Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
Of course they are. And of course that stupid bitch Kim Davis is involved.
Also: how could Joe Biden and Kamala Harris do this to us?
Also: really glad protest voters sat this one out, I can’t begin to imagine how much worse this would be under Kamala /s
Also, I’m glad we dodged the bullet of Biden being so old, because something something argle bargle “gerontocracy”. As if age is the fucking problem here, LOL. But people are so very easily set against one another over stupid stuff so that elitists like Taco can skip off with all the loot…
Imagine that. A genocide on two million people but gay people can get married! That would be so great!
Good thing you stopped the genocide, then.
You did it industrystandard, Gaza is saved! Peace in the Middle East! Hurray!
Who is the injured party here? She clearly refused to do her job.
You don’t understand, she was forced to undergo social contact with… shudder GAYS!
Injured parties are for legal systems that actually care about the truth.
See several of the recent Supreme Court cases with astroturf plaintiffs and made up defendants.
Because it’s super easy to get the ruling you want when no one is on the other side to call bullshit on your claims.
deleted by creator
This fucking cunt again?!
My reaction as well. I was just fine living out the rest of my life, not having to see that smugshot again. But here we are.
Another 3 to 6 decision then. It’s getting kind of repetitive.
Fuck. Not this asshole again. She should have faded into obscurity and poverty by now.
Depressing as hell but honestly, I’m surprised it took this long.
So could she have refused to serve a black person or an Asian person based on her personal religious views that she doesn’t like black or Asian people?
Like we’re not going to see interracial marriage struck down after they do away with the filthy, eeevil gaysex.
Mark my words, it will be under the guise of “national security” and it will start with a big spiel from the administration how “terrorists” are getting into the country by marrying “US citizens” (even though imgiration hasn’t worked that way in like, a century) and they will swear it’s not about race… while using race to identify these scary terrorists who want to eat your children and rape your pets.
In her mind, she does.
Can we just take a minute to appreciate how much forehead she has? She could star in the next Coneheads movie!
She certainly looks like the type of person that gets upset when other people are having fun. Not very conelike to me unfortunately. Narfle the Garthak!
Would this be a record turnaround for revoking a group’s rights?
Removed by mod
That time will come. Fascists always end up the same way, 6ft under. They just like playing with fire
And the next one is removing rights from women. And up next, slavery 2: Orange Boogaloo…
What the actual fuck America.
I truly believe all the hate for the LGBTQ+ community in America is they got caught “accidentally” watching LGBTQ+ poern and now they are trying to prove thier true feelings are not real.
Also, any conservative with an eye patch didn’t lose it to an “unfortunate” gun incident but a rather a glory hole incident. I went through gun safety as a child, and the 1st , 2nd, and 3rd thing they teach you are to treat all gun as if they are loaded. Don’t assume it’s unloaded. It’s not the John’s fault you thought you for ready.
OP posted the part about personal liability. Here’s the part about actual gay marriage:
More fundamentally, she claims the high court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges – extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s due process protections – was “egregiously wrong.”
“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell “legal fiction.”
I can’t imagine a world where they overturn gay marriage. At the same time, which 2 republicans justices would vote to keep it? Roberts was originally in the dissent, but surely he changed his mind. Kavanaugh, Barrett or Gorsuch?
Overturning gay marriage doesn’t seem like as high a priority as overturning roe v wade. So maybe they would choose to not rock the boat.
There is no figurative boat to the rock anymore. Our laws are based on stare decisis and the highest authority of it is blatantly corrupt.
They can remove any sort of right and face no repercussions beyond strongly worded opinions from Sotomayor and Jackson.
didn’t they overturn stare decisis with chevron?
I don’t think so. It seems like a specific case that creates a guidance for courts to follow US agency’s enforcement of a law, and that’s no longer the case, but IANAL.
I’m using stare decisis in the general sense in that it’s a quality of most western law systems, particularly US - past decisions and higher authorities take precedence.
But what happens when the highest authority makes bad-faith decisions?
They already overturned Roe v Wade and Thomas has said to bring cases to overturn marriage rights on the basis of race and sexual orientation. I’m a little surprised they aren’t also going after the right to work for the LGBT community, since we only just won that right in 2020.
They seriously hate gay people.
It’s interesting that some of the cryptobros are using dildos as a protest, since I bet Trollito is still very GRRR ANGRY about people being able to have those and would love to rule on that to allow “states rights” to allow shitty rigged-for-the-right states like Texass to curb human rights again.
This would then apply to all religions, correct?
She is so messed up. Religious marriage is separate from state licensing of relationships. Religion can discriminate away, but the state serves all its people.
She can’t argue she was acting on behalf of the state, and literally says it was based on her personal beliefs how can she then argue she has no personal liability?
I think that firing her would have been the better answer though, if she won’t do the job then fire her and hire someone without a conflict.
