Religious liberty vs. equal treatment

Has there ever been a time in history, I wonder, when we were more in need of a course in Civics 101 for all citizens?  -- as well as some conservative politicians running for president.  You hardly go a day without a politician claiming he would do something that the president lacks the power to do, or some news story involving disputes about the meaning of this or that clause in the Constitution, with a lot of misinformation being thrown about.

There's the flap about the 14th amendment and "birthright citizenship."   And the conflict between "religious liberty" and the right to equal treatment under the law, which raises questions about whose rights trump whose?

The latest comes from Rowan County, Kentucky, where the County Clerk has been refusing to issue marriage licenses ever since SCOTUS' June decision for marriage equality.  Clerk Kim Davis says it would force her to violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.   So, rather than be accused of discriminating, she stopped giving out licenses to anyone, gay or straight.

Ms. Davis has already lost a law suit to require her to issue licenses;  and she lost on appeal. Now she wants the Supreme Court to hear the case.

This case is somewhat different from the photographers and bakers who don't want to provide services for gay weddings.   (1) Those are private businesses and (2)  They do not have a monopoly on the services.   Ms. Davis is a government employee not performing her official duty.  Apparently she is either the only one in the county who does this or else she has the authority over the office to make the decision that no one else will issue licenses either.

There is a little wiggle room in my ambivalence about private businesses being able to choose their customers.  But I am 100% against allowing an individual to block a legal service  that is her duty to provide for qualified citizens of that county.

Is there even an argument on the other side?   The U. S. Constitution did not set up a theocracy.   To me, the answer is simple.   Ms. Davis' continuing insistence on putting her personal religious beliefs above the legal rights of citizens to obtain marriage licenses makes her unqualified to hold the office and to wield the power that she has usurped.   She should resign immediately or be fired for refusing to perform her duties.

She can hold those beliefs as strongly as she wishes, but she cannot impose them on someone else, especially in her capacity as a government official.   What she claims as her religious liberty right is violating the rights of other citizens to marry.    It's not like this is an antiquated law that arguably should be changed.   A decision has just been rendered less than three months ago by SCOTUS itself.   No individual may set herself up as higher than the Supreme Court.

Ralph

Addendum:   I've learned some additional things since I first wrote this.  (1) In Kentucky, the county clerk is an elected official, so it would take impeachment to remove her from office -- unless she is charged with a crime, which could be if the judge finds her in contempt.  (2)  Ms. Davis has become a symbol for a wave of  anger from anti-gay marriage zealots, holding rallies, etc.   Apparently they are more interested in hyping this up as an election issue than in actually winning, which they know they can't do.     The whole legal process will take time and will probably be ongoing hot issue during the campaign next year.

Late, late bulletin:   The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal to remove the stay.  This means that Ms. Davis is now under court order to issue marriage licenses -- while waiting for the trial of the original suit against her.