Jonathan Adler, writing in the Washington Post, reminded us of Antonin Scalia’s argument about the death penalty: If the justice believed that his official participation in the legal machinery of death was immoral, then he could not be a judge while capital punishment remained on the books.
Antonin Scalia is making the same point I've been making with Kim Davis.
We disagree, FRiend.
SCOTUS set up a trap where a non-enumerated “right” specifically contradicts an enumerated right. When Kim Davis asserts her enumerated right, if she can be compelled to resign or violate her asserted right, then there is no right to freedom of exercise of religion.
The existing laws in KY do not support issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses. Under the SCOTUS ruling, they are deemed unconstitutional, and therefore void. There is no authority for KY to issue marriage licenses of any kind in this situation.
But beyond this, I can’t help but see that the full weight of government vengeance is not aimed squarely at anyone who holds to a christian orthodoxy.
SCOTUS, through the person of Bunning, has imprisoned a woman for exercising a right enumerated in the first amendment. And they call this “the rule of law”.