This is just simple.
Keep public/civil what´s public/civil and personal what´s personal

Laws are public and secular, they must be followed
Religious belifs are personal and must be kept personal.

So... legal civil marriage for same-sex couples? ok, that´s a public/secular matter and we should just accept it as a possibility allowed by law.
Religious same-sex marriage? It´s a personal matter and we shouldn´t mess with what´s personal, so if a religion does not practice same-sex marriage, let them just live by that, they´re not practicing civil marriage after all.

Keep religious what´s religious and keep secular what´s secular.

Well, to be honest, I had some Christian republican friends who were awesome people. They almost never talked about politics (apart from the time that Obama was elected) and they focused on their friends and families. Based on the conversations I had with them and on the things I see them post on fb I don't get the impression that they're stupid. So, if you lived in America, I'd suggest you meet them and I'm sure you'd change your mind.

But also generalizations are bad, man. I mean, come on. Do you think that every single one of them is stupid? I don't agree with any of their arguments either, but I would never call an entire group of people stupid.

how can you be christian AND republican? worshiping the lord of the poor, struggling masses and voting for the party that only has the cause to make rich people richer?  that doesnt mean they cant be good people who are nice to socialyse with, but they are well stupid.(or full of shit about beeing christians)

It doesn't make much (if any) sense to me either. I've thought about this too but it's still a mystery to me.

If Kim Davis worked for a private company, I would agree. But here's the thing, as a government employee, you're supposed to be acting as a hand of the government, not serving your own personal beliefs.

Francis is in opposite to that german benedict a really wnlighted person and i like him

People are jailed for contempt of court all the time, it's a common response to ignoring a court order if the guilty party won't be impacted by fines.  The people making such a huge deal out of her getting a little jail-time seem completely oblivious to how our court systems work.  Which should come as no surprise since equality seems to be a foreign concept as well.

I like the Pope but this is not a marriage done in the Church. So even if they object, they should not stop it.

I know my quote tree got cut off and part of what you had said wasn't visible but you said it was a fact that no one else shared her point of view. I stated that it WAS a fact that there were others in this country, in this continent and in this world that do share her views. Yes of course there are plenty of people that disagree with her point of view as well, such as yourself.

Honestly though this isn't as simple a scenario as some of you make it out to be.  I'm looking at this from different angles and what she did might clash with her role in the government, but I think that jail time for the ordeal is overboard. Both sides did not handle this maturely after the initial point of conflict. 

And again, there are other examples where someone disobeying their orders can save lives. There are other examples where an employer asks someone to do something that while technicially in their job title, is dangerous, morally wrong, damaging or polluting.  In this case, no, but to just brush off the fact that she stood up for what she believed in in the same way the couple stood up for what they believed in is not taking all things into consideration.

The circumstance for what occured in this situation needs to be taken into account as well though;

First off, gay marriage JUST got legalized nationwide.  Her preference on sexuality did not have to be taken into account before, considering she was hired before this movement caught fire. It was simply a man marrying a woman.

So at the intitial point of her hiring, she was not unqualified.  She became unqualified when a new law had passed that clashed with her morals.  This is a text book case of discrimination but it's simply not as cut and dry - there's more going on here on a moral level that's hard to measure.  

Anyway I knew this was an uphill battle coming in so I concede lol.  It's pleasing to hold a conversation with such collected and intelligent folks here.