"No company in America should hire a Christian ever again. They are just too much of a liability." Now that's an interesting idea!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Shouldn't there be some sort of Cheney restriction when it comes to hunting?
*  ... the gay couple pays taxes, from which the salary of Ms. Davis is drawn. Her refusal to perform the service for which they have paid her would constitute fraud in the private sector; in the public sector, it means she has denied them equal protection under the law. And please, don't trot out her refusal to grant any marriage licenses. This is clearly a temporary gambit, designed to conceal the real meaning of her behavior. If she adopted this attitude permanently, even conservatives would not support her.
*  No employer in America should ever hire a Christian. Anything a boss tells them to do might be against their "religious beliefs" and if you don't let them slack off they will wage a national campaign against you. No company in America should hire a Christian ever again. They are just too much of a liability.
*  This is a good example of government waste, no government official has the right to push his religious beliefs on the public. This clerk gets paid 80,000 a year, wow, how can I get a job like that? Notice she is elected and I bet all the people who work for earn a lot less.
*  The US Constitution absolutely provides for separation of Church and State. Anyone that hides behind religious beliefs to circumvent the law is breaching the Supreme Law of the Land, and is possibly treasonous.
    *  Not only that, they are in violation of their own religion which says to follow the laws of the land.. But they forget that part.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Can Sarah Palin be Denied a Hunting License Based on Religious Beliefs?
By Kevin Martin, September 2, 2015

For the sake of debate and my own law school education process, let's change the facts of the Kentucky clerk case around a bit and see if that changes your opinion.

What if an Inuit clerk in Alaska refuses to issue a hunting license to Sarah Palin because she is a woman? His reason is his religion says only men are allowed to hunt. Using the precedent set by the Kentucky clerk if she were to prevail, would that be acceptable? Would forcing him to issue a hunting license to Sarah Palin violate his 1st amendment rights?

If the answer is yes: Does his 1st amendment right trump Sarah Palin's 2nd amendment right, as well as her 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law? Would liberals view this situation differently? How about conservatives? Replace the Inuit clerk with a Muslim clerk; or what if she was applying for a concealed carry permit and a clerk had a religious objection? Does that change your view?

Does this scenario make you friendlier to the idea of keeping church and state separate?
...................................................................................................................................................................