762
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 228 points 1 year 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.

[-] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

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!"

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

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

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year 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”

[-] [email protected] 52 points 1 year 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.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

I believe "Get thee to a nunnery." might be appropriate.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 1 year 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.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I have this song on my phone so I can listen to it whenever I please!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Dave’s not here…

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Eight year legal battle and a payout you'll never see. Seems fair.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

New head-cannon for the Bobs in office space.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I dated a guy with the same name as me once, just went by my middle name while we were together.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That makes sense. You're made of sterner stuff than I am though, I wouldn't be able to hack it.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Wait what is this . did Kim marry Kim?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago

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

[-] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

She's going to start a GoFundMe and get like $500k and walk away wealthy. I hate how fucked up our society is.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Be a joke; go broke

[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 year 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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Thoughts and prayers.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

aaaaahahahahahahaha that bitch can get fucked for all hundred k of it.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Finally some good news. Still amazed it's taken this long to get a resolution

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

"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.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Davis went far out of her way to screw over some people. Bigotry has costs.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

For abusing authority she doesn't have. Save up Kim,

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

No way this red has that money

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Uplifting news!

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

Does she still wear her homemade birth control dresses?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

🦀🦀🦀

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

She might have to sell one of her Trump-rally powerboats or something

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Sucks to suck

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Nelson: "Ha ha!"

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Is this Kyle Rittenhouses wife?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Fucked around…

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

FAFO

I guess no immunity for her?

Should been police!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You're looking at it the wrong way. This is like a cop seeking QI for letting an escaped convict go. Doing the opposite of their "job".

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

She looks like a gross pig

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
762 points (97.4% liked)

News

22854 readers
3755 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS