I think its time to add some context:

a:) Kim Davis mother was the county clerk before her.  Her son is a deputy county clerk in the same office.  She won't retire because she is keeping the seat warm for her son.   (My BF is from Louisville so I got me plenty of scoop on that lady).  Her salary is $80K per year.  The average salary in that county is just under $26k per year.  So yes  - there is no way she is going to give up her golden goose.  Her religion isn't THAT important to her :)

b:) She has already been discussing paid speaking engagements with hate groups like NOM and the FRC.  She's going on the martyr gravy train kids. Mark my words she will make a fortune.

c:) She was sued by 2 straight couples and 2 gay couples.  Yes the gay ones  could have driven a hundred miles to the next clerks office and hoped for a license there - but that sets a terrible  precedent.   Why should an extra burden be placed on a gay couple that wants to marry in a CIVIL ceremony (that parts important) in order to accomodate one persons bizarre and self serving interpretation of their religion.   Keep in mind that there is NO widespread religious support for Kim Davis (people like Mike Huckabee do not qualify as a credible religious/spiritual leader).  She most certainly does not represent all christians and  she is in no position to speak on their behalf.

Now with respect to "religious freedom" and this fake narrative that it is in someway being attacked .    The only way that holds up is to misrepresent what freedom of religion actually means as defined in US law.   She has the freedom to think and worship any way she likes.  But freedom of worship does not give anyone the right to impose their religion on others or take away their civil rights.  The courts have ALWAYS been very consistent on this  point - for at LEAST the past 50 years.   Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee etc have no factual or legal basis for claiming that their religious rights have been trampled on.  The whole "persecuted christians" thing is an effort to avoid being held accountable in a court of law for the damage that their prejudicial actions have caused down through the years.    The religious right is TERRIFIED of the lgbt community. They have demonized them for so long and they assume that the lgbt community will hunt them down in return.

But the actual reality is this - we don't give a damn who they pray to.  They just can't use it as a cudgel to create real harm in peoples lives.

Finally  - Kim Davis (all 4 of her marriages were sacred apparently) can't be fired.  She's an elected official.  Its a small community and that family have had the county clerk position on lock down since long before her mother died.    She can be impeached however. And this terrifies her. Not just because of her own loss of income - but also because that job has been treated like a family title and it would put her sons claim to it in jeopardy.

The supreme court has ruled on at least 14 separate occasions that marriage is a civil right.  Even prisoners on death row have the right to marry.  Of course you still have to find someone who will marry you but that's a separate issue :)

Thats a gross over simplification.   The concept of sin has no place in law.  Secondly - what do you mean by "her society" ?  She doesn't get to arbitrarily create the rules of society.   The office of county clerk is an appendage of local government.  Its not her personal fiefdom.  Remember she wouldn't let any of the deputy clerks issue licenses either.

She is entitled to her belief - how ever arbitrary and wrong headed  it may be.  At no stage has that been compromised.  But religious freedom simply doesn't give you legal cover to deny the basic civil rights of others and impose your personal religious viewpoints on others.  This is a repeat of what happened in the 60's when the federal laws banning interracial marriage were struck down.  None of her actual rights have been compromised. with respect to the practice of her religion.

The right to live in a society that considers homosexuality wrong?  Since when is this a right?

she can protest gay people all day long, while shes not at WORK.

Just to save you both time, stealing is in direct conflict with a person's right to own property, which is agreed upon almost universally as a basic human right.  It is not an apt comparison.

How the fuck is that relevant?   Why would you ever compare an innate charactaristic with stealing? I'm going to go easy on you by assuming you don't know any gay people very well. Even if you atomize it down to its smallest component - getting married is not a crime, stealing is.   Remember they are getting married - just the SAME as straight people do.  Their ability to obtain a marriage certificate shouldn't be contingent on her personal prejudice.

It absolutely does not.  The reasoning behind the right to property is fairly well explained by many moral philosophers, most notably in the western world John Locke.

I don't know if you actually want to go through the pointlessly assinine exercise of debating whether or not stealing is wrong, but it is objectively healthier for a society to protect property rights.  We can come to this conclusion through basic human empathy (I don't like my things being taken from me, you are a human being like me, therefore I should not take your things), and we can easily see how stealing removes incentives for hard work, and leads to violence, etc.  It is pretty easy to see, even in a simple microcosm like a Kindergarten classroom, how stealing leads to conflict and disruption.  We have good reason to believe the consequences of stealing are detrimental to society.

I'm really hoping you're not going to actually argue that we should allow stealing...

It absolutely does not.  The reasoning behind the right to property is fairly well explained by many moral philosophers, most notably in the western world John Locke.

I don't know if you actually want to go through the pointlessly assinine exercise of debating whether or not stealing is wrong, but it is objectively healthier for a society to protect property rights.  We can come to this conclusion through basic human empathy (I don't like my things being taken from me, you are a human being like me, therefore I should not take your things), and we can easily see how stealing removes incentives for hard work, and leads to violence, etc.  It is pretty easy to see, even in a simple microcosm like a Kindergarten classroom, how stealing leads to conflict and disruption.  We have good reason to believe the consequences of stealing are detrimental to society.

I'm really hoping you're not going to actually argue that we should allow stealing...

Edit:  I also hope you're not going to pretend that rules against stealing came out of thin air.  I don't think we need to trace the history of modern law to its origins...

That last statement was risable. It says more about you than anything else and none of it is good.   Progressivism isn't what Faux news tells you it is.

You do realize that that the exact situation you are describing has been happening up and down the country for the last 40 years right?   Where do you think the lawsuits came from? 

Also  Convictions <> rights .  Thats a false equivalence.