Liberty Counsel filed a reply brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ermold v. Davis requesting to overturn the jury verdict for damages on behalf of former Rowan County Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, who refrained from issuing “same-sex marriage” licenses against her religious beliefs. In the case, Liberty Counsel argues that religious freedom rights “pre-date” the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and entitled Davis to a religious accommodation from issuing such licenses.
Liberty Counsel argues that there is no evidence to support the jury verdict, Davis was entitled to an accommodation of her sincerely held religious beliefs, and the 2015 case of Obergefell. v. Hodges should also be overruled.
In 2015, two same-sex couples sued Davis for not issuing them marriage licenses even though she referred the couples to other clerks who would. In Ermold v. Davis, one of the same-sex couples claimed Davis’ denial of their marriage license caused emotional distress. Despite presenting no evidence, a jury awarded the couple $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees and expenses. In the identical case, Yates v. Davis, the other same-sex couple presented the same arguments but that jury awarded them zero damages because the evidence did not support the awarding of any damages.
Now, the Ermold plaintiffs assert that Davis cannot legally challenge the jury verdict and that the First Amendment “has no place in this dispute.” However, Liberty Counsel argues the Court cannot enforce “same-sex marriage” law if doing so imposes liability on someone exercising their religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
In the brief, Liberty Counsel states, “The First Amendment and Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act entitled Davis to an accommodation, which she was not given, and shield her from the liability imposed by the district court…The Court is well within its rights to correct preceding error and provide the constitutional protection that was due Davis in this matter.”
Liberty Counsel also noted the Obergefell decision itself mandated that people with religious convictions who do not condone “same-sex marriage” are to be given proper protection.
“Davis was sued, tried, imprisoned, and subjected to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages,” Liberty Counsel wrote. “Here, to refuse to afford Davis the accommodation she was due under the First Amendment and allow to stand [the] verdict against her for the mere exercise of her constitutionally protected right to exercise her religious values would be manifest injustice of the worst kind.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Kim Davis deserves justice in this case since she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges because that decision threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood.”
