"I guess you just have to decide if a couple's desire to get married trumps another's right to freely practice their religion." You accept the argument one's right to freely practice his or her religion might rightfully and legally extend to depriving others of protections and rights guaranteed to them under the American constitution. And not only that but you accept this argument in the context of a government official who refuses to abide by her oath to uphold and administer said rights and protections and uses her managerial authority to prevent her staff from acting in accordance with the law as well, regardless of their own personal views on the matter. That you think that theocrats like Kim Davis have a valid position that is worth debating tells me quite a bit about about your views on religion vs the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned it puts you squarely in the company of people like Donohue and Davis.