I understand exactly what you guys are saying, I just think if it were reversed and the law was changed to force people to attend church or something you guys would be cheering her on if she stood up to it. I see a huge double standard at play here with some showing their hatred of religion and some their distrust of government. Both are fine if you remember one simple fact.
Just because she works for government does not take away her rights, the same rights as you or anyone else.
She has the right to fight for her beliefs, the right to sue, the right to appeal, the right to civil protest, etc, etc, etc. Same as you or me.
As far as her marriages, under her religion she can be forgiven her sins, but to her gays want the right to keep sinning and if she gives them the license she is condoning it.
Now as far as those of you calling her names because you do not agree with her, know that she gets along fine with many of the protesters, has taken them water on hot days, etc. She can have a civil debate with them which seems to be beyond many of you.
She can live her personal live however she pleases...she can choose to marry another man (wonder how that will turn out) or she could choose to marry a woman. Her PRIVATE choice..But once she assumes the role of a public official she has to waive her private rights and follow the law. You are so worried that her right is being taken away...she still has the right...just not while holding a public position.
I also do not see how this is so difficult to understand
Have you considered the rights of gay people? Can you look at this argument from the other perspective?
sure you don't agree with it (probably, sorry for making the assumption), but law is law... If you don't like the law... the work to change it and hope you are in the majority.