Let's analyze your statement. Remove your inflammatory adjectives and what remains is your assertion that the law must be followed in all circumstances. That happens to have been the Nazi defense at the trial. As it happens, I do not share her religious beliefs, but I do respect them.

As a devout Objectivist, I am certainly not sneering at Objectivism. That also includes recognizing and respecting the rights of others, even if those are based on religion.

I am not promoting religion. I am promoting a person's right to not being forced to action against their moral code, regardless whether that code originated from Objectivism or the Bible. I am also pointing out that when such conflicts occur, the stronger jailing the weaker is a recipe for a disaster.

People are married all the time with nothing but a fee to the person who officiates, provides the certificate, and registers the legal status. What is wrong with that?

That's not why I rationally sent her a card.
It had to do with a freedom supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

$o that'$ why the government i$ in the marriage busine$$, that'$ what.

Paraphrasing Gandalf is a good thing, as is paraphrasing Yoda.

She could have. She is already in jail now for contempt of the court order while remaining in office. Whether or not she could get out by resigning now is a legal question.

Yes, they are, and Kim Davis is one example of it. Religious beliefs are in this case being promoted as an excuse.

"Ayn Rand forum" does not mean Ayn Rand is still alive or that only Ayn Rand can be talked about. The purpose and terms of conditions for this forum on behalf of Ayn Rand's philosophy have been clearly stated and exclude promoting positions attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy, though the wording of the rules keeps changing. It is not a forum for proselytizing religious conservatism.

There! Now you're gettin' the hang of it!

The gov should get out of the business of personal relationships, making babies (or not), healthcare in general...as a matter of fact...it's better if they get out of everything (to paraphrase Gandalf). OK - they can keep national defense and a few other things.

Jan, feeling generous

Jailing someone for violation of the law is not a "path in that direction". It is done all the time. It has nothing to do with "Nazi excuses". She has no right to redefine the laws she must follow in her duties as a public official. Her subjective claims to religious morality are irrelevant. If she prefers her irrational religious duties her alternative is to resign. No one is forcing her to keep the job she volunteered for. It has nothing to do with "Nazi atrocities". That is your arbitrary and false association.

Even better

Good.

The "codification" is the Supreme Court decision stating that she cannot discriminate against gays in issuing marriage licenses. Her discrimination in the function of her duties is the illegality. The demands to be shown a state law are sophistry.

Could she resign and not go to jail?

"Freedom of conscience" does not mean public officials making up their own laws. If they disagree with laws they are required to enforce then they should resign. There is no exemption for religious faith as a privileged position.

Yes, humor and sarcasm don't always translate well over text postings. That sometimes annoys people's emotions...

Of all the "slippery slope" arguments, the case against polygamy is, by far, the weakest. How can we deny love among more than 2 adults?

Again, my answer is that it's none of the government's business what happens in the bedroom, bathroom, or weedroom. There should be no "licenses" or tax-favored treatment to anyone here. Contracts can be entered into and later disputes resolved by the courts, but that's really where it should end.

One would hope that improvement comes sooooon!

I fancy the Prime Law as stated by Mark Hamilton's Twelve Visions Party, tvpnc.com

She can't transfer, she holds an elective office.

This has nothing to do with the demands of religionists to make their own law as public officials.

I don't see this as an "Ayn Rand forum." I personally do not come here to talk exclusively about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is dead. She's not coming back. But her writings on philosophy survive which can be applied or debated in living one,s life.

Objectivism is not an equivalent variety of "the Spaghetti Monster", "Global Warming", and "religion", and "religious beliefs" are not "just as valid" as anything else. Your sneering attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy do not belong here.

"Everyone" does not have a "moral right" to change the law to whatever he wants as a public official with contrary "religious beliefs". Anarchy by public officials is statism. Nor is a civilized society possible based on an anti-philosophical libertarian anything goes notion of subjective eclectic "moral codes".

The Supreme Court is not "invalidating a nuclear family by destroying the marriage by spreading it out among anything that walks". Your assertion is absurd. That some hysterical religionists have a "moral conflict" with public officials being required to follow the law for marriage licenses contrary to religious dogma is not "the seeds of revolution".

A law creating exceptions for "Natural Law" would create chaos, because there are as many versions of "Natural Law" as religions. No system of law, however objectively fair, is really "natural" at all -- man had to invent it, and will probably improve on it in the future.

Sorry to be so humorless. Actually the argument that recognizing that denial of gay marriage was a constitutional violation might logically lead to other absurd results was made to the Supremes (and every other court which decided the issue). This is known in the law as a "slippery slope" argument. It was rejected. Raising this argument, even in a humorous manner, sometimes has the opposite of the intended effect. Note Johnconnor's response above.