Stand with Kim Davis

Free Kim Davis

I found this Yahoo! News article smearing Kim Davis, and wanted to “answer the bias”! I’ll present their exact text, and break down why I think it’s so out of harmony with reality and common sense. Here’s the address, unless it gets taken down: My text comments will be in red. 🙂

No, Kim Davis, You Can’t Beg for Money on GoFundMe

While Kentucky clerk Kim Davis sits in jail for being in contempt of court after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, her lawyers are hard at work trying to clean up her mess ✫ Stop right there. Why is it “her mess”? More like, “the Supreme Court’s mess,” because SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be writing laws FOR THIS VERY REASON – it leads to sticky situations where people get thrown in jail instead of knowing how to resolve difficulties. ✫ and the judge is in a bind when it comes to hitting her where it hurts.

DailyKos reported that “Plaintiffs in the case had asked [District Court Judge David] Bunning to fine Davis, but they specifically requested that he not jail her. Bunning, though, said fines would not work because others might raise money to pay the penalty on her behalf.” Well, thanks to a pair of homophobic bakers, they won’t be able to do it on GoFundMe. ✫ Okay, “homophobic” has nothing to do with making a logical point, but is merely a SMEAR to make people feel emotional hate towards the person. In fact, I got a chance to meet Aaron Klein, and to see Melissa Klein in person, at the Iowa Religious Liberty Rally on August 21 of this year, and Melissa is a sweet person who has worked very hard at her business and was plainly hurt emotionally by the ruling against her. She spoke of how many things she would do for gays because she loved them, but she could not violate her conscience. Yes, Yahoo, there is such a thing called a “conscience,” and #ConscienceMatters to a lot of folks. That’s what the 1st Amendment is all about, is making sure government doesn’t step in and force people of any faith to do things that they don’t feel comfortable about. ✫

According to, the crowdsourcing service nixed a fundraising campaign for Sweet Cakes by Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein earlier this year. They were fined $135,000 for refusing to go through with a wedding cake request ✫ Isn’t it INSANE that Aaron and Melissa were asked to pay such an astronomical amount for “emotional harm” done to the gay couple? What if I asked for $2 million in emotional damages from the actions of Obama and extreme Democrats in charge in America? Let’s get real, and stop the outlandish fines. If a gay couple is so unstable as to need $100K+ just because someone didn’t want to participate in celebrating their actions, then perhaps they should consider becoming straight. At the very least, it sure ins’t convincing that they were “born that way” when they are so easily discombobulated. ✫ for a gay couple. In a statement, GoFundMe explained:

“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions. The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal. The subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

Steve Deace Aaron and Melissa Klein Barronelle Stutsman Blaine Adamson Phillip Monk and Kelvin Cochran
Steve Deace, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Barronelle Stutsman, Blaine Adamson, Phillip Monk, and Kelvin Cochran

Later on, its policy was changed to explicitly say that “GoFundMe will not allow campaigns that benefit individuals or groups facing formal charges or claims of serious violations of the law.” In order words, Kim Davis is out of luck. ✫ And here we go again. “Out of luck” is a rather poor choice of words. Was it lucky for SCOTUS to rule against the will of the people of America and try to establish law, when they’re only supposed to be rendering OPINION? Was is lucky for her to be put in a position where she might lose her job? Was it “lucky” for her to be thrown into prison? “Out of luck” is a poor choice of words, Yahoo. You can do better. ✫

However, she does have supporters in other anti-gay crusaders like Mike Huckabee, ✫ Not so fast, Yahoo. Once again, you’re using a loaded term by saying “anti-gay.” We could just as well call the pro-choice crowd “anti-life” if we wanted to, but we generally use the term “pro-choice” to show a bit of civility. When you use a term like “anti-gay,” it makes it sound like Mike has animosity against gays, which is not the point at all. The point is, Mike believes every American should retain his or her 1st Amendment rights, and should not be threatened with jail for violating their conscience – quite a different matter than being “anti-gay.” ✫ who is planning an “#ImWithKim Liberty Rally” on Tuesday. ✫ God bless him for doing it! That’s awesome that he’s holding a rally to defend Kim from being stupidly thrown into prison! Why don’t you like him holding the rally? Are you a #Hater, Yahoo? Apparently so. ✫ The National Organization for Marriage also stepped in, calling for “a massive mobilization of the grassroots and a ferocious public relations and advertising campaign.” They invite you to help raise $100,000 for the struggling clerk (who makes $80,000 per year) by Labor Day. ✫ Ah, but Yahoo, you were glad the gay couple got $100K+ in emotional damages awarded to them for simply being refused a cake at one store. Wow, it might have cost them an extra hour or two at the worst, and if they REALLY BELIEVE gay marriage is morally right, they SHOULDN’T HAVE any emotional damages when a person like Melissa Klein respectfully and lovingly declines to do their request. Now, Kim Davis DOES have a right to some SERIOUS emotional damage compensation. She’s been thrown in jail, her name tarnished, her job possibly ended, and people have expressed violence towards her. To be consistent, if the gay couple got $135K awarded for them, Kim Davis ought to be awarded something like $1 Billion dollars, because she’s probably been through about 1,000 times as much trouble as the gay couple in Oregon was put through for having one store not bake them a cake. ✫

Yeah, good luck with that. ✫ Snarky, Yahoo. Hope you can get over your hate, and bury the hatchet. At the very least, if you had any respect, you’d support the effort to free Kim Davis. #FreeKimDavis! ✫

3 thoughts on “Free Kim Davis”

  1. A response to your points:

    First, the meme at the top. Intolerance of intolerance, isn’t intolerance. Nobody ripped her job away, she refused to do it, and refused to step down.

    This is her mess, because she created it. SCOTUS is not responsible for ensuring that their rulings comply with Kim Davis’s personal beliefs. They are responsible for upholding the constitution, and they did, when they found bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. To deny homosexuals equal access to legal marriage, is discriminatory, and an imposition of religious beliefs. Gays get the same rights as you. Play nice.

    Possible counter arguments (just in case you’re tempted to make them):

    But homosexuality is unnatural – Well, it’s been observed in animals, so it kind of isn’t. On top of that, to live in the modern world and be discussing this over the internet, it’s ironic and extremely selective to decry homosexuality as unnatural.

    Marriage had always been one man, one woman – No, it actually hasn’t. I’d explain it to you myself, but there’s a Cracked article I know of that can do it for me. Scroll down to point number 1. It’s helpfully titled “Gay Marriage Has Always Existed”.

    But gay people can’t procreate – What the $%^# do you care? (I’ll answer that for you. You care because you hate gay marriage, and you really, really reeeeeeaaallly want to rationalize it with a legitimate excuse. To bad there aren’t any.) Infertile heterosexual couples can get married. Clearly, the criteria is not, “must be able to procreate”. No, it is, “In love and intending to remain committed to each other for the rest of their lives.” and homosexuals are every bit as capable of that as heterosexuals are.

    Kim Davis, meanwhile, is responsible for doing her job in accordance with the law, and that includes ignoring a law that has been determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If her religious beliefs are so deeply held that they prevent her from doing her job in accordance with the law, she is responsible for calmly and maturely stepping down upon concluding that she is unfit to perform her job. (And I’ll pause here for a moment to state that I highly doubt her religious convictions are that strong. I think she decided she had a problem with gay marriage specifically. But that’s just my opinion.) And in fact, she should have never taken her position if she has resolved to uphold “God’s law” over America’s laws. Because America is not a theocracy. You do realize that if a muslim had pulled a similar stunt, the same people who support Kim Davis would be decrying it as an attempt to establish Sharia Law, right? And they’d be right. By declaring her intent to operate in her capacity as county clerk according to her god’s law rather than America’s laws, Kim Davis effectively tried to establish herself as a religious dictator. Albeit one with laughably limited power and influence, but a dictator nonetheless. She is not allowed to do that.

    I really can’t argue with you, about that fine (I’ll assume it’s accurate, I don’t feel like looking it up.) I actually agree, “You hurt my feelings, pay me enough for a freaking house.” is absurd. But on the matter itself, refusing to serve gay individuals or couples, is downright childish. As crazy as it is to claim that gay couple needed $125,000 for emotional harm, I find it equally ridiculous to claim that making a cake that will be used in a gay wedding makes one complicit to it. Don’t open a business and serve the public if you aren’t prepared to serve all of the public. Regardless, I don’t intend to spend a lot of time on this matter, as we’re discussing Kim Davis.

    I don’t believe SCOTUS did rule against the “will of the people”, as gay marriage is supported by the majority of Americans. Oh, wait. Nevermind. It actually doesn’t matter, because the matter of equal rights is not up to “the people” to decide. I thought we learned that during the Civil Rights Movement. Do we really have to review it again? And Kim Davis was not put in a position where she might lose her job, she put herself in a position where she might lose her job.

    Well, if you’re opposed to legalizing gay marriage, you are anti-gay, and homophobic, as you intend to extend your “freedom of religion” far enough to violate the freedom of homosexuals to not follow your religion. So I find both terms to be quite appropriate. Every American’s first amendment rights apply to their own personal lives. Kim Davis went way, way beyond her first amedment rights when she used her position to impose her religious beliefs on homosexuals who have every legal right to a marriage license. She violated their rights, not the other way around.

    Kim Davis brought any emotional damage she suffers on herself. She is unequivocally in the wrong. But for the record, 1,000 times 125,000 is 125 million, not 1 billion.

    All of that said, I don’t think jailing her was the best solution. It’s what the law prescribed, but I’m against jailing anyone who does not pose an immediate threat to others. There should really be procedures in place to simply fire anyone who does what she did.

    I’m aware that she was released. I heard she is going to continue interfering with her employees’ attempts to issue marriage licenses. So, we’ll see. But she is way, way out of line. She not only refused to do her job, she prevented her employees from doing theirs. (No problem making them follow her religious beliefs too, right? Is their freedom of religion not important?)

    1. Well, I’m glad at least you agree she shouldn’t have been jailed. That’s what I found to be an outrage. Hopefully they can work out some kind of thing that will allow her to not violate her conscience. Of course I was not happy with the SCOTUS ruling, as I felt it overstepped the bounds and was a political decision, but at the very least, it’s good that Kim Davis is not going to be kept in jail. If she was, there’d be all kinds of inconsistencies arising on the Democratic side where people don’t do the law, not out of conscience, but out of political agenda, and aren’t put into prison. Thanks for your input!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *