have faith, gather and praise God. That is what the amendment protects. She is a government worker that swore to uphold the law. She didn't do that, it doesn't matter if it was a new law, she swore to uphold all laws. Freedom of religion does not protect you from deliberately disobeying laws because of ideologies. If they didn't allow you to go to church or have faith, then it would be against your rights. But by disobeying a law that is [b]constitutional[/b] the state has every right to prosecute that. Nobody is forcing her to do anything [b]she[/b] decided to not follow the oath she made. She had a choice to leave if her work did things against her morals. She didn't and disobeyed the law and her jobs oath at the same time. She isn't a private business owner and so can't deny service. The agency brought that up because they were legally obligated to uphold the new law. Of course she is on the defensive she disobeyed the oath she made to uphold the law and has to deal with the consequences of it. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to do [b]everything[/b] your religion says. If the supreme court finds that, federal law doesnt infringe on your right to still [b]have and practice[/b] that religion they can pass a law that goes against [b]one[/b] of those religions morals. Because that religion is still allowed to be worshiped and believed in. You are not denied your right to be and worship as a Christian, and so it is not in violation of the first amendment.