Point taken.
However, the judge is obligated to note what law she is obligated to carry out in her official capacity - a law which his superiors (SCOTUS) vacated. He can’t hold her in contempt of a law which he cannot quote because it doesn’t exist. That she is claiming a religious exemption to a nonexistent law is irrelevant.
Her attorney, if smart, will demand the judge quote what law he demands she act on, then observe that absent an adjudicated or legislative rewrite of that law, the law does not stand and there is nothing for her to act on and nothing for him to hold her in contempt of.
These legal arguments should have been made already. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think you can introduce new legal arguments on your behalf after a decision has already been made.