[conservaKate]

I have some what followed up on this by reading a portion of the decision... but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

“Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.”

So then the question is .... does this also apply to elected officials who were elected to do a specific job? And if it doesn’t apply to elected officials ... does the elected official then have legal authoriztion for not permitting other public employees from doing that job?

[Whenifhow]

but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.
______

Here is the video - but IF all marriage laws are null and void - (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3334150/posts?page=13#13)this would not even apply in this case.

6:39 Minutes – Garcetti v Ceballos 2006 ruling which said that
“When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.”

Lawyers Appeal Contempt Ruling Against Jailed Kentucky Clerk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjgV4MMluhg

[Bob434]

[[but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.]]

That is expressly forbidden - there shall be no religious test for public office- Not sure who said that? Were they a liberal lawyer?

[Ray76]

She wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartially, this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.

However, the long standing definition of marriage has been altered. This is unexpected and does pose a religious liberty problem, she may never have sought the position had this new definition been in place.

I think another more straightforward argument is to reject the illegal order of the court.