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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'd love to see Clarence Thomas go home to his ugly bulldog white wife, and explain that he voted to abolish their marriage, and now that it's an official abomination, she must move out of the house immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's exactly what they are doing. Now they are starting to justify military intervention against cartels in Mexico because they've designated them as Terrorists, when there is nothing terroristic about them. They are just Criminal Oligarchs, no different than our president and his friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments