Lawsuit Against Kim Davis Dismissed: Victory For Religious Passive Refusal

[Silhouette]

She didn't win anything. The suits were dismissed because she lost.

No, the plaintiffs were trying to sue her for some emotional harm or some shit like that, despite the compromise KY made saying clerks' signatures do not have to appear on marriage licenses.

THOSE causes of action were dismissed. But nice of you to mislead with misinformation if you can spin it to look like a victory for your side. You might want to check the OP for the list of other "victories" for the LGBT cult recently in the courts... How will you spin those?

 

[Silhouette]

I just don't care enough to bother. Some queer getting hitched has 0 impact on my life. We have real problems in this world & this ain't one of them......unless you're a Muslim.....

Actually, you couldn't find a more visceral issue than the total destruction of the nuclear family that was once taken for granted for thousands of years until just now.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. Odd, that. It's not like the 24/7 news stations aren't hungry for new material to blab about all day and night. It seems with Obergefell, they'd be hopping on this story. But...nothing... I'm sure that's because they feel that "it's just not important enough to talk about"... mm hmm....

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. ...

Why do you think this is an 'important civil rights struggle'- when you actually oppose it?

 

[mdk]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. Odd, that. It's not like the 24/7 news stations aren't hungry for new material to blab about all day and night. It seems with Obergefell, they'd be hopping on this story. But...nothing... I'm sure that's because they feel that "it's just not important enough to talk about"... mm hmm....

It isn't the most important issue. Most people are concerned with the economy and terrorism this election.

Shouldn't you be thrilled they are pushing for religious freedoms in this nation? Oh, wait...you only care about religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Remember, using your own standards, you can't support their religious freedoms without supporting those of the Brown family.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. Odd, that. It's not like the 24/7 news stations aren't hungry for new material to blab about all day and night. It seems with Obergefell, they'd be hopping on this story. But...nothing... I'm sure that's because they feel that "it's just not important enough to talk about"... mm hmm....

It isn't the most important issue. Most people are concerned with the economy and terrorism this election.

Shouldn't you be thrilled they are pushing for religious freedoms in this nation? Oh, wait...you only care about religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Remember, using your own standards, you can't support their religious freedoms without supporting those of the Brown family.

The only time Sil gives a shit about religious freedoms if is they let her hurt gay people.

If not, she has nothing but contempt for them. She even ignored Brown's own religious freedom argument in his polygamy case.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. ...

Why do you think this is an 'important civil rights struggle'- when you actually oppose it?

The reason I put it in " " was to show I personally don't consider it so. I'm saying YOUR ILK considers it so; and your ilk slathered the gay marriage issue over the MSM night and day. Then, when polygamy wants its day in court it's..... *silence*......... *crickets* And I point that out because whats his name said that the marriage equality issue is a dead issue. Then why fear publicizing it? Even as a passing comment? Surely polygamists being able to marry is newsworthy for even a mere mention?

Yet.... *nothing* And that *nothing* is speaking louder than words.

 

[mdk]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. ...

Why do you think this is an 'important civil rights struggle'- when you actually oppose it?

The reason I put it in " " was to show I personally don't consider it so. I'm saying YOUR ILK considers it so; and your ilk slathered the gay marriage issue over the MSM night and day. Then, when polygamy wants its day in court it's..... *silence*......... *crickets* And I point that out because whats his name said that the marriage equality issue is a dead issue. Then why fear publicizing it? Even as a passing comment? Surely polygamists being able to marry is newsworthy for even a mere mention?

Yet.... *nothing* And that *nothing* is speaking louder than words.

No, dumb fuck. I said gay marriage is a dead issue. You can't force people to give as much a shit about gay marriage as you do. They are more worried about the economy and terrorism. Do you think someone that can't find a job biggestest concern is two homos getting hitched?

 

[Skylar]

^^ Some people do care. You are in a minority in that regard.

No, you're projecting again. Just b/c gay marriage is the most important issue in your world doesn't mean it is for the rest of us.

Then if it isn't, you would be thrilled to publicize the Browns case pushing for polygamy.

But, strangely, the MSM is giving "This important civil rights struggle" A COMPLETE PASS. ...

Why do you think this is an 'important civil rights struggle'- when you actually oppose it?

The reason I put it in " " was to show I personally don't consider it so. I'm saying YOUR ILK considers it so; and your ilk slathered the gay marriage issue over the MSM night and day. Then, when polygamy wants its day in court it's..... *silence*......... *crickets* And I point that out because whats his name said that the marriage equality issue is a dead issue. Then why fear publicizing it? Even as a passing comment? Surely polygamists being able to marry is newsworthy for even a mere mention?

Yet.... *nothing* And that *nothing* is speaking louder than words.

When have any of us ever argued for polygamy? The only one carrying water for polygamy is you.

YOu've even made up a sexual orientation as part of another squirt of pseudo-legal gibberish in defense of polygamy.

All while ignoring the arguments that Brown is actually making himself: that of religious freedom. Exactly as I said, the only time you give a shit about religious freedom is if it lets you hurt gay people.

 

[mdk]

When have any of us ever argued for polygamy? The only one carrying water for polygamy is you

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

 

[Skylar]

When have any of us ever argued for polygamy? The only one carrying water for polygamy is you

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

Well then you and Sil.

 

[mdk]

When have any of us ever argued for polygamy? The only one carrying water for polygamy is you

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

Well then you and Sil.

Not even. Sil is opposed to polygamous marriages. She is only hoping to use the case to end gays from getting married...somehow. lol

 

[Silhouette]

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

Well then you and Sil.

I've said numerous times that I'm opposed to polyamorous marriage. Numerous. Now just plain lying is all you have to offer.

Shocker. You are a shit troll. Trolling is all you know. Nothing is beneath you.

 

[mdk]

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

Well then you and Sil.

I've said numerous times that I'm opposed to polyamorous marriage. Numerous. Now just plain lying is all you have to offer.

Shocker. You are a shit troll. Trolling is all you know. Nothing is beneath you.

If you can't support gay marriage without polygamous marriage then you can't support the religious freedoms of Kim Davis without supporting the the religious freedoms of the Brown family. Hypocrite.

 

[Silhouette]

If you can't support gay marriage without polygamous marriage then you can't support the religious freedoms of Kim Davis without supporting the the religious freedoms of the Brown family. Hypocrite.

It doesn't matter what I do or don't support. The courts are bound by precedent. Kim Davis had a right to object to her name on a gay marriage license. And so, the court found that the plaintiffs in the separate civil suit against her had no case.

And, if homosexual marriage gets to marry because Obergefell said no state may deny a marriage license because of sexual orientation, then polysexuals get to marry also. You can't cite the 14th to support sexual-orientation only in one type of sexual orientation. Either the fed (the 14th) says all of them may marry or the states decide. There's no gray area.

 

[mdk]

If you can't support gay marriage without polygamous marriage then you can't support the religious freedoms of Kim Davis without supporting the the religious freedoms of the Brown family. Hypocrite.

It doesn't matter what I do or don't support. The courts are bound by precedent. Kim Davis had a right to object to her name on a gay marriage license. And so, the court found that the plaintiffs in the separate civil suit against her had no case.

And, if homosexual marriage gets to marry because Obergefell said no state may deny a marriage license because of sexual orientation, then polysexuals get to marry also. You can't cite the 14th to support sexual-orientation only in one type of sexual orientation. Either the fed (the 14th) says all of them may marry or the states decide. There's no gray area.

You have made quite a few posts about what I believe, but suddenly what you care about it doesn't matter. Another golden example of your own standards never applying to yourself. Delicious!

Davis wanted the ability for clerks to deny marriage licenses for gays based on her religious freedoms. Her crusade failed miserably. Spin it any way you wish, but she lost that battle.

The only gray area in all this is what's left of your mind. lol

 

[Silhouette]

No, actually she won her battle to not have her name on "gay marriage" licenses. And, when they still tried to punish her in a private lawsuit in civil court, that case was just dropped, dismissed. And you call my account of that a "spin" while you're spin that two strikes against legitimizing "gay marriage" is "a success" still stands "as truth"?

 

[mdk]

No, actually she won her battle to not have her name on "gay marriage" licenses. And, when they still tried to punish her in a private lawsuit in civil court, that case was just dropped, dismissed. And you call my account of that a "spin" while you're spin that two strikes against legitimizing "gay marriage" is "a success" still stands "as truth"?

If only that was her battle. Davis wanted to have clerks the ability to deny gay marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs. She lost.

What strikes against gay marriage? It's still legal and their isn't anything that Davis or you can do about it. I don't think victory means what you think it does.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell wasn't a legal decision. Two of the Justices sitting on it openly and publicly displayed bias in favor of one of the litigants months in advance of the Hearing. Capteron v Massey Coal (2009 USSC) concluded that no judge or juror may display bias towards one side of the litigants and still sit on the hearing of their trial.

It shits in the face of the American judicial system by saying a judge can conduct an interview on national TV saying in favor of one set of litigants "their case is something I feel its time has come for America", and then pretend to be impartial at the hearing. And as you know, that's what Justice Ginsburg did around January 2015...that is when she wasn't busy along with Kagan performing gay weddings as federal representatives of the highest court in the land with the case pending, publicly with huge smiles on their faces.

Even an amoeba would suspect bias in such a judge. And so, Obergefell was a mistrial. It is no more legal or enforceable than if I sat on its Hearing in the woods with a bunch of my friends in a kangaroo court.

 

[Skylar]

I have argued for polygamy. I think they deserve to have their marriages legal so long as everyone legally consents.

Well then you and Sil.

I've said numerous times that I'm opposed to polyamorous marriage. Numerous. Now just plain lying is all you have to offer.

Uh-huh. That's why you offer us dozens of block posts where you describe why polygamy is legal and should be protected by the courts. Even going so far as to make up a sexual orientation, pulled sideways out of your ass.

Because you *don't* support polygamy?

Shocker. You are a shit troll. Trolling is all you know. Nothing is beneath you.

Says the gal that insisted that gays 'delight' in giving women AIDS and making AIDS babies. Sorry, Jen......but the rough turn your life has taken lately doesn't justify your insane obsession with hurting gay people.