This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The court fight that could end up being the vehicle through which the egregious Obergefell ruling from the Supreme Court, which fabricated the "right" to same-sex marriage like Roe fabricated a federal "right" to abortion, is one step closer to the Supreme Court.

That's after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unleashed a ruling in Kim Davis' appeal.

The former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk withheld marriage licenses from everyone for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, which Supreme Court justices themselves admitted was unrelated to the U.S. Constitution, fabricated same-sex "marriage" all across America.

That ruling infringed on her religious beliefs and a biased federal judge, while Davis was working to obtain recognition of a religious exemption to the processing of those licenses, put her in jail.

She later was sued by two same-sex duos for "damages" when she didn't immediately grant them licenses.

One jury awarded $50,000 in damages to both David Ermold and David Moore for "emotional distress" based on "hurt feelings," while the other jury considering the same facts announced there was no evidence of damages.

The ruling from the 6th Circuit "indicated this is potentially a case of 'first impression,' where a question regarding an interpretation of the law that has never arisen before is first presented to the court," according to Liberty Counsel, which has represented Davis.

"The 6th Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full 6th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States," the Liberty Counsel report said.

"On appeal, Davis argued that she was entitled to First Amendment protections in her position as county clerk, and that the jury was prohibited from issuing any damage award against her. According to legal precedent, the First Amendment prohibits imposing liability on an individual for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most of the cases holding establishing this position were based on the Free Speech Clause, there is no reason to make a distinction between the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses for this purpose," the legal team explained.

The court, however, claimed, "Writing on this blank slate, we are wise to tread lightly. To that end, the fact-specific nature of our holding again bears emphasis: a government employee, acting in the scope of that employment, does not have a unilateral free exercise right to use an arm of the state to infringe on a clearly established equal protection right of the public. Change the factual setting, and a free exercise defense to a civil rights lawsuit may have more traction. It is always the case that '[a] later court assessing a past decision must . . . appreciate the possibility that different facts and different legal arguments may dictate a different outcome.'"

The ruling found, essentially, that government officials lose their conscience protections when they are government officials. That was after evidence showed the LGBT duos did not go to nearer clerks who would have given them licenses, but instead specifically targeted Davis.

One of the panel's judges, Chad Readler, admitted that the legal precedents in the fight are "not entirely settled."

Liberty Counsel explained, "The court found that the 2015 Obergefell 5-4 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday, June 26, 2015, 'clearly established' that Davis as the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky must issue licenses to same sex couples when she commenced work on Monday, June 29. The problem with this ruling, however, is that Davis' function is totally defined by state law. To issue a license to someone not authorized to receive one under state law could subject Davis to criminal prosecution."

At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.

Liberty Counsel said it would seek further answers on topics including the Free Exercise defense for individual capacity claims against government officials, whether Obergefell was wrongly decided, and even if the court does not want the Obergefell question, whether it created a clearly established right to obtain a marriage certificate from a specific government official.

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief, said, "The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will have a chance to give Kim Davis justice in this case since the emotional distress damage award against her in her individual capacity is barred by the First Amendment. This case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should 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."

The legal team previously has noted the path to overturning Obergefell could follow the same path as that was used to overturn Roe: that the Constitution does not even mention same-sex marriage and thus, under the Constitution, the issue must be left to states.

Further, the organization MassResistance has confirmed that there are at least six state legislatures that have considered a resolution encouraging the high court to reverse itself..

The organization recently confirmed it has drafted sample language and resolutions are pending in Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Iowa and Kansas.

"The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices," MassResistance reported. "It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."

"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.

And unlike in 2015, when the Supreme Court was dominated by leftist ideologues, there now is a majority of constitutionalists on the bench, the report said.

"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.

But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.

The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, "is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases."

He said, "We should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.

Liberty Counsel already has argued, "Obergefell was not grounded in the nation's history or traditions, nor could it have been because it was not rooted in any nation's history or traditions. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, the right that the Obergefell majority created out of whole cloth was inconsistent with 'the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history.' Indeed, 'marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations [and] [f]or all those millennia, across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.'"

In fact, WND later reported that the Davis case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.

In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."

Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."

"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."

In fact, since then the state of Colorado twice has launched attacks on Christians who failed to promote the state's messaging on same-sex unions, a baker and a web designer. And both times it has suffered defeat at the Supreme Court, including once when the justices scolded the state for its hate of Christianity.

Thomas said, "Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"