How can divorce be enacted jokingly without the intention thereof, despite the legal principle being: "Consideration is given to intentions and meanings, not to words and structures"?

The hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah: "Three things, their seriousness is serious, and their jesting is serious: marriage, divorce, and revocation [of divorce]," has been deemed good by some scholars and weak by others. However, even with its weakness, its meaning is sound and acted upon by the Salaf, as scholars have unanimously agreed on the وقوع (occurrence) of a jester's divorce. This does not contradict the rule "Actions are by intentions," because the jester's divorce pertains to one who intended to utter the divorce and was aware of its meaning, and because the Lawgiver did not consider the jester's intention in His verses. This is indicated by Allah's prohibition of taking His verses in jest, and that jesting does not excuse its perpetrator in matters of disbelief and contracts; rather, he is more deserving of punishment. The jester uttered the statement voluntarily, so its ruling is binding upon him whether he intended it or not, because that is a right of Allah, and playing and jesting with Allah's rights is not permissible.