The 14th Amendment states, among other things, that you** can't deny any service you anyone with regard to race, etc. There is some controversy as to whether this includes gays.

Your "etc" covers up the fact that it doesn't apply to women. That's what the Equal Rights Amendment was for, which went unratified by enough states to go into effect. So women aren't guaranteed equal rights ("equal protection under the laws") under the 14th Amendment the way racial and other bigotry is prohibited.

If gays really want this protection, they have to fight for equal protection against gender discrimination that protects women. Because if they seek protections that women don't have, that will just piss a lot of people off.

What was interesting about the Kentucky County Clerk? She was an INDIVIDUAL acting on behalf of the STATE. So can we force her to perform some action? Interesting question.

I don't think that Kentucky Clerk of Court can be forced to perform an action. But my legal opinion (IANAL) is that there should be a federal law that if states and municipalities keep employed people who discriminate for religious reasons rather than firing the employee for failing to perform their state/municipal service for the person, that the state is committing a Section 1483 violation (discrimination by a state actor). And then anyone who can't get a marriage license should be able to sue the state and the state be unable to claim sovereign immunity. The biggest hurdle to overcoming sovereign immunity for a constitutional rights violation by a state actor is that the state isn't clearly on notice that a certain deprivation of rights is malicious, malfeasant or negligent. A federal law would put states on notice and open up Section 1983 lawsuits for states that keep people like that Kentucky Clerk of Court employed.

Actually, that would make a great WhiteHouse.gov petition.