The dissenting minority opinion of Justices Kautz and Davis noted in the listed paragraphs:

[¶97]: Wyoming judges may or may not perform weddings without regard to the reason for their decision.

[¶98]: Simply put, the law does not require any Wyoming judge, including part-time magistrate Neely, to perform any marriage ceremony. The applicable law only requires that state officials may not “deny marriage to same-sex couples.”

[¶99]: The evidence does not indicate that Judge Neely ever denied a same sex couple marriage.

[¶114]: As discussed above, no judge in Wyoming has a duty to perform any particular marriage. Because no couple seeking marriage has a right in Wyoming to insist that a particular judge perform the ceremony, it is not “unfair” or “partial” for Judge Neely to arrange for some other judge to officiate for a same sex couple... The majority position creates a requirement that does not exist in Wyoming—that judges who perform some marriages must perform all marriages.

[¶115]: If the law, or Judge Neely’s job description, required her to perform every marriage when requested, and if a same sex couple actually demanded that she perform their marriage ceremony, and if Judge Neely then denied them a civil marriage ceremony, then she may have violated Rule 2.2. However, none of those facts exist here.