State Constitution vs. US Constitution

I thought a marriage license is a civil document, not a religious document issued by a church. Therefore, why should a religious person, that doesn't subscribe to gay marriage, be concerned about a civil document? Isn't that beyond the jurisdiction of religion? Isn't it a respective church's jurisdiction as to whether it will marry any couple, gay or heterosexual? In my mind, a civil marriage license is just a sort of municipal parking permit, as to where one can park one's genitalia.

What if a religious Catholic, who doesn't believe in divorce, should decide not to issue a document for a civil divorce? There is no divorce in the Catholic faith, so it seems like empowering a civil document to be against one's religious convictions is outside the jurisdiction of religion.

If "cleanliness is next to Godliness," should a religious person not work as a sanitation person?

The problem with your argument is everyone has a constitutional Right of Conscience as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and Kentucky has a specific constitutional Right of Conscience as do most states. In neither case can an individual be forced by any entity to waive their constitutional rights.
A change in the law doesn't change ones constitutional rights. That requires a constitutional amendment and there haven't been any changing the 1st Amendment.
Consider the witness who invokes there 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. If ever there were a more inconvenient constitutional right. This person knows where your loved one is but he won't say and YOU can't make them.
We don't get to pick and choose to which rights we as U.S. citizens are entitled simply because we don't like them.
As you closely follow the Kim Davis case, ask yourself why she is being forced to act contrary to her Right of Conscience.
You don't have to agree with or even like her or her position but you do have to admit the government has no right to force her to violate her Right of Conscience.

and she has no right of employment. She should be fired period. She can have all the "rights of conscience " that she wishes while she collects her unemployment.

However, if the US Constitution DOES NOT cover thi , then the state has the right to act according to its constitution

"Richt of Conscience" (NOt sure where that is in the 1st Amendment). The right of "Free expression" is the gurantee. Also there is a followup that says that" congress shall make no laws establishing a state religion:"

If she is allowed to act in her "right of concieb=nce" (according to her religion) isnt she guilty of attempting to establish a religiou basis for doing her job??

Shes in a blender an I dont see her on the job beyond some convenient time that uses her as a guest celebrity.

You say - 'There is no attempt to make anyone forsake their beliefs.' You're right but for the wrong reason.

If you have a constitutional right against self incrimination and you are jailed for contempt after pleading the 5th, you would say 'My rights were violated. You can't force me to incriminate myself.'

The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.

Unalienable rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.

Among the “unalienable rights” implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights are freedom of conscience–how can one have freedom of speech or religion without freedom of conscience?

Kim Davis was jailed for contempt after refusing to be forced to do something that violated her conscience. She's not being forced to forsake her beliefs, she's being denied her constitutional Right of Conscience.

Kim Davis' objection is not whether the document is religious or civil, rather, that her name is on the document.
Kim Davis has an unalienable constitutional Right of Conscience protected by the 1st Amendment.
Unalienable rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.
The Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the “unalienable rights” of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.
Among the “unalienable rights” implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights are freedom of conscience–how can one have freedom of speech or religion without freedom of conscience?

We all have an unalienable constitutional Right of Conscience protected by the 1st Amendment.
Unalienable rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.
The Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the “unalienable rights” of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.
Among the “unalienable rights” implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights are freedom of conscience–how can one have freedom of speech or religion without freedom of conscience?

She 'is not' Congress.
An individual acting according to their conscience is not the same as The Legislature and Senate making law.
The 1st Amendment prevents the U.S. Congress from establishing a Church of the United States.
Until 1877, many States had a State Religion. In New England, most were the Congregational Church.

My initial question could have been worded better.
Since the States Constitutions are an extension of the U.S. Constitution, where a right is guaranteed in the State Constitution, it must have been derived of a Right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
I have, since, decided to base my opinion on the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both of whom are considered subject matter experts on the unalienable rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Unalienable rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.

The Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the “unalienable rights” of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.

Among the “unalienable rights” implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights are freedom of conscience–how can one have freedom of speech or religion without freedom of conscience?

If she is no longer willing due to her beliefs to preform her duties she should resign.

If she have a firm belief that blacks and whites.should not married it would be the same issue.

She have zero right to force her believes on others using the power of her state office.

The Kim Davis case has nothing to do with freedom of conscience. No one is forcing her to give up her beliefs, and no one is silencing her beliefs. All we are asking from her is to do her job... or to give up her job so someone else can.

Would you support a Vegan working in a butcher shop who refused to work with meat... or a barber who refused to cut hair, or a bartender who refused to serve alcohol?

If someone in a gun store refused to handle or sell guns, they should be fired... don't you agree?

This whole argument is really ridiculous in my opinion.

"Ridiculous"; however, in my opinion, the religious right have been the recipient of less than friendly rhetoric by the progressive left, so it appears that this is a nice situation that they can get a little mileage out of for their position.

You mean, she was following the law as it was, and is now being prosecuted for breaking the law BEFORE the law was changed? That doesn't seem to be the case, now does it?

No ex post facto have nothing to do with the situation.

Next her position is no better then if she had gone to a catholic clerk who by his or her religion does not believe in divorce and the clerk refused to issue her a marriage licence for any of her three marriages after her first one.

You can not allow government employees to used their positions to enforce their personal believes.

Note I changed that post; however, she was doing her job adequately before gay marriage, so what allowed her to stay in a job that she now has problems with?

O.K.; however, why not give government clerks a more thorough vetting for their willingness to do a job. Especially, when laws change that could go against a clerk's personal beliefs?

Vetting? How? She is an elected official.

Thanks for acknowledging the edit.

No right of conscience is mentioned anywhere in the constitution (this has already been pointed out to you). No one is suggesting that she change her conscience, just that she do her job and allow the other employees in her office to do their jobs, or resign.

Miss Davis was not jailed because she refused to violate her beliefs, she was jailed for repeatedly failing to comply with court orders. At any time in this entire, ridiculous, right wing extremist performance, she could have resolved all the issue by simply resigning.