According to Kim Davis's own account of events, she had a religious awakening four years ago. On that day, the now (in)famous Kentucky Clerk - who's using her position as County Clerk to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds - says she went to Church out of respect for the last wishes of a dying mother-in-law. It was then Kim Davis claims to have become a Christian, dedicating her life to serving her perceived Lord.
Since Mrs. Davis's act of defiance toward the law, she's been vilified by some, while glorified by others. She's been held in contempt, jailed, released from jail, and has since returned to her position - continuing to refuse to fulfill some of her job duties while her county office implements a work-around to doing what she claims her religion does not allow her to do.
For those who've glorified Mrs. Davis, their support for her is generally wrapped up in a passionate call for "religious freedom" - the idea that one should not be 'forced' by law to violate their religious beliefs. Presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, for example, have voiced adamant support for Davis, traveling to meet her and praising her for her actions - #ReligiousLiberty being tweeted about by people such as Huckabee and Cruz as a rallying cry for someone they claim is being persecuted for her religious conviction. Presidential hopeful Ben Carson - albeit in a more general tone - has voiced the same kind of support for Davis and the concept of 'religious freedom'.
Religious freedom though, as it is defined by people like Huckabee, Cruz, and Kim Davis, seems to have a linear application. Specifically, it seems many people demanding 'religious freedom' for people like Kim Davis only seem to advocate for this kind of religious freedom as it relates to their preferred religion. And it is this insular dynamic often accompanying the "religious freedom" crowd which can compel one to undertake the thought exercise of: what if Kim Davis were Muslim?
After all, just as Kim Davis had a religious awakening leading her to Christianity four years ago, Kim Davis could wake up tomorrow convinced that Allah is the true creator god, and thus be convinced she needs to dedicate her life to following the teachings of Muhammad and honoring and praising Allah. Kim Davis could stand on her religious faith and refuse to issue marriage licenses to any non-Muslim couples, especially couples claiming to be Christian; because doing so would be condoning the 'lifestyles' of infidels - an action which Davis could feel directly compromises her Islamic beliefs. In this instance, asking if people like Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz (and especially Ben Carson) would support this hypothetical Muslim Kim Davis is perhaps the most useless of rhetorical questions - of course they wouldn't, nor would the vast, vast majority of people lining up in support of "religious freedom" on Kim Davis's behalf.
In fact, not only would many of Davis's supporters not support the same actions if Davis were a Muslim, they'd likely use the exact same argument they're using now in support of Davis as a County Clerk to oppose said Muslim County Clerk behaving in the exact same way. And we know this scenario is likely true, because various defenders and crusaders of the "religious freedom" movement proclaim a school or City Hall using the term "holiday" instead of "Christmas" to be a violation of a Christian's "religious freedom" too. It seems quite clear that, for many people, "religious freedom" is really just an elegant way to demand religious preference for their preferred religion over everyone else's.
Taking a step back: obviously, the 'Kim Davis as a Muslim' scenario is likely to elicit the most visceral response from an American populace - after all, the religion of Islam is the least well regarded religion in America. So, for the sake of further making the point, perhaps we can imagine Kim Davis as a Jain. Jainism, for the uninitiated, is a religion centered around principles of nonviolence (i.e. "harmlessness"). Quite literally, to become a 'fanatic' Jain is to become absurdly nonviolent, to the point of hindrance. Picture someone taking 30 minutes to walk 200 feet as they lean over and examine every inch of sidewalk to make sure no ants are being crushed during their walk.
This religion, at first glance, seems innocuous enough - one couldn't stretch it's definitions far enough to find it 'threatening' in any way. Let's imagine Kim Davis wakes up tomorrow and is utterly convinced Jainism is the path to eternal happiness. Kim Davis goes to work, is greeted later in the day by someone wanting a hunting license, and ....... ! How can Kim Davis, in her capacities as a devout Jain, condone the killing of animals? Obviously, issuing a hunting license could be construed as violating Davis's religious beliefs. In fact, the staff person assigned to handle gun permits is a practicing Jain as well - how can this person be expected to violate their religious beliefs by issuing permits for items designed specifically to kill?
Again, does anyone think the defenders of Kim Davis would defend any other County Clerk denying service to people (including Christians) if the clerk in mention cited anything other than Christianity as their motivation? Of course not.
Yet, here we are - listening to droves of people attempting to justify a publicly elected representative of Government using her position to deny service to people because she claims her religion tells her to. We have multiple GOP presidential hopefuls lining up to voice their support for Kim Davis and her 'courage'. And we have scant few people, at least in influential positions, standing up to call a spade a spade.
In closing: with the above narrative in mind, for all of those individuals voicing support for Kim Davis: let's hope for your sake your local county clerk doesn't have a religious awakening tomorrow.... because you just may find yourself on the wrong end of your own 'religious freedom' gripe.