That is not a valid comparison unless the sheriff was elected or hired to be a guard whose duties were radically changed, such as defining anyone who wanted to come over the border as American citizens, regardless of how they themselves even defined patriotism.
Or a person was elected as a bank guard but whose duties were changed to guarding a gay parade against conservative protesters.
Or one enlists in the Marines, but now, defending American from enemies now means threatening or using force against peaceful Americans due to them owning a registered handgun, or engaging in homeschooling, etc.
Davis obviously does not disagree with the terms of the job to which she was elected, which was to issue marriage licenses to people of opposite genders, not to men and monkey, or women and whales or men with men, which Kentucky law forbade.
Would you say that in any of these cases, esp. if jobs whose description can be so radically changed, that those who object should face unemployment?
I can see the say when what recently happened in NJ , in which judges are instructed to "instantly remove any jurors who display conscious or subconscious racist beliefs" (talk about subjectivity) will be applied to those who display subconscious aversions to homosexuality.
Your job performance can now, at least implicitly , be related to your degree of support for LGBT rights. Soon your company could require you to affirm racial equality, since your job requires you to be a team player, or but racial can now mean supporting LGBT rights,
I think it is going to be very difficult to prevail with a religious liberty argument. She wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartially, this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
A far better argument, one that is more likely to prevail and is more justifiable, is to reject the illegal order of the court which no one is bound to obey.
For the moment I will stipulate to this part of the holding: “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, however this part goes too far, “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States, Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws or to have it’s laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.