It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kim Davis/Huckabee may be sued using eye of the tiger.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   



She and Huckerbee used eye of the tiger without contacting the owners to the music and Jim Peterik who co wrote the song (awesome tune btw) said this..

“I was very surprised and dismayed at the misuse of the song I co-wrote with Frankie Sullivan for 'Rocky lll'. The song has motivated thousands through the years to reach beyond their limits. Its use for the release of Kim Davis does not support my views or my politics. I have contacted my publishers to make sure this usage is stopped immediately.”


So keep it up Kim keep on using your religion to deny people their rights and use this song again and you will be sued.
Lets see how much you make from this self styled martyrdom or just do the right thing and quit your position.

www.queerty.com...

metro.co.uk...


Lets hope the couples she denied their rights to also sue her also.




Playing it here for the people who were denied their rights she should have upheld.
edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74
You did know that song was not aired by her , right? Probably whoever organized that rally .Shame , shame.

:
edit on 9-9-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Shame? shame on her dude and the organizers for using that song and shame on her for denying people the right to get married.
Also shame on so called politicians who are supposed to uphold the law.
edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Let me ask you something would you agree with a country clerk refusing a marriage licence to a interracial couple because of the clerks religious beliefs?.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Actually, Huckabee is the one being sued by Survivor.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Added Huckerbee. Cheers.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

Shame? shame on her dude and the organizers for using that song and shame on her for denying people the right to get married.
Also shame on so called politicians who are supposed to uphold the law.

I agree on the topic on shame on those not upholding the law. You know religion is a protected class by Federal non-discrimination laws , right . You do know Christianity is a recognized religion , right ? You do know in a place of business of any class , private , state , or federal you HAVE to make accommodations for personal beliefs under this law , right ? The state REFUSED to make accommodations in a timely manner and thus she was sent to jail . Therefore the state , by not following federal non - discrimination laws is at fault .



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

Let me ask you something would you agree with a country clerk refusing a marriage licence to a interracial couple because of the clerks religious beliefs?.


That is not a religious belief I know of . But , hypothetically If the county clerk requested accommodations made per the anti - discrimination laws and the state broke said laws , yes.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
"Eye of the Tiger" has become a multi-purpose motivational song, so its use is not surprising but by having the tv cameras record it at the rally (the people organizing the rally had no control of who filmed it) broke the copyright law. When I saw the news item and heard the song I knew this was coming, and that the songwriters would not have allowed it if asked.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Same arguments were used in 1967.
www.law.virginia.edu...

I love it when I know more about the USA then someone who lives there....



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Survivor sued Newt Gingrich for using the song. In fact, there's a huge list of republicans using artist's songs without permission and getting sued. Easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

Same arguments were used in 1967.
www.law.virginia.edu...

I love it when I know more about the USA then someone who lives there....


What ? You give me information dated way before current Anti-Discrimination Laws ? pitiful . Try again



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1
Survivor sued Newt Gingrich for using the song. In fact, there's a huge list of republicans using artist's songs without permission and getting sued. Easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission?



Easier to expose the fact that Hollywood and the entertainment industry are solidly in the Democrat's hip pockets, actually.

As to the OP, I feel safe in saying that Survivor going after Davis personally over this will be a non-starter. This wasn't her campaigning or organizing her own presser... whoever organized it and invited her to speak will be the one on the hook here, not her.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74
I'm glad they took a stand for their own convictions. I think one of the most disgusting things about this whole mess is, Davis thinks she has someone like Huckleberry in her corner, and the truth is he could care less about her or her "religious freedoms". He cares about himself, and any opportunity to make himself look good.

ETA: To clarify. Huckleberry cares about her religious freedoms, about as much as she cares about other peoples constitutional rights
edit on 9/9/2015 by Klassified because: grammar

edit on 9/9/2015 by Klassified because: spelling



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog



You know religion is a protected class by Federal non-discrimination laws , right .

No one has stopped her from practicing her religion.


You do know in a place of business of any class , private , state , or federal you HAVE to make accommodations for personal beliefs under this law , right ?

Sorry but the government doesn't have to make it so one person can force others to live by her religion.


The state REFUSED to make accommodations in a timely manner and thus she was sent to jail .

They didn't have to make accommodations she however had ample time to either resign from her job or give out the marriage license. She chose to not do her job the she was elected to do that is why she went to jail.


Therefore the state , by not following federal non - discrimination laws is at fault .

Wrong the state wasn't at fault she was and she has two choices quit or do the job she was elected to do.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010
Pitiful counter points all . You do understand there are (and I say it again) FEDERAL Non - Discrimination Laws that covers certain groups even State employtees . And it applies to ALL protected groups . not just your choice....Sad....


edit on 9-9-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The fact that the song was played at all at her release from jail shows that this entire deal is just theater. Grandstanding at it's finest.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

Same arguments were used in 1967.
www.law.virginia.edu...

I love it when I know more about the USA then someone who lives there....


What ? You give me information dated way before current Anti-Discrimination Laws ? pitiful . Try again
You realize that this entire episode has occurred in the MODERN DAY, AFTER the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal, right?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: buster2010
Pitiful counter points all . You do understand there are (and I say it again) FEDERAL Non - Discrimination Laws that covers certain groups even State employtees . And it applies to ALL protected groups . not just your choice....Sad....



You have been spewing this same crap across multiple threads, what if it was a muslim refusing to issue women a driver's license, or a jewish USDA inspector refusing to certify hog farms, or a hindu inspector refusing to certify butcher shops?

These questions have been asked by others and myself multiple times, and no one spewing your line of crap will answer them, how about you?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

Same arguments were used in 1967.
www.law.virginia.edu...

I love it when I know more about the USA then someone who lives there....


What ? You give me information dated way before current Anti-Discrimination Laws ? pitiful . Try again


He gave it to you because the bigots used the same argument to argue against inter-racial marriage. The message is the same 40 years later, and the bigots are using the same arguments.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join