• Give thoughts from the perspective of the Kim Davis.
• Givethoughts from the perspective of the same-sex applicants applying for marriage certificates.
• Give thoughts from the Courts and State of Kentucky.
• Should Ms. Davis be required to do her job and follow the law, regardless of her religious beliefs? Should there be an accommodation made for Ms. Davis? If so, what are some suggestions?

Must Let Gay Couples Marry By Adam Liptak Aug. 31, 2015 New York Times Kim Davis, an elected clerk, at work in Rowan County, Ky. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds to continue to deny marriage licenses to all couples, gay or straight. In June, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The new case from Kentucky, Davis v. Miller, was the court's first opportunity to consider whether government officials may refuse to comply with the Obergefell decision on religious grounds. The case concerns Kim Davis, an elected clerk in rural Rowan County, Ky. After the state's governor told county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples, a federal court rejected Ms. Davis's argument that she should be excused from the obligation given her religious beliefs. Ms. Davis's lawyers filed an emergency application on Friday with Justice Elena Kagan, the member of the Supreme Court who supervises cases arising from the judicial circuit that includes Kentucky. She referred the matter to the full court. "This is a matter of first impression," Ms. Davis's application said, "with far-reaching implications across the country for religious liberty."Ms. Davis told the Supreme Court that her Apostolic Christian faith forbade her to afx her name to a document endorsing the view that the marriages of gay men and lesbians were authentic. \"This searing act of validation would forever echo in her conscience,\" her lat-were told the court. Ms. Davis should not have to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs and her livelihood, her lawyers said, particularly when same-sex couples can obtain licenses in other counties. \"More than 1-3 other clerks\" ofces are within a one-hour drive of the Rowan County ofce.\" Ms. Davis's lawyers wrote. In nugust, Judge David L. Dunning of Federal District Court in Ashland, Ky., temporarily barred Ms. Davis from \"applying her 'no marriage licenses\" policy to future marriage license requests" submitted by four couples, two same-sex and two opposite- sex, who had sued Ms. Davis. Judge Running issued a stay that 1was set to expire on Monday. [in Wednesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court ofppeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to extend the stay for an appeal. \"It cannot be defensihly argued that the holder of the Rowan County clerk's ofce, apart from who personally occupies that ofce, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a disposilive holding of the United States Supreme Court,\" the panel said. \"There is thus little or no likelihood that the clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal.\" The Human Rights Campaign praised the Supreme lCourt's decision. \"his. Davis has the fundamental right to believe what she likes," said .loDee Winterhof, the group's senior vice president for policy and political affairs. \"But as a public servant, she does not have the right to pick and choose which laws she will follow or which services she will provide.\