Kim Davis, the "real" victim

I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.

She neglected to do her job, a public service, by invoking faith based bigotry and intolerance. This in a land build on democracy and freedom of religion.
It is cherry picking the rules that support your conviction while ignoring other rules, like not eating seafood, rabbit or pig, or not mixing fabrics in your clothes.
Do you eat bacon? If you do, why are you cherry picking the rule about homosexuality but ignoring the rules about clean food?
Or how about this: Do you think it is okay to take slaves according to the rules in the bible?

A. She refused to do a job that violated her beliefs, and frankly didn't kill anybody. On the other hand, we let doctors do this all the time, even if it could cause death. Democracy has nothing to do with this, and Freedom of religion allows her to do this.

B. Those laws she "cherry picks" are ceremonial laws, only to be used until Christ came to redeem the world. As Christ came back, they don't need to be followed.

C. The slavery of the bible is very different from the Chattel slavery of the American South, as there are restrictions against harm and one enters slavery voluntarily and for a limited amount of time.

A1: Freedom of religion only seems to apply to Christians. If she had been a Muslim, would you have spoken up to protect her freedom of religion? If the offending problem had only been applicable to Islam, would you have tried to protect her freedom of religion?
A2: As a public servant, she refused to do her job, ignoring his rights and in conflict with the law. If she can't do her job without repressing others, she should't be allowed to hold that position. Not fight for her right to use a position as a public servant to oppress others.
A3: Allowing doctors to do the same (I'm not quite sure what you mean, but assuming that is accurate), is to say "because others are allowed to do wrong, this should also be allowed". That is classic "whataboutism", and no, neither should be allowed.
A4: It has everything to do with Democracy, since there cannot be a real democracy when only one religion is the one that is "free". That is not Democracy that is Theocracy.

B: Interesting. I hadn't read up on the classifications of "religious laws". I'll have to look into that some more.
Still, I'm not aware that Jesus said that these rules was not to be obeyed. Who then decided this?

C: "...one enters slavery voluntarily..." - No, I'm quite sure that is inaccurate.
Jesus never condemned slavery and he never even restricted the rights to slavery to the servitude variant of slavery, as you seem to be suggesting. He did suggest that masters should treat their slaves fairly, but only as long as the slaves didn't make anything to anger their master.
It sounds as if you suggesting that you are okay with slavery?

A1. Screaming hypocrisy isn't a point. And you don't know if I would have a problem with it. A2. Muslim women are allowed to wear Hijabs in driver's licenses. A3. I mean both are protected by the first amendment, it's rhetoric. A4. I am in no way saying that only my religion is free, I'm saying that my religion is one of many free religions. B. Those laws were deemed ceremonial laws after many people realized that Jesus ignored some older laws. C. He was referring to the chattel slavery at the time, as that was the main form.

- "A1. Screaming hypocrisy isn't a point."
To infer that I'm "screaming", is intentional misinterpretation and frankly just silly.
Saying that it is hypocritical is more so a point as it is for you to say "Sorry you can't handle the truth".
- "And you don't know if I would have a problem with it."
I didn't make any such claim. Instead, I politely asked two questions about it. Both of wich you conveniently avoided to answer...

- "A2. Muslim women are allowed to wear Hijabs in driver's licenses."
Eh... That argument is completely irrelevant, since it doesn't even mean that they are neglecting to do their job, nor does it mean that they are repressing others.

- "A3. I mean both are protected by the first amendment, it's rhetoric."
Are you saying that The First Amendment protects civil servants rights to neglect doing their job and to repress others based on their personal faith, regardless of other laws and regardless of the faith of the customer?
You are interpreting The First Amendment only from the perspective that supports your already held belief.
Lets say the civil servant adheres to some insane cult, with radical beliefs. Would they be allowed to brake other laws, simply because of their personal faith? No.

- "A4. I am in no way saying that only my religion is free, I'm saying that my religion is one of many free religions."
But that is simply not true. Other religions are not given the freedoms that Christianity has. There are many examples where other religions are not allowed the same priviledges.
Would this have been allowed if it were not a branch of Christianity?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/03/01/with-crowns-on-their-heads-and-ar-15s-in-their-arms-couples-exchange-vows-in-pro-gun-church/
Would it have been allowed without disturbance if that would have been muslims in a Mosque?

- "C. He was referring to the chattel slavery at the time, as that was the main form."
I'm not convinced of that for a second, since none of the passeges I have read about it says anything of the kind. Where exactly are you getting this from? If you provide a passage that says as much, you might succeed in changing my mind.

A1. I didn't say you were hypocritical, I said it doesn't matter if I'm being hypocritical (which I am not). A2. They are allowed to keep their things on, which is something the average non-religious person can't do. A3. Maybe they should if they aren't breaking a law like no killing. A4.WHo said I was against that? Maybe we should fight for those guys? So I haven't heard one rebuttal in which you haven't generalized me.

I may have misunderstood you on "C" regarding "chattel slavery". But if so, I don't get what point you were trying to get across.

Slaves get a type of respect in the Bible, unlike the Chattel slavery known in the South.