304

Court gives Kim Davis four days to explain why she hid her assets to avoid paying a gay couple $565K - LGBTQ Nation (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 16 hours ago by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge said in a November 6 legal filing that former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis issued false responses about her assets in an inquiry to decide how she can repay her court-ordered payment of $565,000 to David Ermold and David Moore. Davis discriminated against the same-sex couple in 2015 when she illegally denied a marriage license to them, shortly after the US Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Moore and Ermold said that the list of personal assets Davis shared with the court after it ordered her to pay the aforementioned sum was “materially false.” Davis said she owned no real estate, made no large transfers, and was not a beneficiary of any estate, WKYT reported. However, the couple said they discovered certified records in Rowan County showing that she had inherited 50% of her mother’s estate as well as signed deeds in 2025 transferring that property to her family members.

The men’s lawyers had asked Davis to produce documents “relating to any other real property you own, including deeds,” “reflecting transfers of property or assets made by you… in the past five years…exceeding $1,000,” and “reflecting any trusts or estate interests where you were designated as a beneficiary.”

In response, Davis submitted documents claiming that she “owns no real property” or any interest in real property, “made no transfers” that exceeded $2,000, and “is not designated as a beneficiary in any trust or estate.”

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] Gpennyhigh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

She hid it because she was brainwashed that she's righteous and feels wronged by the courts. She claims to follow her chosen, invented supernatural laws, but ignores the ones she wants to. Hypocrisy is a huge part of the dualistic, supernatural systems with conditional belonging, to fit in the unhealthy tribes. She thinks she has the right to punch down on people the indoctrination says are lower than her. In her cult, gay men are lower than multi-divorced woman, apparently. Perhaps she doth protest too much and is Kinsey scale 1-6 herself, and resents all the people who enjoy their same-gender attractions, and who left the toxic, unhealthy systems behind, freed with the real truth.

[-] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

Davis, a conservative Christian who has been married four times, initially told the couple that she was acting “under God’s authority” when she refused to issue the license because she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.

This was always the punchline to me. A Karen can be married four times and still thinks her opinion on the sanctity of marriage is worthy enough to dictate other people's ability to get married.

I mean, the hypocrisy is very christian, but it's always funny to see those details mentioned in the same sentence.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 56 minutes ago* (last edited 55 minutes ago)

Every time I see her name I think of that stupid Kim Carnes song

[-] CedricWhaley@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 11 hours ago

Court gives Kim Davis four days to explain why she hid her assets

I can think of a few...

to avoid paying a gay couple $565K

Oh, so you already knew the answer.

[-] QueenHawlSera@piefed.social 13 points 10 hours ago

You'll find the answer to your question "Why did she hide her assets to avoid paying gay couple?" within the question.... To avoid paying gay couple

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 71 points 13 hours ago

"Your Honor, I hid my assets because that's a fuckload of money that I don't want taken from me."

[-] RFKJrsBrainworm@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 hours ago

Welp, you had every opportunity to stop acting like a cunt, and you failed Kim.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 18 points 12 hours ago

That would at least be partially honest, though the actual answer would probably contain at least two slurs.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 19 points 12 hours ago

What can I say other than lol.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 45 points 15 hours ago

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

My favorite joke

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 49 points 16 hours ago

Why does she look like someone pulled her straight out of a Beavis and Butthead episode?

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 27 points 15 hours ago

Because evil shows on your face

[-] toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org 11 points 15 hours ago

This seems like a dangerous statement. See physiognomy.

[-] deadbeef79000 12 points 10 hours ago

If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.

Roald Dahl, The Twits

[-] captcha@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, this concept and this specific quote especially make me feel uneasy, as it implies anyone looking good and charismatic is a good person. I don't think it generally works that way :(

[-] deadbeef79000 4 points 9 hours ago

Read it again. It specifically points out that even if your facial features are "ugly" it's your demeanor that is actually what your face shows holistically.

[-] captcha@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It also implies, that if a person is not ugly they are not thinking ugly thoughts every moment of their time. Which is false

Edit: I mean, I can see how it tries to imply that uglyness is not in the actual facial features, but it's demonstrated in research that people treat others at face value

[-] deadbeef79000 3 points 8 hours ago

Then, frankly, those people should read more children's books and watch less (American) TV.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 10 points 15 hours ago

I don't mean to imply that you should judge people based on their face, never do that.

[-] MrSelfDestruct@reddthat.com 24 points 12 hours ago

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

the more you find out about him the more evil he looks.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 10 points 9 hours ago

Christ man give me a trigger warning

[-] realworldschlitz@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 21 points 12 hours ago

Ok, sometimes do that.

[-] Zier@fedia.io 18 points 14 hours ago

I cannot wait for the court to take her assets. What an evil hypocrite 'christian'. May she burn in the hell she believes in. I hope she is homeless for decades up until her death.

[-] rauls5@lemmy.zip 25 points 15 hours ago

The question is the answer

[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

And she's going to get away with it again. IOKIYAR

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 hours ago

IOKIYAR

I only kill in Yangzhou and Rio?

[-] captcha@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 5 points 9 hours ago

https://fluentslang.com/iokiyar-meaning/ says: ‘It’s Okay If You’re A Republican.’

Also, lol:

How to reply: If someone uses iokiyar in a conversation with you and you have a different political viewpoint, it’s important to approach the conversation respectfully. You can express your own perspective and engage in a constructive dialogue.

[-] ElChinchilla@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Idk how to have a dialogue with them at this point, if they were reasonable (literal definition) they would hold different opinions and evidence would impact their decisions and opinions.

[-] Enkrod@feddit.org 4 points 9 hours ago

She hasn't really gotten away with anything, ever. And she's not going to get away with this either. The judge was onto her bullshit from the very beginning.

this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2026

304 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31873 readers

2998 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News