Although voting to deny review in a case arising out of the refusal of County Clerk Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples five years ago, Justices Thomas & Alito lambasted #Obergefell in a gratuitous statement. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-926_5hdk.pdf

Thomas and Alito wrote that because of Obergefell, “those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society.” This reads too much into Obergefell, which was respectful of religious perspectives.

Thomas and Alito's statement was inappropriate in a case involving a government official who refused to adhere to the rule of law. Government officials are not exempt from their duties because of faith-based complicity concerns.

Can a county clerk deny marriage licenses to qualified couples whose remarriage violates Matthew 19:9 (defining adultery very broadly)?

Can a judge deny a validly married lesbian couple joint parenting rights because the judge does not want to be “complicit” in what her faith considers an immoral union?

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), 9-0 SCOTUS rebuked Arkansas for refusing to follow an injunction enforcing Brown v. Board of Education.

In Pavan v. Smith (2017), 6-3 SCOTUS rebuked Arkansas for refusing to follow the narrow holding of Obergefell (birth certificates) for married lesbians. But now two of the majority Justices are gone. Do the math.

The Thomas/Alito statement is a clue to Fulton v. Philadelphia. This term, #SCOTUS will decide whether a government program must respect equal treatment for married LGBTQ couples. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/

Two Justices have announced their view that a religious group contracting with the government in a state program can require the state to ignore constitutional precedent. Will three Trump Justices join them?