It is critical to carry out the duties that you took an oath to do but an individual religious rights should respected as well because a person that believes that same sex is a sin or an abominatio

It is critical to carry out the duties that you took an oath to do but an individual religious rights should respected as well because a person that believes that same sex is a sin or an abomination due to their Christian beliefs then that person should not be punished but instead be shown understanding and exemption to the Prohibitions Against Wrongdoing And Removal From Office which states that a County judges/executive, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors, jailers, property valuation administrators, county attorneys, and constables are subject to indictment or prosecution for misfeasance, malfeasance, or willful neglect of duty during their terms in office. Statutes prescribe the manner of indictment and prosecution. 

Is it ever acceptable to allow personal convictions or beliefs to overrule an organization's mission? One should never let their personal beliefs conflict with an organizations mission and that is to uphold all duties sworn to serve, so therefore there is never an acceptable time to allow personal convictions or beliefs to overrule an organization's mission but there should be an exception in the manner of same sex marriages even though that person took an oath to uphold all legal rights which includes same sex marriages.

• Are there alternatives that could be considered to allow these seemingly conflicting ideas to coexist? Explain. I would think there should be alternatives but unfortunately there are not any that will allow an individual that is an elected official to exercise their religious rights when it comes to their duties as a to marrying the same sex. 

In response to your peers, consider how their argument compares to yours. Do you agree with their position? Why or why not? Did their position agree with yours, but they made a point you hadn't considered? Did they make the opposite argument, but you found yourself agreeing with parts of their logic? Which of their points or arguments make the most sense to you, even if you still disagree with their overall position?