Ill briefly refute each point in chronological order.
(1) It matters very much. Marriage is state law issue, period.
Under
Obergefell the Supreme Court has found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Now, you may disagree with that, but it is the decision that the Court reached. Any state law that is contrary to that decision is null and void, just like any state law that limited other constitutionally-guaranteed rights or which went against Federal laws. See, inter alia, the Supremacy clause.
Gay marriage has been voted down by referendum across the board.
Right, and? The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
That one Supreme Court justice felt compelled to interject his personal beliefs into a cut and dried legal issue doesn't make the decision valid.
If you do not like our existing system of government, argue to have it changed.
Which brings me to my second point. (2) The Supreme Court is not infallible.
Red herring. Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court is infallible. In fact, plenty of the Court's past decisions prove that it isn't, a point that you make further down by citing Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's others too, such as Plessey v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn and Korematsu v. U.S. to name a few more. But it is the final court of appeal.
Who is on the Supreme Court? 9 human beings-- 9 politically appointed judges that serve for life. They have no accountability.
Again, you seem to have a problem with the structure of our Government. That's your right, of course and you're free to argue that it should be changed. But until it is changed, this is the system that we have in place and you are
not free to ignore it.
You pretend to be knowledgeable about the law, and yet you know nothing about the history of the Supreme Court. I'm not going to spoon feed you the laundry list of horrible decisions-- but, I suggest you start with Dred Scott.
Dred Scott was a horrible case and was, thankfully, effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to overturn a decision of the Court, then have Congress draft an Amendment and propose it to the States, or get the States to organize a constitutional convention. Both processes are outlined in the Constitution, so take a pick.
And with that, my final point (3) Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. I wrote: If this woman wants to stand by her principles and religious beliefs regardless of the consequences, then she should be applauded as a HERO. The key part of my previous posting is underlined.
Faulty generalization: not all principles are equal or equally valid, and whether standing by one's principles regardless of the consequences is heroic greatly depends on the principle and what one has to do to stand by it. As you correctly pointed out in another post, we don't consider suicide bombers heroic, despite the fact that one could argue that they are "standing by their principles regardless of the consequences." While I don't think that Davis' actions even come close to the level of suicide bombers, the problem is the principle that she can force her religious beliefs on others and the fact is that her actions are illegal.
The state is free to fire her.
Except it's not - as an elected official she cannot be fired.
I didn't say that the state could not, or should not fire her given the circumstances.
I didn't either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
My point is that if she has the courage to take a stand based on religious principle, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES, then I think she should be applauded. You don't have to agree with me-- but please don't put words in my mouth.
I, on the other hand, think that people should not blindly be applauded for taking a stand based on some principle without, first, examining the principle in question.
