Don’t know, but I’d guess the same principle is already operative with, for example, a Muslim bureaucrat inspecting pork or issuing a liquor license or whatever.
If not, this could be opening up a dangerous precedent, but since we seem to have to have such “accommodations” in private hiring, it would be surprising if we don’t with government employees.
What happens if no government employee in a county believes in gay marriage sufficiently to step in in this employee’s place? Then I’d guess the county would have to hire someone else to do it—or maybe there’d then be a hardship provision by which they can compel an employee to act—or get another job.
Not having anyone willing to sign the documents is a very realistic possibility in conservative rural counties.
There are work-arounds which would respect the conscience of circuit court clerks who have sincere religious objections. (More below on that.)
My worry is that the liberals are not stupid. They have had plenty of time to think these things through. What will happen if some rural county somewhere tries to accommodate sincerely held religious convictions, inconveniences a homosexual couple by making them wait a day until a clerk is available, gets sued, loses the lawsuit, and sets a precedent which removes the accommodation for everyone else?
Here's an example of how this could work. The smallest county in our four-county circuit has only two people in their circuit clerk's office, the elected clerk and his deputy. On the other hand, two of our four counties are fairly large and one of those is in a university town. I am certain at least one deputy clerk somewhere in the circuit is willing to do the paperwork.
I suppose the circuit judges could arrange for a deputy clerk willing to do the paperwork to be sent to a county where a homosexual couple wanted a marriage license, on a basis comparable to judges being sent from one county to another within the circuit when conflicts of interest happen, or even obtaining a deputy clerk from outside the circuit if no clerk anywhere in the circuit will do this.
That could work, but only if the homosexuals consider that to be a legitimate accommodation to the beliefs of those who disagree.
Will that happen? Recent history with bakers, florists, and pizza shops does not give reason for optimism.
Here's a worst-case scenario.
With the exception of Poland, where the Roman Catholic Church was so strong that the Communist Party was forced to let practicing Catholics into government, most civil service positions in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and China were closed to practicing Christians, either by outright prohibitions on Christians or by requiring people to agree to do things which sincere believers could not do, leading to a situation in which liberal Christians and people who didn't take their beliefs seriously could cooperate with government but sincere believers could not. Similar issues existed for Jewish people in the former Soviet Union, where observant Orthodox Jews faced severe problems but secular Jews sometimes rose to significant positions in government.
I don't think most American liberals think that way, at least not yet. Churches have had a very long history in “progressive” and liberal causes, and most secular liberals know enough black evangelicals and Hispanic Catholics to regard them as well-meaning people, even if they don't agree.
But it's quite possible the hard-core leftists have something like that on their agenda, i.e., driving people out of government service who can't conscientiously accept certain things.