Ah, so you're changing the subject from state authority on marriage law and replacing it with things like human sacrifice and how unpleasant you can be. Makes sense and probably a smart move on your part. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue with the fact that states can and do define marriage in terms that can and do infringe on freely chosen individual religious beliefs.
I’m not the one who intends to alter the subject, between the two of us. And I did not accuse you of it.
The matter is still free exercise of religion. Since you added exercise in the unfree sense, I built upon that. In light of the First Amendment, do states really have the right to attack free exercise and thus institute persecution?