Freedom of Conscience or Freedom of Discrimination?

It is fair to say that the legalization of gay marriage is one event in American history that will leave a lasting mark on our national identity.  The movement for this right took decades of fighting from a segment of the population that has historically been labeled as deviant and obscene.  That fighting, over time, led to societal acceptance.  The groundbreaking ruling in Obergfell vs. Hodges made tangible what previously, couldn't have even been dreamed of by many.

The Supreme Court ruling, however, has received blowback from both individuals and state governments.  The main argument used by both is based in the judaeo-christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Specifically, in the state of Mississippi, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Law" was created to allow people employed by the state to authorize marriage certificates to refuse certificates to gay couples on religious grounds.

The law states that marriage clerks must "take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal."

The makers of the law believe that state employees should be allowed to refuse authorization as such authorization goes against their belief in the sanctity of marriage.  

Critics, however, believe that this law opens the door to sexuality based discrimination.  Nationwide, advocacy groups have been rallying to contest the law.  

A case was brought against the state of Mississippi by an advocacy group called "Campaign for Southern Equality" in the case: "Campaign for Southern Equality vs. Bryant." 

Originally the case was heard by a U.S. district judge who ruled against the law but last year, a three member judge panel for the U.S. fifth circuit of appeals ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how they have or will be affected by the law.  This overturned ruling allowed the law to take effect in October.  Essentially, the court ruled "no harm, no foul."  

Recently, the supreme court declined two cases brought against the law on the same grounds.

Although the law currently stands, the ruling in the court of appeals laid groundwork for similar cases in the future. 

This ruling leaves us with a question that will most probably be asked again in the near future: "does the requirement for government officials to validate gay marriage certificates violate their first amendment right to free exercise?"

I believe that it doesn't.

Although the ruling was made over one hundred years ago, I believe that case can be connected to Reynolds vs. U.S.  In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Reynolds, a mormon, didn't have his constitutional right to free exercise violated by a law that prevented him from engaging in polygamy.  The main argument presented by the majority opinion was that the state had a compelling interest not to allow polygamy. In short, the court ruled that the law was made to protect the public and was crucial that it let stand for the morality of the society at large.

Although the specifics of the case aren't necessarily pertinent, the idea that a state's compelling interest can outweigh the religious practices of a sect are.

In response to the section of the law that requires clerks to "ensure that the licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal," I believe that it's simply not viable in practice nor is it enforceable.  What if there's only one person legally authorized to give marriage certificates for hundreds of miles and they claim religious immunity?  Additionally, how could the state make sure that NO marriage certificate is held up due to the personal refusals of government officials.  That kind of standard would be difficult, if not impossible to uphold. 

For me, this case boils down to weight.  Does a person's religious right to not authorize a document trump a person's right to pursuit of happiness as well as the state's compelling interest to allow for the marriage of it's citizens? Again, I believe it doesn't.