The people who think like this clerk in Kentucky

[madaboutharry]

are going to make her a millionaire. Whether she is fined, jailed, impeached, or if the county finds a way to fire her; there will be someone who sets up an online fund raising page. It is going to be just like it was with those pizza shop owners, they ended up with nearly a million dollars. You'll see. It is going to be sickening.

[tblue37]

1. Well, Ihope her victims sue her in civil court for any of her ill-gotten

gains, plus lawyers' fees on top of the settlement.

[SoCalNative]

2. Exactly

though I wonder if there are any provisions in KY law protecting civil employees (elected or not) from such a thing.

[hifiguy]

4. By bet would be that open defiance of a lawful order from a federal court

would remove those protections and the state would be off the hook as far as defending her goes.

[jberryhill]

6. That's what the suit is for

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rowan-complaint.pdf

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the
following relief:

1) Certify this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2);

2) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to issue
marriage licenses to applicants who are otherwise eligible to marry in Kentucky;

3) Issue a declaratory judgment finding that Defendants’ policy is facially unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments;

4) Judgment finding the Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution;

5) Judgment for damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be proven by the evidence against Defendant Davis for violating the named Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution;

6) Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

7) A trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

8) Grant any additional relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled

---------


What has happened thus far in the lawsuit is that the district court has granted the preliminary injunction. Davis requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal. The DC denied the stay. She then filed for an appeal of the denial of the stay. The 6th Circuit turned that down. She filed with the Supreme Court for appeal of the denial of the stay. The Supreme Court turned that down.

At this point, the preliminary order stands, and is not stayed pending appeal. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. The court has issued that order with a hearing date set for, uh, Thursday I think. At the hearing, the court is likely to find her in contempt. She will then appeal the contempt finding. The 6th Circuit will confirm it, she will petition the SC, the SC will turn her down.

But, yeah, there's the whole rest of the lawsuit to get to. That's what this action IS. The fun & games thus far have simply been over the preliminary order.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. The worse people are those who really know better but continue to legitimize various forms of Jesus

flavored bigotry. DU is chock full of furious straight people hotly defending their favorite anti gay marriage preacher man. They are the true drivers of this hate fest. They wallow in it and profit from it.
They judge LGBT persons by standards different from which they judge others. If we protest we are evil, if others protest they are heroes. It goes on and on and the worst of them think they are righteous and deliver sermons to others while standing at a lectern of purest prejudice.

[Arugula Latte]

5. I agree. The religious apologists sicken me. They call themselves "progressive"

but think pro-discrimination views are fine if they come from a person who is connected to supernatural religious hocus pocus.

Disgusting.

[Stuart G]

7. Yep..good post...nt