A good friend argued that the First Amendment guarantees her right to practice her religion free of government interference. But I see this as an elected official using the power and authority of her office to force her religious views on others. I think the court got this right.
Meanwhile, her son is working in that same office and refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex partners.
Your friend is very badly mistaken. Where the limit exactly lies is a fun legal exercise, but it lies short of being able to ignore a law that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing, and it falls short of allowing believers to infringe on the rights of others. Adult wants to forgo life saving medicine because of belief? FINE, die. Parent wants to let their kid die of the flu because they think IV fluids are of the devil? Too bad, the hospital will save the kids life anyway.
Kim Davis is trying to take all that to the extreme - she's arguing that the government has to pay her to enforce her religious convictions on other people and NOT do her job. The Judge said he would let her out if she promised to not interfere with other Clerk's issuing licenses, she said no - basically, it is her duty to stop gay marriage.
The government can not compel a Quaker to take up arms and fight in the US Army. They can compel them to join up and be a combat medic, an engineer, or other duty in line with their beliefs. A Quaker is NOT free to join up, go to OTS, take control of a platoon, and order them all to not fight in spite of the chain of command ordering them to fight.
Hell, since the 1960s businesses of public accommodation have not been "free to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It is doubtful that a secular Elvis impersonator wedding chapel in Vegas could turn away gay couples (a right doesn't exist until it can be exercised. If you have the right of travel, but no motel, gas station, or restaurant will serve you... you don't really have the right of travel. Even if all the establishments claim they are refusing service because the Bible tells them to do so). So for a government employee to make such a claim is ridiculous.
Lets boil it down, her argument is:
"My religious beliefs say this is wrong, so I'm not going to let it happen."
Now lets add situation facts to that:
"In spite of other peoples right to do so..."
"In spite of it being my job to do so..."
"In spite of an Oath to carry out the law..."
Cool. I have deeply held beliefs too. Like my right to slap the hell out of people I deem to be stupid.
Scene 1:
::c_f walks down the street and sees a man standing on the street corner talking to a woman, he begins walking by the two and overhears::
Man says: "You know, they've never really proven that the Earth is round. That was just made up so they could pretend we landed on the moon without seeing it. Everyone knows it was just a way to funnel money to the Rockefellers."
::c_f stops, slowly turns, and quickly slaps the man, who protests, only to receive another swift slap to the face. A police whistle cuts through the stunned silence. c_f casually reaches into his wallet and pulls out a small card. As the officer runs over it is held out to the officer.::
Officer: "I just saw you slap that man. You're under arrest for assault! What's this..."
Officer reads the card, camera zooms in on the text: "the bearer is a believer in the Church of Though Shalt Not be Stupid. Is is his religious belief that he must slap the stupid out of stupid people until they are stupid no more. The incident you just witness/were called to was the believer exercising his religious faith. So Sayeth the Card."
Officer, handing the card back to c_f: "Well, OK then. Is all the stupid out of this man?"
c_f: "For now, sir."
END SCENE
