Lawsuit Against Kim Davis Dismissed: Victory For Religious Passive Refusal

[Skylar]

Obergefell wasn't a legal decision.

Yawning......of course it was.

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.

Ginsberg and Kagan displayed bias toward Windsor, which affirmed that an individual State can decide to extend same sex marriage protections to its citizens. Displaying bias to precedent is what a judge is *supposed* to do. Its the entire basis of stare decisis.

Caperton v Massey was a case about an elected judge that received campaign contributions from someone whose case he adjudicated. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither received any 'campaign contributions' or any other benefit from any party to the Obergefell decision. Nixing your latest round of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again.

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.

Obergefell wasn't even a trial. Making a 'mistrial' utterly impossible. You're just plucking legal terms out of the air because they sound official without the slightest understanding of anything you're discussing.

And you trying to sound 'lawyerish' doesn't have magically turn your imagination into law. Which might explain why your every legal prediction has been wrong. Every single legal prediction, every single time.

Your record of failure is perfect.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Oh, in Sil's imagination, Obergefell is about to collapse. Back in reality, there's nothing even remotely relevant to Obergefell that's happened. From Kim Davis to Hively to the recent court ruling.....none of them challenge Obergefell or any portion of its ruling.

Sil is just self soothing with rambling pseudo-legal theories that ignore the actual case law......since reality makes her uncomfortable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning issued orders Thursday dismissing the lawsuit brought by two gay couples and two straight couples against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. News from The Associated Press

Three blows in one Summer to the LGBT Legal machine:

1. Hively v Ivy Tech: the 7th circuit court of appeals found that homosexuals are not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, No. 3:2014cv01791 - Document 14 (N.D. Ind. 2015) This crucial decision turned the premise of all LGBT litigation on its head. What it effectively concluded was that static classes like race or gender do not equal waffling classes like behaviors.

2. This case citing Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a right to passively refuse based on faith-based objections): New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

3. The dismissal of the case against Kim Davis above. "Davis' attorney Mat Staver declared victory, calling it a win for everyone who wants to remain true to their religious beliefs." (from the OP link)

Edit: Make that 4 blows:

4. VICTORY! Federal court blocks Obama’s transgender bathroom order

Oh, and potentially a 5th blow; time will tell:

5. Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll Polyamory lifestyles (polygamists) carve the precedent towards marriage. This case could be legal quicksand for Obergefell (USSC 2015)..the famous gay marriage case last Summer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obergefell wasn't a legal decision.

Huh? Did you actually just post that?

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell wasn't a legal decision.

Huh? Did you actually just post that?

Oh, that's the barest tip of the pseudo-legal iceberg.

See, the thing about Sil that helps you understand these absurd, rambling, conspiracy theories is this: she's self soothing. She is literally her own audience. The purpose of repeating these incoherent pseudo-legal manifestos against gay people....is to make herself feel better as reality makes her uncomfortable.

Its classic cognitive dissonance....and her posts soothe it.

So there really is no filter on the hapless bullshit she'll post. As the person she's lying to....is herself. And these hundred threads....are her Binky.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well it's notable that it only took five words of one of Sil's posts to make this headache of mine worse.

 

[Skylar]

Well, it's notable that it only took five words of one of Sil's posts to make this headache of mine worse.

It only hurts if you try and square it with reality. Just place in the context it was offered: repeated over and over in a dark room as Sil rocks back and forth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just place in the context it was offered: repeated over and over in a dark room as Sil rocks back and forth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Edit: Make that 4 blows:

Ahh, and I know what else blows.

But this is a family forum, and family forums have rules. So if you'll pardon me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It only hurts if you try and square it with reality.

You can't square reality, unless you're a quantum physicist.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Correct. As you know, I'm opposed to gay marriage. Going to allude that isn't true also?...lol.. And, we both know that polygamy claiming the limelight is going to dismantle Obergefell; or it will force polygamy on the 50 states in less than 5 years after Obergefell. In either event the villagers aren't going to continue to sit on their hands about it.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Correct. As you know, I'm opposed to gay marriage.

Yet you've actively ignored the Obergefell ruling and its findings. With block posts *against* Obergefell, just chock with all sorts of rambling pseudo-legal gibberish.

Because you oppose gay marriage.

Yet you offer us equally elaborate loads of pseudo-legal gibberish in defense of polygamy. You even made up a sexual orientation that doesn't actually exist and ignored Brown, the man in the lawsuit.....replacing his legal arguments with your own, insisting he should follow yours if he wants to win.

Because you oppose polygamy?

I don't think 'oppose' means what you think it means. You're treating the word a lot like the Hawaiians do 'Aloha'.

 

[Silhouette]

Offer a substantive rebuttal. Use links and quotes to back up your points Skylar. You are at grave risk of not being taken seriously anymore. It's not enough anymore to chant "pseudo-legal gibberish" in every single one of your posts and have that substitute for substance. Rebut my points with substance or get out of the conversation.

 

[Skylar]

Offer a substantive rebuttal. Use links and quotes to back up your points Skylar. You are at grave risk of not being taken seriously anymore. It's not enough anymore to chant "pseudo-legal gibberish" in every single one of your posts and have that substitute for substance. Rebut my points with substance or get out of the conversation.

Already done. You've argued in favor of polygamy for months. That's not opposing polygamy.

Feverishly arguing for something is not opposing it. You are the board's single greatest advocate for polygamy. You even made up a sexual orientation that doesn't exist outside your imagination.

That's not opposition.

 

[Silhouette]

Already done. You've argued in favor of polygamy for months. That's not opposing polygamy.

Feverishly arguing for something is not opposing it. You are the board's single greatest advocate for polygamy. You even made up a sexual orientation that doesn't exist outside your imagination.

That's not opposition.

Apparently you're not familiar with the words "didactic device". While at the same time I'm not in favor of it, I'm using the pro-polygamy argument as a didactic device to illustrate the flaws in the "legal logic" of Obergefell. Lawyers do this all the time. I know you know this. You're just pretending to not know it. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I just used that example as a didactic device to get you to admit that you're a snaky, fundamentally dishonest, duplicitous troll.

 

[Skylar]

Already done. You've argued in favor of polygamy for months. That's not opposing polygamy.

Feverishly arguing for something is not opposing it. You are the board's single greatest advocate for polygamy. You even made up a sexual orientation that doesn't exist outside your imagination.

That's not opposition.

Apparently you're not familiar with the words "didactic device".

I'm familiar with you openly and repeatedly advocating the legalization of polygamy in a litany of long, rambling pseudo-legal rants.

Even when your arguments had no connection to reality or the law, you'd make the up. You invented a sexual orientation that didn't exist. You imagined passages in Obergefell advocating polygamy, despite no mention whatsoever. You even invented so Olympic level psuedo-legal theatrics by insisting that children were married to their parents.

There is simply no greater advocate for polyamy on our board....than you

While at the same time I'm not in favor of it, I'm using the pro-polygamy argument as a didactic device to illustrate the flaws in the "legal logic" of Obergefell.

Oh, no. You're making shit up in defense of polygamy. For example...that polyamory is a 'sexual orientation'. The Obergefell ruling certainly doesn't say this. Nor does any court.

That's just you....desperately scrambling to find something, anything, in support of polygamy.

No thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Yep- it only took us challenging you for a couple years before you actually admitted that you are opposed to poly marriage.

You are against poly marriage.

BUT you can't say why you are against poly marriage.

Because here is the thing- the ONLY reason you ever cite to be against 'gay' marriage- the bizarre infant doctrine- doesn't apply to polyamory marriages.

So why are you against poly marriage Silhouette- or will you dodge that question for the next two years again?

 

[Syriusly]

Offer a substantive rebuttal. Use links and quotes to back up your points Skylar. .

Says the delusional poster who told us that the "Gays" blackmailed the Pope to retire.....based upon.......what the voices in her head told her......

 

[Silhouette]

Offer a substantive rebuttal. Use links and quotes to back up your points Skylar. .

Says the delusional poster who told us that the "Gays" blackmailed the Pope to retire.....based upon.......what the voices in her head told her......

No, actually it was based on a news article from the UK. The Guardian I think if memory serves. Shall I repost it for you?

 

[Syriusly]

Offer a substantive rebuttal. Use links and quotes to back up your points Skylar. .

Says the delusional poster who told us that the "Gays" blackmailed the Pope to retire.....based upon.......what the voices in her head told her......

No, actually it was based on a news article from the UK. The Guardian I think if memory serves. Shall I repost it for you?

Is that what the voices in your head are telling you now?

LOL