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.
What a hateful piece of shit.
If she has such a problem, could she not just ask a coworker to sign on the dotted line?
Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
Also, what’s going on with the Epstein Files? Ya know, while we’re on the subject of “Dead Cat Theory”
Can this bitch just fucking die already? I’m tired of seeing her face in the news every couple years
They should have this taken care of in a jiffy.
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.
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.
We’ll just quickly end up at taxes are against my religion. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
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.
Could we just get government out of the marriage game? It seems to be the source of all the problems. They simply shouldn’t care.
Even if we don’t this is such a simple concept: Marriage is a contract. The requirements for a contract is consenting adults. How can they make gender determine who can sign a contract? That would be unreasonable.
I think you’re second point is more important. The religious part of marriage is actually meaningless in the eyes of the law even today, you still need to apply for a marriage certificate with the government.
I think we just need to extend that to just be a cohabitation/shared asset contract for any two+ people. It makes a lot of legal sense to have a defined “family unit” for medical/legal/financial reasons, but it shouldn’t overlap with religious concepts.
Religion is a monstrous evil.
But it’s stress, pain and suffering for those they don’t like!!
But Jesus said gays bad!
He didn’t say anything about love!
Oh, wait…
i thought jesus was trans though, as parthenogenesis necessitates a female offspring
si would be eve, as she’s a clone of Adam.
okay see this is my first problem. that means he would taste great. I’ve tasted their jesus. jesus is dry and crumbly. i’ve also tasted ribs. are ribs dry and crumbly?
I’d disagree here. Jesus was a Rabbi. And Rabbi are usually required to be married.
But the early church was extremely anti-woman.
Mary Magdalene is always portrayed as a whore who just sort of hung around.
But she seems to be more important than that. Especially in the dead sea scrolls.
Paul, or Saul, on the other hand, seems to have been the source of the anti-woman aspects of the early church.
dead sea scrolls
You are conflating the dead sea scrolls with the Nag Hammadi library. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any Christian texts, only Jewish texts from around the time of Jesus. The Nag Hammadi library contains a number of texts typically described as “gnostic” and some of these include teachings attributed to Mary Magdalene.
As someone raised in the Baptist faith, but got the hell out, Baptists fucking LOVE Saul/Paul and he’s basically 60%+ of their entire schtick. Largely because he was such a staunch stickler of a person. I mean God supposedly made him blind so he’d stop being an asshole.
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.
It’s clearly religious persecution. Doing her job went against her religious beliefs. Therefore she was being persecuted. Man my back hurts contorting all that.
But her divorces and multiple marriages are fine.
Petition the court to allow us to stone her to death because the Bible says so.
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.
So what you’re saying is I could get myself elected sheriff and then refuse to do the job because I don’t believe in it?
I once asked my mother if it would be ok for a Muslim or Jewish deli employee to refuse to sell her pork. She said they shouldn’t be in that job if it conflicted with their religious beliefs. I tried to tie that to this and she sort of shut down rather than argue against it or accept it.
We don’t have a relationship anymore. She voted for the shithead every time.
The deli owner can actually deny service to however they want since it’s a private business. They don’t have to serve anyone, but it does look fucking bad if/when they discrininate, but technically they can.
Here, that government employee HAS the obligation to follow the law and act regardless of her own beliefs. Maybe she should instead run a deli…
Your example is very good, in fact, it prouves your mother wrong in 2 different ways.
There’s a big difference between a deli owner and a deli employee. An owner wouldn’t choose to even have pork available to sell if they didn’t want to sell it. If is it available to sell, and an employee chooses not to sell it because of their religious beliefs, that’s definitely a problem, but (as you said) not discrimination, just bad business and the owner should fire them immediately.
I used to shop at a butcher’s where a Muslim employee worked. Once, chitchatting I asked him if he didn’t have a problem with cutting pork, and he answered that he didn’t, he just didn’t eat it.
I guess there are degrees of strictness.
And level-headedness.
This guy actually knows and adheres to the rules. All those others who refuse to touch it/sell it/… ? Posers hiding behind their convictions. But there is nothing in the Quran about not being allowed to touch pork or sell it.
We literally made a law that says bartenders and restaurants can’t refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women if they order it. While not based on religion, I feel like this sets a pretty strong precedent.
That might be due to our morals feeling like a rational thing while they are mostly learned emotional reactions (that we rationalize afterwards). We do not need a society that self-reflects on a level a level where they would understand and thus we do not educate on this self-awareness. And by ‘we’ i mean the Owner-Class.
That’s not a comparable situation though. There’s no reasonable expectation that those places would sell you pork. The employee who works there isn’t (not) doing anything that conflicts with the business’ offerings.
Even if a muslim employee at a barbecue restaurant were to deny a customer a rack of ribs, the restaurant is under no obligation to serve you.
This issue is about a representative of the county rejecting the county’s obligations.
I don’t think even this Court is going to grant cert. They need to save what’s left of their legitimacy to rule on more important emergency docket matters.
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.”
With one caveat: the religion must be Christianity
I don’t think religion should be a valid reason for things. If you can’t justify the thing without religion, it’s probably not a good idea.
“I want to take an hour a day to pray” for example, you can get there with a religious argument. But you can also get there via “people should be entitled to breaks during the day to use as they desire. That’s good for them and productivity overall”
I don’t think religion should be a valid reason for things. If you can’t justify the thing without religion, it’s probably not a good idea.
I 100% agree - however we both live in the real world where it’s a very big deal to many people. Telling them to just ignore their deeply held faith is simply not an option.
I’m generally fine with allowing some provisions for religious faith. Time off for holidays, allowing the closing of streets for celebrations, requiring reasonable consideration for dietary needs, etc. But it definitely needs to be balanced with the greater societal good.
In this case, however, this cretin is requiring that she be allowed to simply ignore laws she doesn’t like. And that is definitely a bridge too far. So I fully expect the SCOTUS to just rule in her favor.
we both live in the real world where it’s a very big deal to many people. Telling them to just ignore their deeply held faith is simply not an option.
Definitely citation needed for these being “deeply held” beliefs. These people are just using religion as a cover for their bigotry and have zero qualms about violating the rest of the tenets of their religion. Case in point is Kim Davis having been married four separate times now, while claiming that allowing two men to marry somehow destroys the sanctity of marraige.
Definitely citation needed for these being “deeply held” beliefs. These people are just using religion as a cover for their bigotry and have zero qualms about violating the rest of the tenets of their religion. Case in point is Kim Davis having been married four separate times now, while claiming that allowing two men to marry somehow destroys the sanctity of marraige.
Professors of ethical philosophy aren’t more ethical than other people either. Believing in something and doing things are different.
I’m not really sure what you mean here.
In this case we have a woman claiming to have “deeply held religious beliefs” about marriage when it comes to preventing other people from getting married while at the same time having several divorces under her belt. Her actions dont mimic her beliefs when it comes to her own life so they can’t be deeply held beliefs. These beliefs only seem to matter when she has no skin in the game by applying them to other people’s lives.
This is no different than one of those anti-gay politicians who gets caught blowing dudes in a public restroom. They aren’t really their deeply held beliefs they’re just lies to give cover to their bigotry as I mentioned previously.
I’m not really sure what you mean here.
Hypocrisy doesn’t mean one doesn’t believe what they believe. People compartmentalize. They carve out exceptions and make excuses. We’re pretty judgey about others while accepting our own flaws.
And this is not limited to religion.
It is my sincerely held religious belief that religion has no place in government.
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.
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.
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.
Accommodating holidays or time for prayers is very different than accommodating an employee refusing to ever do the test they are paid to do.
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.
In Germany at police officer successfully sought out the Constitutional Court because he was disciplined for not following the order to enter a church as that conflicted his agnostic views.
It is alright to deny something because of your views, the state simply has to facilitate all rights and in this case the county would have to have someone on their payroll to legalise same Sex marriages. That allows the individual clerk to stay true to their believes but also facilitates the rights of those seeking their lawful marriage.
Never heard of this, do you have a link?
This makes total sense. What’s frustrating is that everyone focuses on the religious choice aspect while not asking the real question like why was this one person in charge of the entire county when it was known she had an issue. I’m sure this would lead to a larger investigation to find she wasn’t the only one with the issue of marrying a same-sex couple.
Really, the county should be held accountable, not this woman. The county has the obligation to marry same-sex couples. The county staffed one person whom they probably knew would have this issue.
The county should reprimand the woman for not fulfilling her duties as a representative, she should have sued the county for putting her in that position by not hiring someone else, and the couple should have sued the county. I’m not really familiar enough with the case to know how this actually went down.
Her job was an elected position so what do you expect the county to do?
You’re not free to enforce your religion on others as a public servant.
Yes you are. Crime is legal now as long as you’re a conservative
Supreme Court: We’re public servants and we’re free to enforce our religion on others.
Christians can now. Like literally. By
royal decreeexecutive order.Enter Trump
Now it is!
Yes you are! The Fuhrer has decreed it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/28/trump-federal-employees-preach-faith-work-00480696
That’s bad, but it’s different.
Fuck. Not this asshole again. She should have faded into obscurity and poverty by now.
Interracial marriage is on the table too with these fascists.
And Clarence Thomas will gleefully vote to kill it
Whilst married to a white jan6 individual.
She can’t take half during the divorce if your marriage is deemed illegal, null and void.
Not just interracial marriage, they don’t want people to be able to become citizens through marriage.
Or birth.
Oh that’ll stay, it will just become a bit more complicated. Luckily here I have a handy chart you can reference though:
They dont want people to become citizens by birth either.
The citizens through marriage thing will definitely be allowed - on a case by case basis, and provided they bring benefit to the country.
That benefit, of course, will be eugenic based, and entirely centered around women marrying approved American men.
It’s important to remember that everything is based on eugenics and property.
The irony of them “defending” US citizenship like it’s some holy sacrament reserved for the elite, while, in the process and because of all their actions, the country is imploding into the filthiest fucking piece of shit on the planet that no one will want to touch with a ten foot pole anyways… Get me the fuck out of here.
Clarence Thomas: this is fine, rules do not apply to me or my white wife Virginia.
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 decisi 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?
You forget that, with these people, the hatred is the point. The more they can prevent ‘the other’ from existing, the sooner their ‘perfect’ world can take shape.
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.
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.
They seriously hate gay people.
It’s a great day to be an asshole.
