Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court

[Grand Mal]

You too are another example of my point. You want that woman punished for endorsing homosexuality. Imo you are behaving as poorly as the people who want homosexuals punished for being gay.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

She endorsed homosexuality? I missed that part.

 

[Taylor]

Thanks for that definition.
IMHO- That would depend then upon the sequence of legal events. She lost that when the USSC refused to hear the case, then again when refusing to comply with the court order, and her continuous interference in the process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis

Wow, the information on that wikipedia page is horribly written. The ACLU did not "win a lawsuit against her, Miller v. Davis" - that's the lawsuit that was tossed out and that the 6th court of appeals just said could continue. They had been granted a preliminary injunction - a temporary measure that required Davis to issue licenses while the lawsuit was going on. The supreme court did not refuse to hear the case (which hadn't been decided) - they only refused to consider granting a stay for the injunction.

 

[Objective Voice]

She wasn't convicted of anything. There hasn't even been a trial.

From the linked article in the OP:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a damages lawsuit against Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who in 2015 refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it conflicted with her Christian beliefs.

Conviction...judgement against...same diff; one throws you in jail, the other empties your pocketbook. You say TA-MA-TOE, I say TOE-MOTE-TOE...it's still a negative legal strike against her. So....:shrug:

 

[Taylor]

From the linked article in the OP:



Conviction...judgement against...same diff; one throws you in jail, the other empties your pocketbook. You say TA-MA-TOE, I say TOE-MOTE-TOE...it's still a negative legal strike against her. So....:shrug:

There hasn't been a judgment against her, either. If there were, there'd be no reason to revive a dead lawsuit.

 

[Objective Voice]

There hasn't been a judgment against her, either. If there were, there'd be no reason to revive a dead lawsuit.

Then how do you explain how a judge ruled against her to pay damages to the gay couple? What would you call such a ruling? A Letter of Intent?

 

[Taylor]

Then how do you explain how a judge ruled against her to pay damages to the gay couple? What would you call such a ruling? A Letter of Intent?

That's not what happened. The district judge had thrown the case out, declaring it moot, but the court of appeals just tossed it back and said it could proceed. They haven't been awarded damages. Whether or not they will receive anything is still very much in the air.

 

[Objective Voice]

That's not what happened. The district judge had thrown the case out, declaring it moot, but the court of appeals just tossed it back and said it could proceed. They haven't been awarded damages. Whether or not they will receive anything is still very much in the air.

Very Well...thanks for the clarification.

 

[trouble13]

She endorsed homosexuality? I missed that part.

Sorry i meant because she doesn't but i think you knew that already.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[reinoe]

What damages? Davis was also already punished for this whole mess, so I don't see how this is at all appropriate at this point. The couple should just move on from the whole situation.

It's not about punishing Davis: it's about compensating the victims.

 

[trouble13]

It's not about punishing Davis: it's about compensating the victims.

There were not any damages.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk