Lawsuit Against Kim Davis Dismissed: Victory For Religious Passive Refusal

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[mdk]

Regardless of how much you spin this as a victory, clerks in KY can't refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Silhouette]

Regardless of how much you spin this as a victory, clerks in KY can't refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. Too bad, so sad.

We'll get a status update on that after the Browns take their case for polygamy to the US Supreme Court. Sotomayor is going to review their pleadings after September 10, 2016...in just a few weeks. As I've said numerous times, if the Browns incorporate Kody's polyamory-orientation and the Brown happily-consenting wives and he call their situation an "intimate choice" and lifestyle, either polygamists have to be allowed to marry or Obergefell is in deep doo doo.

 

[mdk]

Regardless of how much you spin this as a victory, clerks in KY can't refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. Too bad, so sad.

We'll get a status update on that after the Browns take their case for polygamy to the US Supreme Court. Sotomayor is going to review their pleadings after September 10, 2016...in just a few weeks.

Which will have nothing to do with clerks in KY not being able to deny marriage licenses on the basis of their religious beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

^ Time will tell.

 

[mdk]

As I've said numerous times, if the Browns incorporate Kody's polyamory-orientation and the Brown happily-consenting wives and he call their situation an "intimate choice" and lifestyle, either polygamists have to be allowed to marry or Obergefell is in deep doo doo.

Jonathan Turley has to cite actual precedent before the court. Don't be shocked when he doesn't present any of your ramblings when he makes his case. I know I won't.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ We'll see if he changes his mind and adds sexual orientation to the lifestyle arguments he is currently making. He has a couple weeks to revise his draft.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Victory for refusing to do your job as demanded by THE LAW?

Republicans are lost in the desert. Your religion does not Trump the law or someone's individual rights.

I get faggots are ill. They need psychiatric help. Biological corrections. But at the end of the day US law is their earthly judge not your religion.

 

[Pete7469]

Fucks given about queer issues...

That would be NONE. The country is bankrupt, our national prestige is a joke. So much so Putin is in the headlines trying to broker peace between the muzbots and yids while China is telling the world courts to fuck themselves and doing whatever they want in the SW Pacific. NK has NUKES thanks to the Klinton regime, Iran will have them soon thanks to the meat puppet faggot and a cult worse than Al-Queda actually has territory and taxes people in the ME.

Worry about queers?

I ain't gonna.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ desperate for the topic to go away. Needs distractions to get that done. Uses BIG BRIGHT COLORFUL PICTURES and BOLD BLUE TEXT to draw the eye away from the focus...

Victory for refusing to do your job as demanded by THE LAW?

Republicans are lost in the desert. Your religion does not Trump the law or someone's individual rights.

I get faggots are ill. They need psychiatric help. Biological corrections. But at the end of the day US law is their earthly judge not your religion.

As it turns out, Obergefell may not be legal. Refer to the OP for details; and don't forget to read up on all 5 cases. Not all are strictly about religion or religious objections. And here's another for why Obergefell isn't legal: Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

^^ desperate for the topic to go away. Needs distractions to get that done. Uses BIG BRIGHT COLORFUL PICTURES and BOLD BLUE TEXT to draw the eye away from the focus...

Victory for refusing to do your job as demanded by THE LAW?

Republicans are lost in the desert. Your religion does not Trump the law or someone's individual rights.

I get faggots are ill. They need psychiatric help. Biological corrections. But at the end of the day US law is their earthly judge not your religion.

As it turns out, Obergefell may not be legal. Refer to the OP for details; and don't forget to read up on all 5 cases. Not all are strictly about religion or religious objections. And here's another for why Obergefell isn't legal: Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

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.....

 

[Silhouette]

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Again, I don't care. Being In the minority, if I am, does not make my opinion any less relevant than yours. What Trump's BOTH our opinions is the law.

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Again, I don't care. Being In the minority, if I am, does not make my opinion any less relevant than yours. What Trump's BOTH our opinions is the law.

Some people are disturbed at this new trend of finding "rights" in the Constitution that don't exist. Soon, we'll be able to make the Constitution say anything as long as enterprising lawyers can make an argument. Eventually, this alarming trend WILL affect you.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Again, I don't care. Being In the minority, if I am, does not make my opinion any less relevant than yours. What Trump's BOTH our opinions is the law.

Some people are disturbed at this new trend of finding "rights" in the Constitution that don't exist. Soon, we'll be able to make the Constitution say anything as long as enterprising lawyers can make an argument. Eventually, this alarming trend WILL affect you.

^^ Correct. Plus a Christian passively refusing to promote a lifestyle/behavior their faith says is an abomination isn't hurting homosexuals at all. I can't be a Bulimic-American and because of my habitual eating-orientation, legally force all restaurants to carry vomit urns on their tables. Likewise, a Gay-American can't force a Christian to bake them a wedding cake because of their habitual sex-orientation.

Behavior does not equal a static class like race. I keep bringing this up and it a key point in the legal arguments. (And finally FINALLY Hively v Ivy Tech, 7th Circuit 2016 agreed with me; and also apparently the judge on the 12 states vs Obama Administration did too)

Carefully consider this point saintmichaeldefendthem brought up: Improper premise + time = mayhem and pain eventually reaching your doorstep. Think about this. If a behavior that the majority finds repugnant/objectionable/wrong or otherwise offensive in a democracy gains "special protections from majority regulation" and they do so citing the 14th Amendment, then what other behavior the majority finds repugnant/objectionable/wrong or otherwise offensive cannot use that precedent to escape regulation? Answer: with a good lawyer, none.

Behaviors are regulated at the state level.

 

[easyt65]

Republicans are lost in the desert. Your religion does not Trump the law or someone's individual rights.

Please cite the specific quote in the Constitution that protects marriage and/or give the federal government the authority to regulate it.

 

[mdk]

Behavior does not equal a static class like race. I keep bringing this up and it a key point in the legal arguments. (And finally FINALLY Hively v Ivy Tech, 7th Circuit 2016 agreed with me; and also apparently the judge on the 12 states vs Obama Administration did too)

Hively v. Ivy Tech states the word sex in The Civil Rights Act does not include sexual orientation. A ruling I agree with b/c it doesn't. You pretending the actual ruling agrees with your nonsense about 'static classes' is just another comforting lie you tell yourself. What you use to comfort yourself from reality doesn't have any actual bearing on reality.

 

[Silhouette]

Well surely you can see if the civil rights act doesn't apply, it doesn't apply...