This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who faces a catastrophe because of a leftist ruling creating same-sex "marriage" across the country by extremists who no longer are on the bench.
It is Kim Davis who now faces $360,000 in penalties for the "hurt feelings" of homosexuals who bypassed other marriage license channels and sought her out to try to force her to publicly violate her Christian faith and issue them a marriage license.
"Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"By denying this petition, the high court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression. This cannot be right because government officials do not shed their constitutional rights upon election. Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start.
"This opinion has no basis in the Constitution. We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell."
Davis, in fact, had been caught up in the disaster that marriage ruling created. While the Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, it ignored the simultaneous need for recognition of individuals' constitutional rights, leaving Davis facing a demand to violate state law and her own religious rights.
The Supreme Court's denial of a review was without a ruling on the merits.
"By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS leaves the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion in place. The court also leaves unresolved an important constitutional question of whether the First Amendment's complementary protections of Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause protect government officials sued in their individual capacity for actions taken based on their religious beliefs," Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis, said.
Also left in place was the claim from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held Davis personally liable for a same-sex couple's "hurt feelings" from not getting a marriage license from Davis due to her upholding her religious views on marriage.
When the Obergefell case was announced, it was based on the implications of the Constitution, not any actual wording since marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. It, like the failed Roe decision earlier creating abortion, a decision that later was struck down, demanded a social change not mentioned in any way by the authors of the Constitution.
So believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses from June 29 to early September 2015 while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.
"But two sets of plaintiffs, including David Ermold and David Moore, sought to mock Davis' Christian faith by forcing her name on their marriage license through litigation. Their attempt failed when Gov. Steven Beshear agreed that the altered license without Davis' name was valid. From early September onward, licenses were issued without Davis' name on them. In December 2015, newly elected Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order granting the accommodation Davis sought. Then in April 2016, the Kentucky legislature unanimously codified the religious exemption by removing the names of all clerks from the state's marriage licenses," Liberty Counsel said.
However, David Bunning, a leftist federal judge, didn't wait for democracy to take effect, and immediately put her in jail for her Christian faith.
Liberty Counsel pointed out the nature of the attack on Davis. "Ermold and Moore could have gone to any number of nearby clerks to get a marriage license. But they wanted Davis' name on their license. In 2017, Ermold and Moore amended their complaint and sued Davis in her individual capacity for emotional distress for 'hurt feelings.' In addition to six days in jail, Davis was held liable for $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees over their 'hurt feelings' stemming from her religious expression."
Muiltiple judges had dissented from the creation of same-sex marriage – it was adopted by only a single vote from one leftist justice. And the minority warned of the threat to the Constitution that the social-engineering decision crated.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have "potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also apply to the Obergefell "same-sex marriage" decision.
In fact, both the abortion and same-sex marriage creations rely on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said. To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
Thomas said, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
