Granting, or denying, a marriage license, based on who a person wants to marry, violates the equal protection clause. If the government official refuses, on personal "free exercise" grounds, the government needs to provide an alternative, so as to not violate the couple's "equal protection" rights.

Yes, this does seem very clear. Though I do take exception to one bit. The government doesn't need to provide an alternative. The government employee should be doing their job, PERIOD. If they can't do it for whatever reason, they need to find a different position (within or outside of government). The applicants for marriage licenses (for example) shouldn't be burdened with an employee that has "personal objections". The person certainly is entitled to their person objections, but there job is professional. Not personal. They should not be able to demur in their professional capacity. (Same with pharmacists, etc.)

We didn't have a problem, but I'm white and 1poorlady is Filipina. Had the clerk objected to miscegenation, that should not be my problem, and they should keep it to themselves. If they had hassled us, I would have been speaking to supervisors demanding they be fired. But, fortunately, it was very smooth with no issues. I just used this as an example that could have happened to me.