this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
646 points (99.4% liked)

News

31592 readers
2919 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
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shplane@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

Depressing as hell but honestly, I’m surprised it took this long.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

Would this be a record turnaround for revoking a group's rights?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Woooooo here we go 🙃

Fucking knew this was gonna happen. Are they gonna do Loving v. Virginia next?

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

Fucking knew this was gonna happen.

Everyone should have. It's part of Project 2025 published well ahead of the election.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Kid David didn't exercise her free speech, she discriminated.

Edit: Fuck I'm bad at typing. Kim Davis*

[–] manxu@piefed.social 10 points 3 days ago

It would be such a dumb move to reverse a ruling this close to its decision and with such messy consequences for thousands of couples and families, of course they are going to do it.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

This should be a cut and dry case, where a person used the powers given them from their government position to deny civil rights as outlined by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. This was not them doing their government job, nor was it them just NOT doing their job. If it were the former, then there should be no penalty. If the latter, then they should be fired but shouldn't be held liable.

However, this was them exploiting their power to do a job in a discriminatory way. She didn't just not do her job. She specifically did her job for some people and denied others based on her personal feelings. She should be held personally liable for personally choosing to individually discriminate based on personal feelings.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 9 points 3 days ago

Here we go.

[–] webp@mander.xyz 7 points 3 days ago

It's a great day to be an asshole.

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The bright side, that even if Alito and Thomas want to revisit just to overturn, according to the article, kavanaugh and Barrett aren't interested in looking at this, hopefully Gorsuch and Roberts feel the same and this case that's turned away

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

kavanaugh and Barrett aren’t interested in looking at this,

You mean exactly like how they both claimed they had no interest in overturning Roe v Wade until all of a sudden: SURPRISE! True colours revealed!

Don't put any faith in their lies.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›