If a Muslim applied for a job at a pork slaughterhouse and said he couldn't touch pork, or anything that had touched pork, based on his religious beliefs, I'm sure the state of Texas would tell him to find a new job.

I don't know, as long as there was another person there who would okay the paper work I don't care if certain individuals don't want to do the job. As a use for a de-facto ban circumventing the Supreme Court Ruling I'm all against it, but I think there's a middle ground that is palatable for everyone and that's usually the best decision.

I have little doubt that in Texas it wouldn't swing the other way for Muslims and other groups but I don't see that as a reason for not trying to find a middle ground. I mean, that kind of reasoning just sounds vindictive to me. Instead just protect all religious freedom, you have a Muslim applicant and he can't deal with pork, are there other positions open that could accommodate his needs? Is he qualified for those positions? If yes than help him out. And if he already worked there and pork processing is new, then follow the same steps, there's got to be some way to accommodate him.

Same here, you have a clerk who has strong religious convictions? That's fine, they don't need to lose their job and they can go on doing what they feel is right so long as there is someone else who also holds the same position who can process the paper work in their stead. You're a poor town and can't afford two clerks? Fine, make the position part time and alternate days with your two employees. Now the Religious Right might decry that solution as still costing that person an income, but hey compromises are like that; they often lead to some unhappiness on both sides. But there's also another compromise, that employee could decide to issue marriage licences despite not believing in them; it might be distasteful to them but they get to keep their full hours.  

I feel like public servants should have to be willing to serve the entire public regardless of their beliefs. The Klan has religious objections to interracial marriage. Can a county clerk deny a marriage to an interracial couple based on religious belief? I don't really feel pity for those whose religious beliefs prohibit them from operating in society losing their jobs.

I find it somewhat disingenuous for a Christian to claim that processing the marriage license of a same-sex couple (or even performing their marriage in a civil capacity) violates their religion. People generally treat religious prohibitions as binding on them, not binding on their ability to facilitate someone with different religious beliefs from doing the prohibited acts. I don't think a prohibition on someone in a particular denomination getting married to a person of the same sex necessitates facilitating the same-sex marriage of non-believers. Did marriage licenses even exist at the time the Bible was written. These folks aren't acting in the capacity of religious ministers either. They are performing a civil function.

The same logic that these folks use to say they can't issue same-sex marriage licenses, would require large swaths of Christians not to process paperwork related to divorce. Also, by that logic, Christians should not shop, eat out at a restaurant, use electricity, or use running water on a Sunday. Each of those activities forces another person to work on the Sabbath. And again, it's no excuse even if every single person working for the power company is non-Christian. Because the argument is that these people are violating their religion by facilitating the marriage of same-sex couples who believe same-sex marriage is morally permissible.

I bet there are multiple interpretations of how Islam regards pork. If the prohibitions is on eating it, then working at a slaughterhouse that handles it may not be prohibited. I've had a Muslim employee at Subway (she was wearing a hijab) make me a sandwich that had ham in it. She wore gloves, but the people that make sandwiches always do.

I think the compromise would sort of force the issue, like I said they'd likely need to go part time in order to afford two people and forced with the option of going part time or granting weddings to gay couples I think they are going to make the second compromise I mentioned. 

It allows for the Religious Right to feel like they won something, making it much easier in the long run. Like I said, it's a compromise not only do they not get exactly what they'd like but neither do we but in the end it's the best result.