Despite the many arguments I have read on the subject, I have not seen an article correctly defending Kim Davis' Constitutional ability to refuse to give a marriage license to a homosexual couple. Liberals are correct that Ms. Davis cannot use Free Exercise of Religion because she is a government employee, but they and the rest of Conservatives have failed to recognize that it is not this clause at issue. The actual clause at issue is in Article 6, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
County Clerk is an Office under the United States. Kim Davis was a County Clerk, so a religious test cannot be administered to keep her from this position. Christianity holds that marriage is between one man and one woman anything else is a violation of the edict of God and thus a sin. Christianity also holds that helping someone sin or recognizing a sinful act as good or as something other than sin is in itself sinful. Giving a marriage license to a homosexual couple would thus be sin. If it is illegal to refuse service to a homosexual couple as a county clerk there is a religious test for holding office, namely, "Do you believe in the tradition Christian doctrine regarding sin and marriage?" Thus under the Sixth Article of our Constitution Kim Davis not only had the right, but was fully justified in refusing service to homosexual couples.
This distinction is important. Many are already comparing the refusal of Christians to participate in sin to ISIS. There is no similarity. While ISIS kills you if you disagree, Christians merely want to be conscientious objectors. Our world has almost reached the point where some believe that offending a person is tantamount to killing them. In a world with this position, Christianity cannot survive long unmolested. The Constitution will soon be irrelevant.