The reason government actors must always follow the law is that the law is the source of their authority to act in a government capacity in the first place. Thus a 9th Amendment objection - based in the rights of the State of Kentucky, the government she works for - would be a lawful one, but her 1st Amendment argument - a right of private citizens -is not.
If her grounds are religious grounds then she cannot assert them over her actions as a government actor, just like Lois Lerner cannot lawfully assert the Fifth to hide her actions as a government actor.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How does this, the Ninth, not pertain to the individual in the same sense as the First?
SCOTUS just “found” a new right enumerated in the Constitution. By the Ninth, as I read it, the newfound enumeration of that right in the Constitution SHALL NOT be construed to deny or disparage others, which includes Kim Davis’ right to “the free exercise” of her religion.
Her free exercise is to be retained by her inviolable despite the enumeration of this fresh-minted right.
Article 6 of the US Constitution: NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
First amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
She might not word it all that beautifully, but people understand the concept. Don’t shanghai us into doing what is wicked. I think the overthinkers and wonks are missing the point here. People aren’t looking for a fine grained legal battle here conducted by Marquis of Queensbury rules.