A federal jury has awarded $100,000 to a Kentucky couple who sued former county clerk Kim Davis over her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis, the former Rowan County clerk, drew international attention when she was briefly jailed in 2015 over her refusal, which she based on her belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

A jury in Ashland, Kentucky, awarded David Ermold and David Moore each $50,000 after deliberating on Wednesday, according to lawyers for Davis. A second couple who sued, James Yates and Will Smith, were awarded no damages on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kim Davis was paid by tax money. Tax payers include the LGBT community. She was taking their money for a job and she refuses to do it.

  • fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That woman is a hideous toad on the outside (sorry to real toads) and a burning dumpster fire of dogshit on the inside. (Apologies to real burning dumpster fires of dogshit)

    • comedy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apologies to real burning dumpster fires of dogshit

      Thanks, man, no offense taken.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do people always focus on women’s appearances when discussing topics wholly unrelated to appearance?

      No-one cares what she looks like. We care about what she did (used her religion as a crutch to deny some gay dudes tax benefits) and why she did it (because she hates the first amendment), but not what she looks like.

      • 2d4_bears@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do people always focus on women’s appearances when discussing topics wholly unrelated to appearance?

        Because misogyny is pervasive in culture and when most people perceive a woman as “bad”, it suddenly feels ok for them to reduce her to her appearance. Most folks are not nearly as enlightened as they like to think.

        • fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suppose I feel emboldened as I perceive her evil to have seeped through her skin.

          Were she a socially progressive, helpful person I would probably not need to attack her looks as an inner beauty would be shining through and making an outwardly lovely person.

      • Æther@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not just women - you see it with pretty much any non-conventionally attractive person who does shitty things

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Davis, the former Rowan County clerk, drew international attention when she was briefly jailed in 2015 over her refusal, which she based on her belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

    A second couple who sued, James Yates and Will Smith, were awarded no damages on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

    She was parodied on Saturday Night Live and embraced by conservative politicians who traveled to Kentucky to support her.

    Davis was released only after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form.

    The former clerk had argued that a legal doctrine called qualified immunity protected her from being sued for damages by the couples.

    Ermold and Moore had a highly publicized showdown with Davis at the Rowan County clerk’s office in 2015 after they asked for a marriage license with news cameras surrounding them.


    The original article contains 402 words, the summary contains 149 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!