Is the second “que” necessary in “que […] et que […]”?

Question

I want to know whether the second “que” is absolutely necessary in a sentence like:

Chaque fois que je me trouve dans un restaurant et que le café est cher, …
Every time that I find myself in a restaurant and the coffee is expensive, …

I first wrote it without the second “que”, but native proofreaders put it in for me. I don't see how it is necessary, because at least in my English brain, the logical structure feels like:

Every time that ( [Condition A] and [Condition B] )

But if it is necessary, I guess I should see it more as:

Chaque fois ( ( que [Condition A] ) et ( que [Condition B] ) )

Is the rule the same for any kind of “que” clause (with a different subject) joined by “et”?

• Je crois que Jean est gentil et que Marie est drôle
• Il me dit que Jean est gentil et que Marie est drôle

I'm not sure because in English, the second “that” is optional, and is often omitted. (In fact, even the first “that” is often omitted, but I know you can't do that in French.)

_{I found a related question, but it doesn't seem to address the necessity of the second “que”.}

Answer 1

Two “que” are necessary when the verbs are different:

Je crois que Jean est gentil et que Marie aime danser.

If it is the same verb, you can put one (don’t repeat the verb) or two “que”:

Je crois que Jean est gentil et Marie drôle.
Je crois que Jean est gentil et que Marie est drôle.

Answer 2

"que < A >" and "que < B >" are components (propositions subordonnées) of the sentence that replace a noun used as direct object of the verb "croire".

In other words, the logic behind such construction is:

<sentence> = <subject> <verb> <direct_object1> and <direct_object2>. 

where:

 <direct_object1> = que <A>
 <direct_object2> = que <B>