I think he makes that point because the legal argument is easier, not necessarily more valid.
From the woman’s standpoint, it is about religious liberty. But from the legal perspective there are other more compelling arguments to them.
To her, nothing could be more compelling.
Certainly resulted in the first imprisonment based on Christian beliefs in the USA. The very thing that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
> I think he makes that point because the legal argument is easier, not necessarily more valid.
I understand the conscientious objection however I think it is going to be very difficult to defend; she wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartiality, this was understood when the job was accepted. Far better, both tactically as well as more justifiably, is to reject the illegal order of the court which no one is bound to obey.