I thought that the USSC ruling only required that states issue marriage licenses, not that every official MUST marry anyone who demands it.
Maybe that interpretation is wrong, but far more wrong is to compel any existing employee to perform duties that are morally repugnant to them, which duties were NEVER mentioned when they applied for (or were appointed to) their job. PERHAPS for new employees and appointees, if they sign a contract that specifically includes doing something that they otherwise wouldn’t, then they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on...but as things are now, I think that all existing government employees should get off the hook, just on that basis.
Which, of course, doesn’t even begin to touch the issue of the free exercise of religion, which is clearly being attacked here and which, if the judge in question loses his job, can only come as a result of government action.
The person deferred to someone else who would. Isn’t that good enough? I am serious. There was someone who would, and since he referred, they got their license. But merely thinking wrong means you don’t deserve to live, apparently.