Religious liberties have no place in civic duty.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution was included to assert that the Constitution has supremacy over federal, state and local laws and actions. This clause ensures that state governments cannot simply ignore federal actions and render the national government laws powerless.

On June 26, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the nation, a truly landmark decision. The Court required in Obergefell v. Hodges that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and legally recognize same-sex marriages.

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Earlier this month, a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court.

The judge released her after four days, on the understanding that she would no longer prevent certification of these marriages. She returned to work the following Monday.

She claims that licenses bearing her name denote personal approval of same-sex marriage, which violates her Apostolic Christian beliefs. Davis says that religious liberty is at stake, and has refused to execute a nationwide law because it conflicts with her personal beliefs.

However, she is an elected official who sought her office and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. She does not possess a civil entitlement to the office for which she not only volunteered for, but also campaigned. Davis’s duty as a public official is to enforce civil law, not her own personal religious views. She cannot ignore the rule of law because her conscience was offended.

Davis was imprisoned not because of her beliefs, but because she willfully defied a court order.

She is not sanctifying or compromising her beliefs by performing this administrative duty. She is not charged with deciding whether a given couple ought to be married, merely whether they’ve met the legal requirements to be eligible to be married.

Davis’ sworn obligation to fulfill the Constitution and refusal to do so because of personal reasons, is wildly different from other contemporary incidents of businesses or individuals refusing services in discrimination towards same-sex couples. From wedding dress boutiques to caterers to photographers, many businesses are actively expressing their opposition to the decision. Nationwide, anti-discrimination laws are yet to become reality, and some states are actively implementing religious freedom bills that would permit businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. Such state-level bills are able to shield businesses because the Obergefell decision specifically pertains to the legality of the marriages, which Davis was clearly impeding.

That said, the freedom to believe is a right that should be exercised. Everyone should be able to feel safe and accommodated in the workplace. However, Davis was in no place to ignore current institutions and the terms-and-conditions of her given occupation.

Davis, in imposing her religious beliefs upon others, has also committed another flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which has applied to state governments since the 1925 Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York.

Davis is allowed to do whatever she so chooses in her personal life, but in her responsibilities as an elected official, she is not allowed to oppose the law because of religious scruples.

Since at no point following the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was she obliged to remain in her position as county clerk, she should simply have resigned on her own terms.