The ruling on Gay marriage is going to get interesting, especially in light of the opinion presented by the Texas State Attorney General regarding the right of government employees to refuse marriage licenses on religious grounds.
This opens a can of worms, for example, prostitution was used as a form of religious worship for many thousands of years, and there are religions in the United States which engage in Temple Prostitution, can Police Officers, and other officials, refuse to enforce laws against prostitution?
In addition, as I have mentioned before, the legal incorporation of the "freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment to the states is actually unconstitutional, based on circular logic and is justified by the personal writings of someone who was not involved in the writing of the Federal Constitution, but, who was involved in the Virginia State Constitution and whose personal correspondence reflected that. All the rulings incorporating the very specific , "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion..." to the various states will eventually be over turned.
In case anyone didn't actually ever learn to think for themselves, the Reynolds ruling applying the prohibition of establishing religion to the various is states is circular logic. SCOTUS used a law that prevented them from making a law (Congress shall make no law...) to make a law (ie, you can't make a law) that they were specifically forbidden from making. Pretty stupid actually.
So, states can have state sponsored religions, just as they had at the time the Constitution was ratified. Jefferson's wall has no real foundation and will crumble eventually. That could mean a state in the U.S. with Sharia Law....
However, Jefferson also points out something else interesting in the Danbury Baptist letter, the difference between social responsibility and religious responsibility. " I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments
which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
For example, can civil servants refuse to work on Sunday? Can someone have a natural, religious, right that opposes their social duties? Can a fireman, police officer, correction officer, etc, refuse to work on Sunday?
The answer is, people are hired with the understanding that they can perform the job for which they are employed. If someone's natural, religious duties prevent them from performing the position in which they are employed then they should seek employment in a position which is compatible with their religious beliefs.
If someone cannot work on Sunday, they shouldn't take a job where they have to work on Sunday. Replace Sunday with Sabbath if you like.
I believe SCOTUS will have to, eventually, rule that people who accept civil service positions where they are required to perform duties which may conflict with some religious beliefs are free to either accept the position or reject the position, however, they cannot accept a position knowing that they will be required to violate some of their religious beliefs and then refuse to perform duties, which are required by their position, based on their religious beliefs.
It will be interesting, and fun, to see how all this plays out in the courts.