10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.

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.

  • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    108·
    3 months ago

    I genuinely do not understand how this was ever a case. You are an employee at an office that provides a service. You are a representative of that organization. And, as a civil service employee, I would expect you are obligated by the laws of that county or state to facilitate the services offered.

    Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law.

    ON BEHALF OF

    Regardless if you’re in this position or you’re the president, you are obligated by the state or federal constitution to operate as a representative of that jurisdiction’s laws.

    If she took on this job while knowing it would conflict with her religious views, or the laws changed in a matter that conflicted with her views, she should have notified the county and she should have been denied or removed from that position. Although, I’m sure that raises a different case in denying someone employment based on their religion.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      9·
      3 months ago

      One of the drawbacks of the first amendment is that the courts can and will bend over backwards the moment somebody says the magic phrase “it is my sincerely held religious belief.”

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 months ago

      Although, I’m sure that raises a different case in denying someone employment based on their religion.

      Oh they would for sure sue the state over it, but it would be denying employment based on that person not perform their legal duties.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

        The accommodation the employer needs to make is to put her in a position where her religious values would not interfere with her work.

        But given that she likely took the job for the very purpose of forcing her religious values onto her work, she should have a legal obligation to STFU and just do her fucking job. This honestly would be no different if a Buddhist refused to issue conceal carry permits because they believe in non-violence.

        If you disagree with the law, you lobby to change the law. Not fucking be the arbiter of the law in your administrative role.

    • ThePantser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      I get what you are saying and totally agree and if they are the sole decider the person in the position should be 100% neutral. And she should have resigned if they couldn’t do the job. You can’t expect a devout Hindu to work for a slaughterhouse and process cows.

      But on the other hand we have had so many cases where employees have sued and won because an employer was trying to treat their employees equally but they hired the occasional employee demanding extra leeway for religious holidays or prayer time. So this case is pretty important for employers that provide religious exemptions.

      But yeah this lady is a piece of shit and needs to lose this case and disappear from the spotlight.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        6·
        3 months ago

        Accommodating holidays or time for prayers is very different than accommodating an employee refusing to ever do the test they are paid to do.

      • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Yeah. I don’t really blame this woman at all. It shouldn’t have been her sole responsibility. I would venture to guess though that even the people above her shared her opinions.

  • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    62·
    3 months ago

    If they’re going to open the door to any government employee being able to refuse to do their job as directed on religious grounds, this country is going to grind to a halt.

    Just kidding, we all know that with the current court and administration, this will only allow people with the “right” religion to refuse.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      23·
      3 months ago

      An in-group that the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group that the law binds but does not protect. Conservatism in a nutshell.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      this country is going to grind to a halt

      In large part, it’s already been on that road for a while. De-industrialization, hyper-financialization, launching a pogrom against migrants, sky high tariffs fucking up the supply chain…

      This is one more bail of straw on the camel’s overloaded back.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        2·
        3 months ago

        I think the government should be required to give you a receipt when you pay taxes detailing what everything will be spend on.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    57·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    26·
    3 months ago

    Can we get someone who believes in Jakub elected as county clerk somewhere in the US South? Then they can deny marriage licenses to all the white people for being inhuman.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      I can’t wait until Clarence Thomas decides in favor of legislation that bans interracial marriages. I can’t wait!

      Spy magazine back in the early '90s ran a great cartoon captioned “Clarence Thomas greets the morning” which showed him on his front porch bending down to pick up the newspaper next to a negro stable boy lawn statue.

  • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    22·
    3 months ago

    Yooooo… This bitch is still doing the same, heinous shit? A decade later? Why don’t these pieces of shit just get fucking lives or hobbies or something? They’re like goddamned ghouls, hanging around and smelling of shit. Like. Fuck. GO AWAY.

  • nexguy@lemmy.world
    10·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        We won’t, but for specific, self-serving reasons.

        In his opinion for Dobbs, Thomas listed several cases he wants to revisit, including Obergefell. Notably absent was Loving, which is the case that set interracial marriage in stone. Thing is, if you follow his reasoning, Loving should fall to the exact same logic. The fact that he left it out is telling.

        • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          I don’t believe for a moment that everything isn’t on the table for repeal, destruction or revocation. It just takes a phone call and a new boat and Thomas will not just revisit Loving, he and his cohorts will use it like toilet paper overnight. They just can’t move too fast, they have to give the population time to adapt to changes or wait until everyone is too distracted by some manufactured crisis. Literally, our only hope is they misjudge or move too fast and create an actual armed movement marching on Washington. (Like, they would need some kind of huge army deployed to DC to protect the president and cabinet and courts in that case… can you imagine that?)

          And it doesn’t matter if Thomas is in an interracial marriage, the ruling class has proven time and time again they are immune to consequence and law.

          • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 months ago

            I think they’ll try everything to push for a supermajority next cycle to just write a new “more christian” constitution, á la Fidesz, even if that requires them to break laws.

            • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              We’ve already seen them make soft attempts at it by “accidentally” removing chunks of the constitution from the .gov websites, and this is how they started exploring the feasibility of most of their current overreaches, with probing attacks, with “soft” insurrections, with suggestions of doing the things they’re actively doing now, just to gauge how far along we are and what kind of pushback they would actually get. (Hint: it’s not enough. Sit the fuck down Booker, Schumer, Jeffries… you’re useless fucks that need to be hauled out like the garbage you are.)

  • Skanky@lemmy.world
    9·
    3 months ago

    Can we just take a minute to appreciate how much forehead she has? She could star in the next Coneheads movie!

    • AlexLost@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 months ago

      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!