The First Amendment of the Constitution allows each of us the freedom to observe any religion we choose. Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, believes this allows her to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples because their relationships are not consistent with her religious beliefs. Unfortunately for Davis, her First Amendment argument directly contradicts itself.

As an elected official, Davis cannot deny people their rights based on an alternative religious belief. Same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses cannot be denied because others impose their personal religious restrictions on them.

While every person is entitled to their own beliefs, no person has the right to impose their own belief on someone else, and even more so when the belief is based in religion. If Davis believes same-sex marriage is wrong, she has every right to choose to never engage in a same-sex marriage, herself. However, she may not use her religion as a means for restricting someone else’s rights, especially when that person is of a different faith.

Following the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hogges, the Supreme Court issued a court order stating that Davis must issue same-sex marriage licenses. For a brief period, Davis then decided she would not issue marriage licenses to anyone, including heterosexual couples, but later returned to only denying licenses to same-sex couples.

The issue with denying all licenses is that Davis’ job is to issue licenses to couples who meet the legal requirements for marriage. She was elected to this position and to the responsibilities it entails. It is a disservice to the community that elected her to fail to do her job for a reason that is easily remedied.

Just as soldiers in the military must follow the orders of the President regardless of what they wish to do, Davis must adhere to the ruling issued by the Supreme Court. As a public elected official, she has a duty that she cannot continue to neglect.

All people have the freedom to choose their religion and the set of values that they choose to observe. This system is one that we pride ourselves on in this country, however it can only be maintained when we acknowledge that there are people who hold alternative religious beliefs and their rights under our Constitution must be protected regardless of another’s personal convictions.