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

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

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?

Am I that difficult in reading? Have I stated at anytime what you posted? You , sir are an EPIC FAIL> I have not commented ONCE on the legality of same sex marriage , now have I ? And by the way , the term you used is offensive to some same sex marriage couples.....

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

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?

Am I that difficult in reading? Have I stated at anytime what you posted? You , sir are an EPIC FAIL> I have not commented ONCE on the legality of same sex marriage , now have I ? And by the way , the term you used is offensive to same sex marriage couples.....

Then at what stage is it difficult for you to understand that a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL cannot discriminate against a same-sex couple seeking to get married? For exactly the same reasons a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL cannot tell an interracial couple they can't get married? Both are protected from discrimination under the law.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

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.

I went to grammar school/high school with Colin Peterik (Jim's son). He is so pissed about the disgraceful use of the song, but I'm not really sure anything can be done about it.

My only question is, if she continues to obstruct the other people in her office from issuing marriage licenses then what song are they going to play as she is taken back to jail?

a reply to: Grimpachi

I suggest this.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You mean I have to go through this again ??? None , not one of my posts speaks of anything to do with what you are saying...NOTHING . It is about the Clerk that requested accommodations under the Federal Non-Discrimination act , and being one of the protected class of people , denied that and being FORCED into the position that she found herself in. I would be upholding this if she had been ANY of the protected classes. Gee , bow many folks out there either have no concern for law or choose to disregard it due to beliefs . Once more (and I hope you get this but something tells me you will not) she was forced into this by the state not granting her request in a timely fashion.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You mean I have to go through this again ??? None , not one of my posts speaks of anything to do with what you are saying...NOTHING . It is about the Clerk that requested accommodations under the Federal Non-Discrimination act , and being one of the protected class of people , denied that and being FORCED into the position that she found herself in. I would be upholding this if she had been ANY of the protected classes. Gee , bow many folks out there either have no concern for law or choose to disregard it due to beliefs . Once more (and I hope you get this but something tells me you will not) she was forced into this by the state not granting her request in a timely fashion.

There was nothing preventing her from resigning, once it became clear she would be required by law to marry same-sex couples. She CHOSE to deny rights to others, and disobey a court order, which landed her in jail. I cannot spell it out any plainer.

a reply to: Gothmog
Perhaps you should argue this point with the judge who said she broke the law.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Gothmog
Perhaps you should argue this point with the judge who said she broke the law.

Or perhaps he just needs to get over the fact that religious freedom does not trump the laws of the land.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You mean I have to go through this again ??? None , not one of my posts speaks of anything to do with what you are saying...NOTHING . It is about the Clerk that requested accommodations under the Federal Non-Discrimination act , and being one of the protected class of people , denied that and being FORCED into the position that she found herself in. I would be upholding this if she had been ANY of the protected classes. Gee , bow many folks out there either have no concern for law or choose to disregard it due to beliefs . Once more (and I hope you get this but something tells me you will not) she was forced into this by the state not granting her request in a timely fashion.

There was nothing preventing her from resigning, once it became clear she would be required by law to marry same-sex couples. She CHOSE to deny rights to others, and disobey a court order, which landed her in jail. I cannot spell it out any plainer.

Again. There was no need for resigning. She had Federal law on her side.....What is so difficult to understand that there is Federal Laws out there to protect from discrimination of any form . As we say Federal Law TRUMPS state law . The judge in this case could be actually construed as committing a "hate crime" under law.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You mean I have to go through this again ??? None , not one of my posts speaks of anything to do with what you are saying...NOTHING . It is about the Clerk that requested accommodations under the Federal Non-Discrimination act , and being one of the protected class of people , denied that and being FORCED into the position that she found herself in. I would be upholding this if she had been ANY of the protected classes. Gee , bow many folks out there either have no concern for law or choose to disregard it due to beliefs . Once more (and I hope you get this but something tells me you will not) she was forced into this by the state not granting her request in a timely fashion.

There was nothing preventing her from resigning, once it became clear she would be required by law to marry same-sex couples. She CHOSE to deny rights to others, and disobey a court order, which landed her in jail. I cannot spell it out any plainer.

Again. There was no need for resigning. She had Federal law on her side.....

Apparently she didn't, did she?

a reply to: boymonkey74

Hey that's pretty good.

How about this?

No , I would file civil lawsuit against the state and potentially win a fortune.
Of course though , I am not a forgiving Christian

a reply to: Gothmog

A civil suit from the people she denied their rights too will soon take that money away.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

A civil suit from the people she denied their rights too will soon take that money away.

Uhh no. Again , FEDERAL LAW trumps state law ( I know , but the upper case/lower case was on purpose for some that dont understand for some reason) Yes the protected groups apply to all,not just the ones you pick and choose.

And I just realized how off topic this has became.Plus I am very tired of explaining the laws that guide in these situations....to folks that dont understand .

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

A civil suit from the people she denied their rights too will soon take that money away.

Uhh no. Again , FEDERAL LAW trumps state law ( I know , but the upper case/lower case was on purpose for some that dont understand for some reason) Yes the protected groups apply to all,not just the ones you pick and choose.

And I just realized how off topic this has became.Plus I am very tired of explaining the laws that guide in these situations....to folks that dont understand .

Maybe instead of being vague about it, you should explain exactly why she should be allowed to deny others their rights?

a reply to: Gothmog

I'm afraid you don't understand the law if you are saying the judge was wrong.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

A civil suit from the people she denied their rights too will soon take that money away.

Uhh no. Again , FEDERAL LAW trumps state law ( I know , but the upper case/lower case was on purpose for some that dont understand for some reason) Yes the protected groups apply to all,not just the ones you pick and choose.

And I just realized how off topic this has became.Plus I am very tired of explaining the laws that guide in these situations....to folks that dont understand .

Maybe instead of being vague about it, you should explain exactly why she should be allowed to deny others their rights?

Ok . I am not going over this again...this is what , the 4th time for you ? I will go a step further (or 2)
1) she was denied her rights under Federal Law that would have prevented this . Now , after all this the state has realized they messed up and are now making accommodations.
2) Not only did they violate federal law , but this could go to court as a "hostile work environment charge" under that same federal law.

a reply to: Gothmog

Or "they" can impeach her for failing to execute her duties.

Have a simple question for you. please answer succinctly.

Was she employed to be a Christian or was she employed as a sworn clerk that upholds the law?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gothmog

A civil suit from the people she denied their rights too will soon take that money away.

Uhh no. Again , FEDERAL LAW trumps state law ( I know , but the upper case/lower case was on purpose for some that dont understand for some reason) Yes the protected groups apply to all,not just the ones you pick and choose.

And I just realized how off topic this has became.Plus I am very tired of explaining the laws that guide in these situations....to folks that dont understand .

Maybe instead of being vague about it, you should explain exactly why she should be allowed to deny others their rights?

Ok . I am not going over this again...this is what , the 4th time for you ? I will go a step further (or 2)
1) she was denied her rights under Federal Law that would have prevented this . Now , after all this the state has realized they messed up and are now making accommodations.
2) Not only did they violate federal law , but this could go to court as a "hostile work environment charge" under that same federal law.

What rights were violated?