“cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official”.
“It’s my right to deny your rights.”
Remeber these are the people shouting about religious freedoms.
This is something that needs to shouted loud and clear.
The Constitution protects citizens from the government. If you work for the government, you are what the Constitution protects us from. If you do not understand that, you do not need to be getting a paycheck drawn from taxpayers.
They literally believe the very existence of gay married couples is an assault on their religious freedom. The unchecked “religious freedom” they want logically would include bigamy and pedophilia, but better not talk about that.
Evangelicals and conservatives want to be protected by American laws but not bound by them, while everyone else is tightly bound by laws, but not protected by them.
Rob Corddry did a Daily Show interview way back about the pharmacist and birth control (the abortion pill). The pharmacist kept saying about his right were being violated when the courts said he had to go against his beliefs. Rob sarcastically says (I’m paraphrasing), “yeah, how can they push their beliefs on you! that’s your job to do the customer!”
For conservatives “religious freedom” means their freedom to impose their religion on you.
deleted by creator
That sounds like a whole new take on “but but you’re being intolerant of intolerant people!”
They are different manifestations of the central “I get to be an asshole if I want but you can’t do anything about it”
Everyone has the right to follow their religion. If Big Kim didn’t want to disobey her God, she is allowed to: by resigning her position in protest and joining a monastery.
I believe “Get thee to a nunnery.” might be appropriate.
Good, fuck her, cunt.
On another topic, while I’m straight, if I were gay, I don’t think I’m prepared to date, let alone marry, someone with the same first name as me. Being gay is perfectly normal, marrying someone with the same first name as you isn’t. No judgement though, just don’t think I’m cut out for it.
Call Me by Our Name
SAY OUR NAME, SAY OUR NAME!
New head-cannon for the Bobs in office space.
🤣🤣
I dated a guy with the same name as me once, just went by my middle name while we were together.
That makes sense. You’re made of sterner stuff than I am though, I wouldn’t be able to hack it.
Wait what is this . did Kim marry Kim?
XD I’m straight and my name is Aaron. I could never be with an Erin. There’s just something weird about it.
I feel ya bro
So judge David B ruled Kim Davis had to pay David E and David M 50k each. .
I was not aware there were so many Dave’s involved.
These are the Daves that I know I know, these are the Daves I know. Some of them go by David but most of them just go by Dave. They all have different hands but come from different moms
I have this song on my phone so I can listen to it whenever I please!
Dave’s not here…
Basically… a portion of each of the David’s legal fees
Eight year legal battle and a payout you’ll never see. Seems fair.
I was just thinking: this woman doesn’t have 100k. Lol.
I’ve said it before, if your religion is preventing you form doing your job, either change you religion or change your job.
She’s going to start a GoFundMe and get like $500k and walk away wealthy. I hate how fucked up our society is.
$400K isn’t “wealthy” by any calculation. It’s not nothing, but it’s not enough to live on. Unless your expenses are like $16K per year.
Give me 400k right now and I’ll buy a house and live forever on fuck all because I’m safe and secure in my own home. That means so much, owning your home is wealth.
Getting $400k in one go absolutely makes you wealthy. This isn’t $400k over a lifetime.
Kentucky is also a fairly low cost of living state which is something to factor in too.
My husband and I combined make waaaaaaay the hell less than 400k a year and we aren’t rich but I’d say we live fairly comfortably here.
It goes pretty far in a shithole like Kentucky. You’re right that it’s not wealthy, but it is wealth.
so, like, the median income in Germany?
Edit: I said that based on this. I think the Wikipedia link is about wages specifically (e.g. it counts only full-time employees), not about income in general?
No? Germany is 3x that amount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
That’s only for full-time employees, I believe. I edited the comment to add the source I was looking at :)
Not only is that data from 2013, but it makes no sense. Why would you include people who don’t make income (children, retirees, unemployed) in an income measurement?
It’s like looking up safety statistics on cars and finding out their diluted with people who don’t own cars, broken cars that don’t run, etc. Only working cars that drive should be included.
Median and average are 2 completely different things my child
If you click on the link Grandpa, you will see the words “European countries by monthly median wage”.
Did you read that section? Did you know that “average” is a colloquial word for a variety of maximum likelihood estimators? Are you trying to sound smart while putting in a minimum of effort?
So you found the 2400 in the list and you completely ignored that people here pay taxes and in the end its 1600 bucks a month?
So the German median? How is that triple?So you finally read the link, didn’t acknowledge that you were wrong, found the 2400 in the list, and didn’t notice that it was net (after tax) in Euros?
Since I have to do everything for you, “gross, in local currency” is 3,672 EUR (3,913 USD). That’s $47K per year, 3x $16K. You have to compare amounts before taxes, because you would pay taxes on the $16K too.
You dumbass.
Is that legal? I know you’re not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?
The only way to ensure justice, if this happens (and she’d use GiveSendGo, which is a conservative christian fundraiser, so watch there, too), is to challenge it if it happens. If you’re passionate about preventing this creep from profiting on her bigotry, watch and challenge.
I don’t understand why one couple got $100,000, while the other couple got nothing. I wish the article had expanded on that a bit more.
I was wondering myself as well so I got you.
Basically what happened was that these were technically two separate cases with two separate jury pools to decide the amount for damages.
One jury pool came to the decision that there were damages and awarded $50k to each individual in couple 1 (totaling $100k) while the other jury pool independently decided that no damages should be awarded based on the same evidence.
Keep in mind that this region is generally pretty hostile towards LGBTQ+ people. The judge had the option to overrule a jury if they find that the decision doesn’t match the evidence in the case.
The lawyer of this lady is actually hoping for that in the case that lead to a $100k damages award as per the quote below.
“Two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments, and only one jury returned a verdict that was based on the facts and the evidence presented at trial,” Daniel Schmid, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel and one of Davis’ attorneys, told CNN via email. “In the Yates case, the jury returned a verdict of $0.00 because that is what the evidence required.”
“Without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict, and Ms. Davis will be filing a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict next week,” Schmid said. “Ms. Davis trusts that the courts reviewing the evidence presented will see that the Ermold verdict lacks any evidentiary support and will agree with the Yates jury that the plaintiffs are entitled to no damages whatsoever.”
Pretty frustrating example of how our legal system is broken.
Thoughts and prayers.
Be a joke; go broke
Finally some good news. Still amazed it’s taken this long to get a resolution
aaaaahahahahahahaha that removed can get fucked for all hundred k of it.
For abusing authority she doesn’t have. Save up Kim,
US district judge David Bunning said that Davis “cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official”.
[…]
During this week’s trial, Davis argued that she was protected from litigation due to qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from lawsuits accusing them of violating someone’s constitutional rights.
“I shouldn’t have to do this thing because of my beliefs.”
“I shouldn’t be guilty because I was acting on behalf of the government.”
Pretty big valley between these two arguments. Roast this fucking turd.
“Good Christian” Adulterer Kim Davis conceived twins with her lover while married to another man.
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10)
Yet another example of an evangelical conservative expecting to be protected by laws but not bound by them, while everyone else is to be bound by laws but not protected by them.
Sucks to suck
