Two juries announced their conflicting decisions this week in separate civil trials against former Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis. Although we won religious freedom accommodations for Kim and all KY county clerks who refuse to be used as a pawn for same-sex “marriage,” the ACLU sham plaintiffs want to punish Kim.

In Yates v. Davis, one jury found that Kim is NOT liable for the 300,000 dollars they demanded. However, in Ermold v. Davis, a judge’s improper action has teed UP Kim’s case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we intend not only to win religious accommodation for all Americans, but also to overturn the wrongfully decided Obergefel same-sex “marriage” opinion. Read on. —Mat

Support Liberty Counsel’s legal fund today and have your donation DOUBLED in impact by a generous Challenge Grant.

In a December 2015 interview, David Ermold and David Moore told GQ Magazine they had never even discussed getting married until they saw a social media post announcing a protest at Kim Davis' Rowan County, KY, clerk’s office. The two Davids grabbed their cell phones and raced to the protest hoping to shame Kim on camera.

The men got what they wanted, which had less to do with a marriage license and more to do with a brief shot at internet “fame.” Had the two Davids actually wanted to get married, they could have done so that very day at one of the seven County Clerk offices within a short drive of Kim’s office. But rather than get a license, the two men chose to repeatedly harass and ridicule Kim Davis with their “viral” social media posts.

As Kim waited for the KY governor to issue a determination on her pending request for religious accommodation, the two Davids would travel to Kim’s office a total of five separate times, recording video as they demanded Kim violate the principles of her faith.

In court Tuesday, David Ermold demanded 100,000 dollars in damages. Ermold claimed that Kim had cost him his job at the University of Pikeville. However, the Human Resources Director for the university testified that David’s position was downsized for budget reasons along with others and was completely unrelated to Kim.

No longer able to claim that Kim cost Ermold his job, the two Davids then tried to claim that Kim should pay for their “hurt feelings” — an ironic claim, considering that these men admitted in interviews that their intention was to publicly shame Kim and hurt her feelings.

Binding decisions from the Court of Appeals state that a plaintiff’s testimony of feeling embarrassed, humiliated, or some such emotion without any other evidence of damages cannot suffice to merit an award of damages. WITHOUT MEDICAL OR OTHER EVIDENCE, “HURT FEELINGS” IS NOT A JURY QUESTION. THE CASE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN SENT TO THE JURY.

However, Judge Bunning improperly allowed questions concerning whether any potential juror had religious or moral objections to “same-sex marriage.” The judge overruled Liberty Counsel’s objection, and that permitted the plaintiffs to exclude all jurors who have religious beliefs and those who had objections to “same-sex marriage.” That question essentially excluded jurors based on religion, which is unlawful under Batson v. Kentucky, J.E.B. v. Alabama, and a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1862.

All of these things resulted in the jury improperly awarding the two Davids 100,000 dollars in damages. 

Judge Bunning’s actions in giving the case to the jury were impermissible, and that makes the verdict for damages a reversible error.

In fact, Judge Bunning’s actions set us up for a much larger potential. Had the judge ruled in accordance with the law, Kim would not have been found liable. Liberty Counsel will now appeal this case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The finding of liability and the Ermold damages jury verdict are unsound and easily set up this case on an eventual route to the U.S. Supreme Court, where religious freedom will be central to the argument along with the issue that the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

Liberty Counsel argued that Davis is not liable for any damages because she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. When the then-governor, Republican Matt Bevin, took office in December 2015, he granted religious accommodation to all clerks by executive order. Then in April 2016, the KY legislature unanimously granted religious and conscience accommodation to ALL clerks from issuing marriage licenses that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Even assuming Obergefell is not a flawed decision, which it is, the High Court’s opinion did not mean that same-sex couples have a right to receive a “marriage license” from a specific individual, and it did not direct that every government official in America had a duty to put their stamp of approval on that “marriage license.” Like Davis, ALL public officials are entitled to religious accommodation to protect their religious freedom rights.

We look forward to appealing this decision for Kim Davis. Our case is now ready to go up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment, and other state and federal laws. We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned. This verdict has paved the way for this case to find resolution at the U.S. Supreme Court.

We need YOUR help to continue fighting for religious freedom — not just for Kim, but also for the hundreds of other plaintiffs we represent. Liberty Counsel never charges for our legal work. Instead, our clients rely on friends like you, faithful Liberty Counsel supporters, to defend life, religious freedom, and the natural family.

Your recurring monthly gift would be greatly appreciated. Every donation made today will be DOUBLED IN IMPACT by a generous Challenge Grant.

Mat Staver
Chairman
Liberty Counsel