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.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      15·
      4 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.

    • febra@lemmy.world
      3·
      4 months ago

      That time will come. Fascists always end up the same way, 6ft under. They just like playing with fire

      • Horsey@lemmy.world
        4·
        4 months ago

        We’d be looking into France as our first choice. My husband doesn’t speak any foreign languages, but I can pass the A2 exam in French (and I’m actively studying to further this).

        If France wasn’t an option, the list of first to tertiary choices would be Spain, Portugal, and Italy last (I’m ethnically half Italian with family living there; my grandfather was an Italian immigrant, but Italy doesn’t allow homosexual marriage).

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          7·
          4 months ago

          I’d be wary of Italy, it’s currently governed by actual fascists (or rather “post-fascists”).

          Like, go to the Wikipedia article of the ruling party “Brothers of Italy”, click on the party in the entry " Preceded by", do this twice again and you arrive at Mussolini’s Republican Fascist Party.

    • Aimeeloulm@feddit.uk
      6·
      4 months ago

      The way things are going the only safe place for all queer people will be a rowing boat on the ocean, through at this point maybe time for queers to start exploring the idea of building space rockets and heading out into space to find a new home the safest choice sigh 😞

      • Zier@fedia.io
        1·
        4 months ago

        If the christians start a war with us, we know what to do with a brick. We are not afraid, and no one will shove us back into a closet. Maybe christians would like to know how if feels to be bashed, since they are the ones who have historically been the bullies and bashers.

      • Horsey@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 months ago

        We’ll be fine; there will always be a place to go. Thankfully Western Europe fits that description.

  • Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world
    61·
    4 months ago

    And the next one is removing rights from women. And up next, slavery 2: Orange Boogaloo…

    What the actual fuck America.

  • Skanky@lemmy.world
    134·
    4 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
      5·
      4 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!

  • nexguy@lemmy.world
    12·
    4 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·
      4 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.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        41·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          That’s the beauty of using masking terms like “terrorists” like Israel is doing to justify their genocide.

          You can make “terrorism” the most extreme crime that anyone can commit, a crime that immediately disqualifies you from due process or human rights, then just utterly fail to define what “terrorism” means, so you can slap it on any youtuber who criticizes the government or entire neighborhoods of hispanic or black people so you can start segregating and arresting and creating labor camps… another sneaky way to continue slavery.

          Poorly defined, unscientific or non-factual policy is designed to enforce “rules for thee, not for me” and is one of the foundational cornerstones of fascism and oligarchy.

          • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
            1·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              There are several “magic words” that power-mad tyrants love to use to justify every horrible thing they do. “Terrorist.” “Criminal.” “Pedophile.” “Anti-semite” (a relatively new one) and sometimes “rapist.”

              We’ve seen them use these buzzwords everywhere over and over, because they work in stoking the fear and disgust and horror in an ill-informed public.

              There’s no better feeling for a dictator than having millions of people supporting him as he levels an entire country because he told the citizens that it was a place full of child rapists and nazis. See: every major conflict this century.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        4 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·
          4 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·
            4 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
              3·
              4 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.)

  • KindnessisPunk@piefed.caEnglish
    25·
    4 months ago

    This is how it goes people, either everyone gets rights or no one gets rights.

    They come for the Trans people first, how long until the come for you.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      13·
      4 months ago

      Same shit with immigration. First they say they are only going after the violent criminals and “bad hombres”. Now they are racially profiling the people they snatch off the street in unmarked vans. Only a matter of time before the pool of “bad actors” expands to the political opposition.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    32·
    4 months ago

    I feel like this is already been litigated. Anyone can refuse to do anything due to their personal beliefs, but they can’t actually stop people from getting the service from someone else.

    And I do believe you actually have to have already made the objection prior to your employment, otherwise you’re now refusing to do part of your job.

  • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
    75·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      36·
      4 months ago

      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.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          113·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
            10·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • porksnort@slrpnk.net
              1·
              4 months ago

              It didn’t work apparently. He just read the writing on the wall and changed his strategy for enacting his loathsome world view.

          • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
            7·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • nomy@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      Who’s going to heat it up? The marginalized people who are vehemently anti-gun and pro-talking everything out. Or the people who’ve been jerking it to rifles for the past 40 years and are just waiting for someone to open fire on?

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      4·
      4 months ago

      I’m convinced that’s exactly what they want. Or at least, they think that’s what they want, I am ll doubtful that a great deal of thought has actually being put into it.

      If it actually happened they would be complaining within about 3 days about the lack of food on the shelves and the lack of fuel in gas stations.

  • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    85·
    4 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      4 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.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      341·
      4 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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        3·
        4 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.