Religious Liberty is something that our country was founded upon and and something that makes our country great. However with times ever changing, religious liberty can come into conflict with our formal laws and regulations. A very popular public argument about religious liberty is the account of Kim Davis a county clerk from Kentucky. There are two very distinct sides to this argument, the side for religious liberty, and the side for following public law.
The two arguments are just and meant for the right reasons but it is a grey area between faith and law. The religious Liberty side believes that you should not have to violate your religious faith to do your job and that accommodation's should be made possible. The Kim Davis story preaches to all people of faith in our country and furthermore to some people who do not believe in gay marriage. The belief is that if something violates your faith (gay marriage for this instance) you should not have too do it out of both moral and religious beliefs. The religious liberty side has mainly portrayed the opposition as violating religious rights and undermining faith.
However the other side that is preaching public law and abiding by it, believes that it is part of your job and duty as a public employee or public business that you serve and help everyone despite certain disagreements you may have with the person or the lifestyle that they live. This side of the argument isn't aimed at a particular audience but more so everyone who lives in our country and has to abide by the laws of our country. This side of the argument views the other side as just needing to follow the public law and put your religious beliefs second.
Both sides of the argument have very valid points and like I stated previously it puts the whole situation in a grey area between faith and law.
