But few know what happened next: One couple whom Davis discriminated against sued her for violating their civil rights, and a jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages for attorneys’ fees. She and her lawyers at the fringe-right law firm Liberty Counsel have spent years fighting that award. And that is what Davis v. Ermold is really about.
. . . After losing several rounds of litigation over the First Amendment issue, Davis’ lawyers decided to tack on a bigger request: Suddenly, they did not merely ask for exemptions from Obergefell; they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn it altogether. They raised this claim so late in the game that the appeals court ruled that it had been forfeited. But that did not stop them from including the frontal attack on Obergefell in their appeal to SCOTUS. The request to overturn marriage equality was tacked on to the petition like an afterthought, following the main arguments about religious freedom.
If Liberty Counsel’s primary goal was to draw attention—and, by extension, fundraising dollars—by taking on marriage equality itself, it worked: Media coverage of this case was wildly disproportionate to its (near-zero) chances of success.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)
News
33117 readers
2177 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That Pentecostal cunt whore can suck my homo anal crevice!
😮💨 and what about the rest of us? 🤤
Get in line!
At least that's not GAY!! 🦄
Was it the hair?
Sort of. It was actually difficult to tell given the volume of burps and hiccups made by Kavanaugh, but there was an intelligible "frumpy bitch" that had 5 of them nodding solemnly before declining the case.
Sounds about right. Frumpy Bitch sounds like a good name for a cheap, high-ABV Appalachian cider.
Ok, you win. What did I do to you? XD
I do think that her not being exactly, ahem, all that telegenic/photogenic does not help.
They're just waiting for a better case before overturning it.
Yeah - Trump.
If this Supreme Court were considering the issue for the very first time today, it would almost certainly hold that the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage by a 6–3 vote. But now that Obergefell is entrenched as precedent, and widely supported by Americans, they’ve shown no appetite for spending down their political capital to issue an unpopular ruling that could only hurt the Republican Party.
This seems like a really naive thing to say about this court. They have shown no qualms about striking down much older cases with a stronger history of precedent than Obergefell on the most specious of reasoning. They struck down Chevron Deference last year, which was in place since 1984 and had come to form the backbone of judicial handling about highly technical aspects of government regulation of virtually every industry.
And they have no hesitation about making unpopular rulings. Several justices have a habit of lecturing the public in a way that's essentially talking down to the people they are supposed to serve and say they simply know what's better for the people than... the people. Their egos couldn't care less about their public image; Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken out multiple times that people need to basically shut up and respect the court's decisions no matter if they like them or not.
It's a higher level of infuriating that the court is so obviously corrupt, and then the most corrupt among them present themselves as fundamentally more deserving of respect and deference than the common rabble.
I fail to see where in this article they present "The Real Reason Kim Davis Never Stood a Chance". Unless they mean the whole bit about "Obergefell is entrenched as precedent, and widely supported by Americans", in which case, that's horseshit. This SCOTUS has shat on much older and much-more-popular precedents than this, with no hesitation, and no valid reasoning.
