Suppose Jack is a student at a public university with a student senate. Senators are paid by the university. The senate elects one of its members to be senate president, and the senate president is paid more than the rest of the senators. At some point, Jack makes anti-LGBTQ comments in semi-private setting (e.g. group chat for a student organization).
Consider the following hypotheticals:
(1) Jack is running for student senate. Jack makes his comments before the election, and as a result loses.
(2) Jack makes the comments after being elected, as is recalled as a result.
(3) After being elected to the senate, Jack makes the comments, then runs for senate president, but loses the bid to become president because of the comments.
(4) Jack makes the comments after being elected senate president, and the senators vote to remove him from the office as a result.
In (1), the university is not explicitly giving money on a basis favorable to people who don't express anti-LGBTQ views, but they are offering it in a manner that has a disparate impact on such people. In (4), people acting on the university's behalf are taking a paid position away based on expressing those views. For which of these hypotheticals are Jack's rights being violated?