This is just specious reasoning. Mr. Anderson is trying to find a foothold where one does not exist. There is plenty of room for private practice of religion, as long as it doesn't break the law in other ways so Ms. Davis can quit her public role and believe whatever she wishes but she does not have the right to refuse to do her job, the one to which she was elected, because of private beliefs. It seems pretty straightforward, accommodation, as Anderson suggests, allows people to pick and choose what they will enforce. Opening that door, as many have outlined, raises intolerable issues about whether police or military have that freedom, or fireman, or legislators. Where is the line and what is the role of law in a nation of laws? Ms. Davis can withdraw from society to hold her beliefs as she chooses, but she cannot hold public office and claim exemption from responsibility for private belief. Anderson is, of course, following the line that would allow the Confederacy to practice slavery as a 'matter of conscience and belief' while obliging the Federal government to protect and support them. This like of argument is dangerous and manipulative--he panders to his own audience claiming to find them room that does not exist. That deception puts us all at risk because it is simply wrong.
My comment is that candidates; Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Santorum for example, that pander rather than teach their own on this issue are disqualified because they misunderstand what it is to honor the Constitution of The United States which they would solemnly declare to uphold if they were to get elected.
My comment is that candidates; Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Santorum for example, that pander rather than teach their own on this issue are disqualified because they misunderstand what it is to honor the Constitution of The United States which they would solemnly declare to uphold if they were to get elected.