Ok, let's presuppose you're possibly valid here and work from there. Also, thank you for being nice in the last post. That said, "structure" or HOW you reach conclusions matter. Let me try this....
What I believe you are attempting to say is something like:
Clerk A = Gay marriage issuing clerk
Clerk B = Her.
If Clerk A is doing X to further a political cause, then Clerk B doing X for similar reasons is reasonable. Note: as you've thankfully acknowledged, there's a difference between doing that to start a lawsuit v. doing it to disrespect the law. Ignoring this fact so we err in your favor.... Here's where that breaks down.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the following is deemed valid:I.) Both "Gay Rights," and "Religious Liberty" are valid and
opposing causes people can legitimately further (I don't believe this, but if we assume I do for argument's sake).
II.) One can use one's political office for the furtherance of said causes.
III.) We are ignoring the previous "Standing" argument for this post's argument purpose only.
Assuming Also the following are principles to be followed when possible:
i.) harm avoidance,
ii.) harm mitigation,
iii.) consistency,
iv.) practicality.
then it still doesn't work well.
Even assuming "I," "II," and "III" are true countervailing principles still invalidate her actions being reasonable. Namely, "i," "ii," "iii," "iv," cast doubt on the reasonableness of Clerk B's actions, when compared with Clerk A. Clerk A's actions did not directly harm anyone, because issuing a marriage license is not a form of direct harm, whereas denying one is under "i." Clerk A's actions required no mitigation as there was no harm, whereas Clerk B's did and she failed to provide it (lessen the harm she did, under "ii." This brings us to consistency under "iii," Clerk B isn't (Ignoring that she's been divorced multiple times); namely, she is denying marriages to ALL people, both gay and straight, which goes to "ii" (mitigation, she's hurting straights too). Finally, "iv" practicality also makes her unreasonable, as she knows there is no way any of her actions will legitimately advance her cause, as say ... legislative, lobbying, or or literary action might. All her actions will bring nothing but unmitigated pain and harm with 0 chance of accomplishing what she wants, and probably backfiring on her cause, badly.
Now, you could structure a counterargument against what I just said, perhaps as follows: Counterargument example."But Truean, by drawing attention to her cause, showing resolve to galvanize support, getting resources aligned, and providing a spokesperson, she's taking the preliminary steps towards bolstering and perhaps taking legislative, lobbying or literary action to further her cause." Also, she's not providing marriages to anyone in an attempt to show impartiality to both gays and straights. She may have a more difficult tactical position to advance, but she's taking steps she believes will advance it as best she's able."
You see how that works? and now the counter to the proposed counterargument: Even so, harm, equally done to gays and straights, is still harm. The harm's distribution isn't in question, it's depth and severity is. She's done nothing to alleviate the harm her actions have generated, and has actually worsened it by refusing to let any OTHER clerk (who doesn't have an objection) perform the lawful order, (even for the straights). She also hasn't referred the straights or gays to another county or resource. Thus, her actions have made everything exponentially worse, and needlessly so. There are so many more effective ways to get "Religious Liberty" bills passed that don't cause nearly as much harm, and some states have recently passed such laws (LA, Ark, etc), without these types of shenanigans, and certainly without thumbing their nose at a court order. She's refused any and all attempts to accommodate her at her job and instead demanded that she control US law and policy, while harming others....
See the difference? See what I did there? I actually provided a reasonable argument, counterargument and counter to that counterargument, as opposed to straw-man arguments. See, this is why structure matters and why the lack of it hurts people so much. I do a couple of absolutely critical things for a reasonable discussion that everybody seems to have completely forgotten how to do these days, a.) I presuppose you may be a halfway decent individual instead of some monster opposition or cartoon villain. b.) I presuppose things are in your favor and fight from there to error on your side and still win, giving more credibility to my argument, because it takes pains to be fair to your side of it.
The internet, and life, needs more of that.