Legal Question: Hobby Lobby Versus Marriage Equality Decision

only for narrowly defined privately owned companies and not publicly owned corporations much less governmental officials?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ken-paxton-texas-gay-marriage

On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

"To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," he said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune.

I guess this is what I was talking about.

Most states already have laws on the books that bar individuals from civil or appointed service in a position where they refuse for any reason to fulfill the requirements of the position.

The purpose of such laws was actually far different from this use and recall the narrative of Hawthorne's Bartleby the Scrivener famous for his line of "I would prefer not to." Specifically, the purpose of such laws is to prevent individuals from seeking positions they have no intention of fulfilling the duties of as a means of attempting to throw a wrench into the works of governance. Indeed it would be highly problematic if someone were to, for example, seek the office of sheriff for the purpose of refusing to serve court documents; tax assessor for the purpose of not collecting or assessing taxes; chair of the zoning commission for the purpose of tabling all zoning actions without hearing or determination; or probate judge for the purpose of refusing to perform the duties of the probate court.

(Such laws do not and to my understanding cannot extend to elected offices.)

can see where Red States AGs might take this.