• FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    2 years ago

    “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.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      For conservatives “religious freedom” means their freedom to impose their religion on you.

    • 30mag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      An unwelcome reminder that a person can go on a power trip without a gun and a badge.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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”

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I mean, either way it’s a win. If she gets $2 each from a shitload of right wing fuckheads, that means we made ~50,000 right wing fuckheads pay to support gay marriage.

        • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          Paying for a failed attempt. So it’s kind of impotence squared if it happens.

          That’s $100,000 that won’t get to those people unless somebody else raises it because I doubt very seriously Kim Davis has $100,000.

          • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Recognizing that these bios mean next to nothing, a quick google suggests her net worth could be in the tens of millions.

            The grift (potentially) pays well.

      • timicin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        that number sounds too low.

        assuming that the last election was 50% and that 50% of voters are republicans; about 70 million people could support her like this.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        I get the joke but to be clear, handouts are not a problem for these folks, so long as the Jesus Strings are fully attached.

        • Doug Holland@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Hey, have you written up your ‘Jesus Strings’ theory? You’ve mentioned it a few times and it makes marvelous intuitive sense to me — I’d like to read the article if you’re written it.

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Drewdp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’ve said it before, if your religion is preventing you form doing your job, either change you religion or change your job.

    • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Is that legal? I know you’re not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?

  • Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • lazyvar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.”

      Source

  • Meldroc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    GAAAAH!!! MY EYES!!! I’d forgotten how ugly that woman is, inside and out!

    Does she still wear her homemade birth control dresses?