Former Kentucky Clerk In Gay Marriage Case Must Pay Additonal $260K.

By that logic, the Constitution allows human/animal marriages as well. And adult/child.
That's only logically in the MAGAt world of alternative facts. The equal protection clause prevents the discrimination of people based on race, sex and sexual orientation. Animals aren't people and there's no constitutional authority preventing us from discriminating based on age.
 
That's only logically in the MAGAt world of alternative facts. The equal protection clause prevents the discrimination of people based on race, sex and sexual orientation. Animals aren't people and there's no constitutional authority preventing us from discriminating based on age.
So you believe adults can marry children, but not animals?
 
So you believe adults can marry children, but not animals?
Are you illiterate? I said the constitution let's us discriminate based on age, therefore we have every legal right to prohibit marriages between adults and children. You MAGAts are some dumb mother fuckers. :laugh:
 
Are you illiterate? I said the constitution let's us discriminate based on age, therefore we have every legal right to prohibit marriages between adults and children. You MAGAts are some dumb mother fuckers. :laugh:
Project a little harder, bingo.
 
The former Kentucky clerk who refused to grant a gay couple a marriage license must pay an additional $260,104 to the couple, a federal judge ruled last week.


David Ermold and David Moore sued former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in 2015 after she declined to issue the couple a marriage license because doing so would violate “God’s definition of marriage” and her religious beliefs as a Christian.

The additional fees Davis must pay are on top of the $100,000 in damages she was ordered to pay Ermold and Moore in September after losing the lawsuit the couple brought.
have you decided what you are going to do with your half of the money ?
 
Are you illiterate? I said the constitution let's us discriminate based on age, therefore we have every legal right to prohibit marriages between adults and children. You MAGAts are some dumb mother fuckers. :laugh:
Which won't last for long considering that you freaks approve of all sexual perversion. Kiddie diddlers will get their special rights just as fudgepackers, bull dykes, and shemales all did.
 
The former Kentucky clerk who refused to grant a gay couple a marriage license must pay an additional $260,104 to the couple, a federal judge ruled last week.


David Ermold and David Moore sued former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in 2015 after she declined to issue the couple a marriage license because doing so would violate “God’s definition of marriage” and her religious beliefs as a Christian.

The additional fees Davis must pay are on top of the $100,000 in damages she was ordered to pay Ermold and Moore in September after losing the lawsuit the couple brought.
This is religious persecution. This abuse would have been unacceptable a few short years ago. This judge needs to do time and pay her a quarter million
 

Before Fame​

She was the chief deputy clerk of Rowan County from 1991 to 2015. She was a member of the Democratic party from 1983 to 2015, switching allegiances in 2015
 
I don't know how she did it, but she's worth 57 MILLION. God bless her!

 
Which won't last for long considering that you freaks approve of all sexual perversion. Kiddie diddlers will get their special rights just as fudgepackers, bull dykes, and shemales all did.
Slippery slopes aren't rational arguments for a reason, Dumb Dumb. Why don't you try one?
 
I don't think gays should be allowed to be married. But, if you can't do your job because personal religious or moral code then you shouldn't be doing that job. It wasn't her position to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, her job is just to process them.

Part of me doesn't think she should have to pay anything. She didn't harm anyone, steal from anyone, or cause anyone a loss of anything. It isn't as if she is the only clerk in the world, they can easily just have someone else do it. She should have been fired, but that'all I think.
 
If she had been fired I could accept that

But the punishment is excessive and politically driven
You and I were not on the jury, and with the common large judgements we have seen in the last 20 years, it is not surprising. It could be reduce on appeal, but would still be a very large amount.

Support Tort Reform.
 

Forum List

Back
Top