Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
I’m not really sure what you mean here.
In this case we have a woman claiming to have “deeply held religious beliefs” about marriage when it comes to preventing other people from getting married while at the same time having several divorces under her belt. Her actions dont mimic her beliefs when it comes to her own life so they can’t be deeply held beliefs. These beliefs only seem to matter when she has no skin in the game by applying them to other people’s lives.
This is no different than one of those anti-gay politicians who gets caught blowing dudes in a public restroom. They aren’t really their deeply held beliefs they’re just lies to give cover to their bigotry as I mentioned previously.
Hypocrisy doesn’t mean one doesn’t believe what they believe. People compartmentalize. They carve out exceptions and make excuses. We’re pretty judgey about others while accepting our own flaws.
And this is not limited to religion.
Sure, I don’t disagree with any of this but I do take issue with these people claiming these are “deeply held religious beliefs” because they’re nothing of the sort.
If you define marriage as a deeply held religious belief when you’ve been married four separate times and divorced three times, then what couldn’t be considered a deeply held belief? By what metric can someone define these as deeply held beliefs? The proof is in the pudding after all, and this woman has demonstrated on multiple occasions that she doesn’t honor the very beliefs she claims to hold sacred. It’s magically only a “deeply held belief” when she can weaponize it against others.
My issue is with how this argument is framed as if its an affront to her religious freedom when she doesn’t even hold herself to the same standard that she expects from complete strangers.