It's unconstitutional if the rationale is based solely upon religious or ethical considerations

Big points to Judge Mitch Perry of the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Kentucky for doing what should be done in regard to this debate:

His July 22 ruling extended that order, saying there is “a substantial likelihood” that the new abortion ban violates “the rights to privacy and self-determination” protected by the state constitution, the Associated Press reported. 

But he also assumed that the laws are based on sectarian doctrine. 

“The General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment,” Perry wrote. “By taking this approach, the bans fail to account for the diverse religious views of many Kentuckians whose faith leads them to take very different views of when life begins.”

Perry said there is “nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.”

 Exactly. The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, and Separation of Church and State are based on the fact that a lot of early Americans came here for religious freedom. In other words, not to have the government, or anybody else, tell them how to practise their relgious beliefs.

This also gets down to what pro-choice means:

Don't have an abortion if you are against them, but don't tell someone else what to do with their body.

The founders were for a secular society because they didn't want a bunch of Catholics telling them What the Fuck to do in regard to religion. 

The Catholics on the Supreme Court should admit to that fact.

See also:

• Judge blocks abortion bans saying they are based on religious doctrine
  

Kim Davis: What's Wrong with the Intersection of God and Government - part 2

This is a long post, but if you don't have the time or interest to read all of it, I encourage you to at least skim the shocking examples from current events news of religion enforced by government officials intruding into the lives of people who should be protected from that by our constitution. I believe the examples below are significant to the arguments of freedom of religion being practiced on the job by people who are also exercising the authority of government at the same time.

Kim Davis, Rowan County Clerk, Kentucky doesn't want to do her job serving the public -- the WHOLE public, and now is not serving the public much at all.  She wants her bigotry to supersede the rights of others on the faulty premise of the exercise of religious freedom.

Kim Davis got out of jail and went back to her office this week, beginning the week with a big bang, and ending it with a whimper and another loss in court.

To the religious right, this does not seem like such a big deal; people can get served elsewhere, so what if religion by a government employee is disrupting the function of government, so what if people are suffering very real discrimination in having to go outside their home area to get married.  The inconvenience, cost, and difficulty are exactly what they WANT, the chance to stick their finger in the eye of people with whom they disagree. 

That is the most they can hope for as public consensus continues to grow AGAINST their bias and hatred, including conservative opinion locally  but also nationally,

So why should we NOT allow anyone in the capacity of a government official or exercising the authority and legal force of government to also exercise their religious preferences (or preferences they try to justify on the pretext of religion)?

Let's look at a few of the more egregious examples from the news.
From the Free Thinker, reporting on a part of America outside the 50 states.  This applies as an example because Puerto Rico is a part of the US, subject to the same freedom of religion provision of our own Constitution AND the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which mandates even more specifically the separation of church and state.  And this STILL happened.  It is significant because of two points - that a roadblock for reasons other than police purposes is a really serious intrusion on individual freedom to go about one's life and business, an intrusion that most people would resent; and secondly because it demonstrates that intruding one's religion into how government is conducted amounts not only to giving preferential treatment of one religion over others, but to an unfair subsidizing of the practice and promotion of that religion with tax payer funds and government authority.

You should not have to make the choice to refuse to be proselytized to someone wearing a uniform and badge, and carrying a gun and handcuffs.  That is intimidating.

It is also the same argument against Kim Davis (minus guns and handcuffs).

‘In the name of Jesus, step out of your car’

An atheist group in Puerto Rico has lodged a formal complaint against police who subjected motorists to a ‘faith’ blitz on July 1.



In a statement issued yesterday, Elisaul Rodriguez, Vice-President of Ateístas de Puerto Rico (Atheists of Puerto Rico) alleged that a “faith road block” had been set up by Barceloneta City police.

Officers stopped people on the road for the purpose of preaching, distributing written religious propaganda and praying for drivers.

Rodriguez added:

It was a religious activity in which the Christian faith was professed, particularly of an Evangelical variant.
We understand that the Police Department of Barceloneta City has incurred violations to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico …

Article II, Section III says: ‘No law related to the establishment of any religion will be approved and the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited. There will be complete separation of church and state’.
We must also point out that Puerto Rico, as a territory, is under the protection of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America, which also provides a clause for the separation of church and state.

Acts carried out during the “faith road-block” reflected the officers’ personal religious interests and were outside the police departments scope of duty, Rodriguez pointed out. The officers wore their uniforms and badges and:

Used resources provided by the Government of Puerto Rico that should only be used for the purpose of fighting crime, not for personal religious benefits.

This sends the message that the State is Christianizing its citizens, which corresponds to a canonical government and impairs the integrity and impartiality of the State.