The issue is a man withholding a get from a woman.  As you might understand it is the man who must make the request for a get to the Bet Din. In the case of Bruker, the man was in violation of a judgment in 1980 which ordered him to appear before Rabbinical Authorities. If you look at the Greenberg article, he is absolutely opposed to the Court of Appeals judgment because Courts to date in other jurisdictions have ordered specific performance. Look at the Brett Case. This is why the Supreme Court case issue is the justiciability of a contract with religious overtones. Look at the CCLA case. The facts of the case that Ms. Bruker was able to conceive are important in terms of damages. The facts of the marriage have no import because the 1980 judgement which Mr. Marcovitz violated are after the marriage. And Ms. Bruker if you read some of the press has never stated that she was an Orthodox Jewess but Conservative. Again the issue of specific performance is related to ordering someone to do something that may be against his conscience. This conscience issue is also more often than not used as an excuse for violating an agreement.  And with the word conflict, it is inappropriate because it does not describe the issue. It should be the conflict between religious law and the doctrine of separation of church and state.