Hmm. I don't mind that the law has been changed so that she's no longer confronted with the dilemma - that's clearly better than forcing her to do something against her will or having to give up her job. However, that doesn't mean she didn't actively cause harm to those people whose marriages she refused in the past. I do, honestly, believe those people deserve compensation for having been dragged through all kinds of crap.
[Contest] Guess when Kim Davis relents and leaves prison!
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
As a public official, though, she is shielded somewhat from such legal action, whether she was carrying out her duty or choosing not to, that is a benefit of holding public office.
But on the flip side as a public official she may not be reelected, or if the law allows, she can be removed from office. That is one of the few ways a public can punish public officials for making decisions the public disagrees with.
For reparations the affected plaintiffs would simply sue the county directly, not its officer. The county would then have to settle or go to court.
So the lawsuits may have been dropped against her directly, but similar suits can be filed against the county.