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.
[[this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
However, the long standing definition of marriage has been altered.]]
That’s a good point- she took her oath BEFORE the SC redefined marriage, and her oath was based on laws already on the books, which she agreed with- then they go and change the law illegally, and now she has to lose her job or comply with a NEW demand that wasn’t present when she signed up for the job?
That’s like changing the goalposts 1/2 way through the game, and expecting everyone to comply with the new ‘rules’ whether they agree or not
It was not altered. It was VOIDED. There is legally no definition of the term "marriage" in Kentucky.
How can you issue a "marriage" license when there is no legal definition of the word?