Purveyor of Truth
The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldn’t elevate them, either.
Above is taken from The New Yorker. In one short paragraph Lawrence M. Krauss has stated what the rationally thinking American knows to be true.
The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.
In recent years, this territory has grown murkier. Under the banner of religious freedom, individuals, states, and even—in the case of Hobby Lobby—corporations have been arguing that they should be exempt from the law on religious grounds. (The laws from which they wish to claim exemption do not focus on religion; instead, they have to do with social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.) The government has a compelling interest in insuring that all citizens are treated equally. But “religious freedom” advocates argue that religious ideals should be elevated above all others as a rationale for action. In a secular society, this is inappropriate.
Of course the fundamentalist religionists that believe their biblically held beliefs, based entirely on their definition of "religious freedom" will no doubt continue believing their religion gives them the right to discriminate based on what their good book, written in antiquity says, or if need be their interpretation of it says.
At any rate Kim Davis who frankly probably views herself as a martyr for Jesus Christ has managed to elevate the issue of same sex marriage, and the fundamentalists argument of "religious freedom", back to front and center on the national stage. At the heart of their efforts lies the desire to force their religious tyranny on those they disagree with.
Please follow this link to the full text of The New Yorker article. It is well worth the read.