You write: "Utah outsourced the solemnization function to any willing celebrant in the community ... this religious liberty bypass creates a mechanism that is a win-win for everyone" So would this mean two persons wishing to apply for a marriage license, instead of receiving one through the county clerk's office, would then need to make a second stop at a "celebrant" who could be across town, have different hours, etc? If so, that means everyone's needs must be subordinated to Davis's whims and wishes. What if she was an elected official heading the county's health department who, because of some religious reason, decided to become a strict vegetarian. The health department must inspect and license restaurants and meat processing facilities. But, because she now opposes eating meat, she refuses to inspect any such facilities. A compromise, by definition, is a resolution agreeable to all. Yet the citizenry of Davis's county are not choosing this resolution. It's being forced on them. So, it's not really a compromise, at all, and may be a significant impediment to many people. In conclusion, one might be more tolerant of Ms. Davis's alleged religious beliefs if she did not have such a checkered history of marriage herself.