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.