“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!"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
Border patrol agent Manual Alvarez IV got qualified immunity for assaulting me while I was in handcuffs between being booked and being interrogated. That certainly wasn't part of his job.
Also, I was found not guilty because you are allowed to protest the separation and detention of children at the border. So it wasn't part of his job to arrest me either.
Qualified immunity. Now that racist, fuck is just in a different part of border patrol training and leading the other agents. This is how poison spreads. This is why all cops are bastards. You either pluck these people out of the system immediately or accept that you have corrupted a system.