Ed Brayton had a great Facebook post:
"Everyone who supports Kim Davis and this notion that government clerks should be allowed to refuse to provide government services based on their "sincerely held religious beliefs" should have to answer a couple of rather obvious questions:
1. Would you take the same position if the clerk claimed a right to deny a marriage license to an interracial couple? This is not merely a hypothetical, this exact claim was made following the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v Virginia.
2. Would you take the same position if the clerk was Muslim and claimed a right to deny driver's licenses to women? Or a Quaker and claimed a right not to issue any gun permits because of their pacifism?
All of those examples are absolutely identical legally. They can't try to argue that those examples are different because God doesn't *really* oppose those things but he really does oppose same-sex marriage because the government cannot make such a distinction. And they damn well know it because if the government did try to make that distinction and declare that a belief other than Christianity is the only true belief and therefore the only basis for such an exemption, they would lose their minds over it.Gay marriage is NOT an attack on Christianity, but the restoration of civil rights that should have never been removed in the first place!
As always, they are engaged in special pleading and will refuse to apply their arguments consistently and coherently. Because when they say they want religious freedom, what they really want is Christian privilege. They want Christians, and Christians only, and only their particular type of Christians in fact, to be allowed to violate the law at will."