US Judge Selects Work based on Clients Race

[Papewaio]

US judge quits after refusing to marry inter-racial couple (http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-judge-quits-after-refusing-to-marry-interracial-couple-20091104-hvzw.html)


A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a couple because the bride was white and groom was black has resigned.

Keith Bardwell, who is white, quit the post with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."

Bardwell refused to perform the ceremony for Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay because they are of different races.

When questioned about his refusal, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely recuses himself from marrying inter-racial couples because he believes such marriages cause harm to the couples' children. In interviews, he said he refers such couples to other justices of the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.

Ok, if I a private worker in Australia refused to do a job for people based on their race I could get done for racial vilification. I'm not sure how bad it would go if I was a public servant refusing to do my job based on the race of the applicants (imagine the difficulties if Airport Immigration agents did such).

So what are the possible ramifications for his behaviour? Is it another case were if he resigns he cannot be charged for his choices in office?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Judges should be forced to resign when they turn 45.

[Major Robert Dump]

The only people who give mixed race kids a hard time are people like him. Maybe he's trying to absolve his guilt from picking on the colored kids by blaming it on their parents who should have known better.

If I were the couple, I would have refused to leave until married. Let him lock me up for contempt, that's just more money and more media attention for me when I sue the living crap out of him. What really makes me mad is that even though this is a rare situationb, it really gives a lot of ammo to those who like to say we have made NO progress in equality, etc.

They need to go back and review every case this guy ever tried involving minorities and mixed race couples.

[HoreTore]

Good riddance.

deleted by moderator

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Judges should be forced to resign when they turn 45.

45? We don't appoint judges that young, usually.

Anyway, the man is a racist. While i don't think he can really be prosecuted, he shouldn't have kept his job.

[Beskar]

Would he marry two black people?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would he marry two black people?

Yes. He recounts that he marries two black people regularly.

I believe that people should be able to recuse themselves for any reason whatsoever, unless they are doing it to avoid work. Personally I think inter-racial marriage is fine, but I'm not that offended that somebody doesn't agree. I think marrying people with whom you have the most in common is sensible, but I also see the benefits of marrying someone totally different.

Should ministers be forced to marry two people of the same gender if the State allows it? What some of you are suggesting is that they should have no basis to deny the action. Give people freedom of conscience, you thought police.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes. He recounts that he marries two black people regularly.

I believe that people should be able to recuse themselves for any reason whatsoever, unless they are doing it to avoid work. Personally I think inter-racial marriage is fine, but I'm not that offended that somebody doesn't agree. I think marrying people with whom you have the most in common is sensible, but I also see the benefits of marrying someone totally different.

Should ministers be forced to marry two people of the same gender if the State allows it? What some of you are suggesting is that they should have no basis to deny the action. Give people freedom of conscience, you thought police.

Ministers should be able to recuse themselves, but then again they don't judge criminal trials as well yes? And aren't public officials.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ministers should be able to recuse themselves, but then again they don't judge criminal trials as well yes? And aren't public officials.

I don't recall anyone accusing him of giving unfair judicial treatment to people based on race or refusing to hear cases between a white and a black man.

What is the difference between him recusing himself and a Priest recusing themselves for the performance of a marriage? They both have state licenses to perform marriages and recuse themselves in that capacity, right? I recognize that there is a distinction and that he can't deny them the ability to marry, but he should be able to direct them elsewhere.

Essentially what you are sayign is that those who work as public officials do not have freedom of conscience.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So this guy wasn't acting as a public official? I don't recall anyone accusing him of giving unfair judicial treatment to people based on race or refusing to hear cases between a white and a black man.

What is the difference between him recusing himself and a Priest recusing themselves for the performance of a marriage? They both have state licenses to perform marriages and recuse themselves in that capacity, right?

What's the difference between the president cheating on his wife and a regular man cheating on his wife? Public officials should be held to a higher standard. The state license is not the issue, it's his profession.

If someone won't perform an interracial marriage then the shouldn't judge an interracial court case. Whether or not you recall anyone accusing him of unfairness is inconsequential. That would require those instances to be publicly available, for you to have read them, and for you to remember them :juggle2:

And judges can make terrible decisions, like the guy who sentenced a 16 year old girl to life in prison for killing the man who raped her at 13 and worked her as a prostitute for 3 years (recent case). What if that judge made the decision out of racial prejudice?


Essentially what you are sayign is that those who work as public officials do not have freedom of conscience.


I don't object to him recusing himself, but rather to him judging court cases.

[el_slapper]

Hell, isn't the current POTUS a child of an interracial(even if short-lived) wedding? Some are really not awar of the era they're living in.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes. He recounts that he marries two black people regularly.

I believe that people should be able to recuse themselves for any reason whatsoever, unless they are doing it to avoid work. Personally I think inter-racial marriage is fine, but I'm not that offended that somebody doesn't agree. I think marrying people with whom you have the most in common is sensible, but I also see the benefits of marrying someone totally different.

Should ministers be forced to marry two people of the same gender if the State allows it? What some of you are suggesting is that they should have no basis to deny the action. Give people freedom of conscience, you thought police.

He exercised his freedom of conscience by resigning. If you cannot in good conscience perform the tasks you are being required to perform, you resign (or recuse yourself if the issue is transient). This was not a member of the clergy who, as a BYPRODUCT of their religious office, is called upon to perform a civil union as a concurrent process with a religious marriage. This was a public official asked to perform one of the functions of their office by two persons with a right to do so and who had/were willing to, pay all appropriate fees etc. If my state senator refuses to attend meetings at the statehouse and refuses to participate in legislative committee work, she shouldn't have the job. If she lacks the honor to resign, I will have no problem participating in the recall effort to remove her from office.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes. He recounts that he marries two black people regularly.

I believe that people should be able to recuse themselves for any reason whatsoever, unless they are doing it to avoid work. Personally I think inter-racial marriage is fine, but I'm not that offended that somebody doesn't agree. I think marrying people with whom you have the most in common is sensible, but I also see the benefits of marrying someone totally different.

Should ministers be forced to marry two people of the same gender if the State allows it? What some of you are suggesting is that they should have no basis to deny the action. Give people freedom of conscience, you thought police.

You're kidding right? He's a public servant who gets all the benefits of being such. A pastor or a priest is not a public official. I guess cops should be able to turn down murder investigations because the victim was homeless and the public school should not allow fat kids to enroll, too. The law is the law is the law. I hope they sue his butt off.

[ICantSpellDawg]

One more reason why we shouldn't increase the scope of government power and employment of the State and Federal government. Imagine doctors who worked for the governemnt as opposed to private practice. If this wasn't a government personnel issue, he would have had freedom of conscience in performing his job.

Good to know that government workers do not have that freedom while the rest of us do in performing the same services.

He should have been allowed to refuse the service as long as he made sure that someone else upheld the law. Are you telling me that because he disagrees with one aspect of the law and sends the couple to another officiator, he shouldn't have the ability to judge civil case? When Gay marriage becomes legal, anyone who refuses to officiate shouldn't be allowed to be a judge? That's a sure fire way to slam an agenda though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...He should have been allowed to refuse the service as long as he made sure that someone else upheld the law. Are you telling me that because he disagrees with one aspect of the law and sends the couple to another officiator, he shouldn't have the ability to judge civil case? When Gay marriage becomes legal, anyone who refuses to officiate shouldn't be allowed to be a judge? That's a sure fire way to slam an agenda though.

I would have found this acceptable.

"I cannot in good conscience perform this ceremony, but I have arranged for an official who is qualified and willing to do so to be here at the appointed time" is far more acceptable to me.

However, MRD is correct. This was not a member of the clergy ALSO acting as a justice of the peace, but a lay official charged with upholding secular statutes. It matters.

All in all, even more argument that government should be out of the marriage business entirely.

[Strike For The South]

I would have found this acceptable.

"I cannot in good conscience perform this ceremony, but I have arranged for an official who is qualified and willing to do so to be here at the appointed time" is far more acceptable to me.

However, MRD is correct. This was not a member of the clergy ALSO acting as a justice of the peace, but a lay official charged with upholding secular statutes. It matters.

All in all, even more argument that government should be out of the marriage business entirely.

Then he should be removed. This has nothing to do with conscience it has everything to do with a black man inside of a white woman.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All in all, even more argument that government should be out of the marriage business entirely.I am sitting here thinking the exact opposite. All in all even more argument that marriage should be the exclusive business of the government. With everybody enjoying an equal right to marry anybody of their liking.

People will be free to bless their marriage, or to hold whatever marriage ceremony they want, besides that. But these should not enjoy any legal status whatsoever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then he should be removed. This has nothing to do with conscience it has everything to do with a black man inside of a white woman.

While I do not know this man's thoughts, Strike, I strongly suspect that you are correct. I find such thinking to be abjectly stupid. As an individual, however, he is entitled to his stupidity.

What he is NOT entitled to do is to act on that stupidity in contravention to the laws/dictates of the polity he serves. I was only offering the caveat that, if he had provided a timely and fully equivalent alternative, he need not have personally rendered the required service.

However, if you find yourself repeatedly in situations where your personal beliefs and your public responsibilities contradict one another, the only honorable course is to resign.

[Strike For The South]

While I do not know this man's thoughts, Strike, I strongly suspect that you are correct. I find such thinking to be abjectly stupid. As an individual, however, he is entitled to his stupidity.

What he is NOT entitled to do is to act on that stupidity in contravention to the laws/dictates of the polity he serves. I was only offering the caveat that, if he had provided a timely and fully equivalent alternative, he need not have personally rendered the required service.

However, if you find yourself repeatedly in situations where your personal beliefs and your public responsibilities contradict one another, the only honorable course is to resign.

I know the mans thoughts.

So what you are saying is you don't have to agree with the laws as long as you get a timely replacement?

That wouldn't fly in sales and it doesn't fly for government. Public officals should carry out the laws of the land not cherrypick the ones they like.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know the mans thoughts.

So what you are saying is you don't have to agree with the laws as long as you get a timely replacement?

That wouldn't fly in sales and it doesn't fly for government. Public officals should carry out the laws of the land not cherrypick the ones they like.


What do you mean it wouldnt fly in sales? Do a good enough job all-around and a decent boss will let you abstain from certain sales if you find them personally offensive. I used to tell my bosses that I wouldn't sell certain products because I didn't like them all the time. In fact, selling Movados I would pass them along to other sales reps, because I didn't want customers coming back and blaming me when their watch crapped out in 3 years.

[Strike For The South]

What do you mean it wouldnt fly in sales? Do a good enough job all-around and a decent boss will let you abstain from certain sales if you find them personally offensive. I used to tell my bosses that I wouldn't sell certain products because I didn't like them all the time. In fact, selling Movados I would pass them along to other sales reps, because I didn't want customers coming back and blaming me when their watch crapped out in 3 years.

If an interacial couple walked into a store and you said "I cannot in good conscience perform this sale, but I have arranged for an official who is qualified and willing to do so to be here at the appointed time"

They would walkout and youwould get fired.

This man is an old style racist and that's it. This is the same schtick we've seen for years, it's getting old.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If an interacial couple walked into a store and you said "I cannot in good conscience perform this sale, but I have arranged for an official who is qualified and willing to do so to be here at the appointed time"

They would walkout and youwould get fired.

This man is an old style racist and that's it. This is the same schtick we've seen for years, it's getting old.


People shouldn't be fired for that. It's just stupid, not grounds for firing. If an employee ridiculed someone based on their ethnicity that would be fireable, but not refusing service. If an Islamic woman refuses to sell goods to a man based on her beleifs, should she be fired? Or should she instead be allowed to help women?

Obviously if your abstentations begin to outnumber your usefullness firing is an option, but not because of the cause of the odd instance.

Stop trying to make everyone think the same way and accept the same things. Support conscience clauses for whatever reason.

This is a case of the thought police coming to get you.

[Strike For The South]

People shouldn't be fired for that. It's just stupid, not grounds for firing. If an employee ridiculed someone based on their ethnicity that would be fireable, but not refusing service. If an Islamic woman refuses to sell goods to a man based on her beleifs, should she be fired? Or should she instead be allowed to help women?

Obviously if your abstentations begin to outnumber your usefullness you should be fired, but not because of the cause of the instance.

Stop trying to make everyone think the same way and accept the same things. Support conscience clauses for whatever reason.

This is a case of the thought police coming to get you.

My grocery store would fire someone if they refused to check out someone due to race.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, you're just being obtuse for the sake of obtuse.

The goverenment should not employee people who discrimante based on race. The man can live his life any way he pleases but he shouldn't be employeed by a governement that has "justice for all".

Besides 1984 refrences are the last bastion of a weak mind.

[HoreTore]

People shouldn't be fired for that. It's just stupid, not grounds for firing. If an employee ridiculed someone based on their ethnicity that would be fireable, but not refusing service. If an Islamic woman refuses to sell goods to a man based on her beleifs, should she be fired?

By the hells, yes she should!!

That's a clear case of "not doing the job for which you're hired". And if you're not doing the job your boss hired you for, of course he should be able to fire you, anything else is ridiculous.

[Fragony]

Should have been fired on the spot, who the hell does he think he is.

[Meneldil]

Wow, between that and the couple getting 6 months for killing their children, I'm left wondering. Is there any state of law in America, or is any public servant allowed to do whatever comes to his mind according to his own petty beliefs?

[Strike For The South]

Wow, between that and the couple getting 6 months for killing their children, I'm left wondering. Is there any state of law in America, or is any public servant allowed to do whatever comes to his mind according to his own petty beliefs?

THOUGHT POLICE!

Who needs laws? We have the constitution! That's all we need....well my interpatation of it, your interpatation is WRONG

[Kralizec]

If it's against the man's conscience to marry interracial couples, he shouldn't have picked a job that makes it his obligation to do so.

It would be slightly different if gay marriage were to be legalised and preople who had been doing this job for years were uncomfortable with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7499248.stm
Anybody know if that decision was appealed against?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If it's against the man's conscience to marry interracial couples, he shouldn't have picked a job that makes it his obligation to do so.

It would be slightly different if gay marriage were to be legalised and preople who had been doing this job for years were uncomfortable with it.


Why would that be different? Because you could appeal to Religious belief as opposed to just personal belief? Or because they were there first?

[HoreTore]

Why would that be different? Because you could appeal to Religious belief as opposed to just personal belief? Or because they were there first?

I believe Kralizec's point was that marrying gay people wasn't a part of the job description when the guy took the job, while marrying interracial couples was. He knew he would be required to marry them when he took the job, so no excuses, he should've found a different job in the first place.

However, sacking someone from a job they've had a long time because you changed the job is, well, not that fun. So, adjustments will be made.

EDIT: but still, I would've fired him if he refused to marry gays when that was the law. Public officials can be as political as they like, but when they're on the job, they will have to do the job the state requires them to do, or take their hats and leave. None of this "I'll let that guy handle this one for me"-nonsense. Either do your job or get out.

[Major Robert Dump]

Just admit it, TuffStuff, you don't like chocolate in your milk....or cream in your coffee....or dark meat mixed with white meat from KFC...its okay, this is the giuld, we will still love u

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the capacity of a judge as a servant of the government, he is required to follow the laws of that government. He does not have the right to refuse to marry those who the government says can be legally married, unless there is a valid reason (which the government agrees with) that the individuals cannot be married. He is there to carry out the law, not to make his own. Resignation is the acceptable solution if he can't do his job.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just admit it, TuffStuff, you don't like chocolate in your milk....or cream in your coffee....or dark meat mixed with white meat from KFC...its okay, this is the giuld, we will still love u


Actually, I've dated blacks and asians, my sister is black and my brother is a puerto rican. I have no problem with it at all. I just believe in the conscience clause for everyone while accepting the rule of law. Don't deny them if they are entitled, but if you strongly disagree, find someone else to write the license.

[Fragony]

Actually, I've dated blacks and asians, my sister is black and my brother is a puerto rican. I have no problem with it at all. I just believe in the conscience clause for everyone while accepting the rule of law. Don't deny them if they are entitled, but if you strongly disagree, find someone else to write the license.

So you are fine with someone being able to decide wether or not a white and a black can marry? That much power over personal lives? This isn't even tresspassing this is kicking in the door of the bedroom, I would shoot him.

[Don Corleone]

In the capacity of a judge as a servant of the government, he is required to follow the laws of that government. He does not have the right to refuse to marry those who the government says can be legally married, unless there is a valid reason (which the government agrees with) that the individuals cannot be married. He is there to carry out the law, not to make his own. Resignation is the acceptable solution if he can't do his job.

QFT.

For the record, I believe that so long as religious officials engage in performing the civil portion of a marriage as well as the religious one, they also must recognize the law of the state. For this reason, should religious officials continue this action, they have nobody but themselves when GLAAD follows through on their threats and force them to perform gay mariages in St. Patrick's.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So you are fine with someone being able to decide wether or not a white and a black can marry? That much power over personal lives? This isn't even tresspassing this is kicking in the door of the bedroom, I would shoot him.

No, he cannot decide wheter a white and black can marry. He can, or should be able to, decide whether or not he officiates in the marriage. They are allowed to get married if they's like.

[ICantSpellDawg]

QFT.

For the record, I believe that so long as religious officials engage in performing the civil portion of a marriage as well as the religious one, they also must recognize the law of the state. For this reason, should religious officials continue this action, they have nobody but themselves when GLAAD follows through on their threats and force them to perform gay mariages in St. Patrick's.


Exactly. The "State agents" nonsense will be used to control their defacto conscience clause eventually.

I really don't see the distinction between a priest "officiating" and a judge "officiating", they are both acting as agents of the state in a public role. If I can't see it, I doubt GLAAD will be able to see it either when they inevitably send the govenment knocking on your church doors. Give individuals conscience clauses.

Government officials are allowed to have beliefs too, they just can't conflict with the law itself. He shouldn't have to celebrate a union that he doesn't believe in, merely sign and witness the act in an official capacity. Smilling and emotion is not required by law.

[Kralizec]

So a priest, or any agent of a recognised religion, can pronounce legally binding marriages in the USA? How quaint.
Over here church ceremonies are just for the show, only marriage registrers employed by the local government can pronounce you husband(s) and/or wife(s).
With that in mind, I simply can't understand the hysteria about churches hypothetically being forced to marry gay people. Being able to excercise state power is a privilege granted to them by the government, so they can determine the conditions of that privilege to be whatever the hell they please :juggle2:

Tuff, nobody's denying that the man has his rights to his own opinion and conscience. But we think that in this case, his conscience is his own problem and not that of his employer.
Suppose a devout muslim works at a convenience store and doesn't want to sell customers alcohol or pork for religious reasons. Should the employer be obligated to find a way for him to do his job in a way that doesn't contravene his conscience?

Not to mention that the man's a total hypocrite if he thinks it's not okay to do marry interracial couples, but it's fine to work at an institution wich marries interracial couples all the time as long as he can wash his hands in innocence.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not to mention that the man's a total hypocrite if he thinks it's not okay to do marry interracial couples, but it's fine to work at an institution wich marries interracial couples all the time as long as he can wash his hands in innocence.

Why is he a hypocrite? If you don't agree with 100% of what your governement says and you work for them, are you a hypocrite?

He has a difference of opinion and never denied anyone anyting that they were entitled to under law, he just denied his personal services and found a replacment when he disagreed.

You guys are blowing this way out of proportion and atacking a guy for non-PC thoughts and beleifs.

Nobodys rights were trampled on here except for his. The young couple was married by the state because the State accepts their beliefs, but the judge was fired because the state refused to accept his.

[HoreTore]

You guys are blowing this way out of proportion and atacking a guy for non-PC thoughts and beleifs

Non-PC....?

No. This isn't just "non-PC". This is racial hygiene. People with such extreme authoritarian and collectivist ideas should never be called a trivial thing like "non-PC".

When people start caring about who I love, they've really gone to far. And they deserve a good, old summary execution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Non-PC....?

No. This isn't just "non-PC". This is racial hygiene. People with such extreme authoritarian and collectivist ideas should never be called a trivial thing like "non-PC".

When people start caring about who I love, they've really gone to far. And they deserve a good, old summary execution.

Clearly we are approaching this issue sensibly and with a clarity of thought.

[pevergreen]

Can't comment too closely, as I suspect the JotP system is different from ours.

My father is a JotP, if he was asked to marry a couple and refused because he didn't want to preside over it, then there is nothing wrong, at least not here.

His personal decision, his beliefs are his own. He didn't attempt to stop them from marrying, just from having him do it.

He may be ignorant and silly, but he has done nothing wrong.

[Strike For The South]

Can't comment too closely, as I suspect the JotP system is different from ours.

My father is a JotP, if he was asked to marry a couple and refused because he didn't want to preside over it, then there is nothing wrong, at least not here.

His personal decision, his beliefs are his own. He didn't attempt to stop them from marrying, just from having him do it.

He may be ignorant and silly, but he has done nothing wrong.

No. The Jotp represents the gov't. He is in essence the gov't in human form and therefore has to carry out the laws of the land wether he bloddy likes them or not.

He can disagree with a law and resign if he feels that strongly.

This is forgetting the fact that he is a flamming old-breed racist masquerading under the guise of his rights.

[pevergreen]

He is free to refuse to do it himself, no? Otherwise he is being forced into doing something against his will, when not doing it is not against the law. That would be against his rights?

(disclaimer to those who do not know: I'm an Aussie, I don't know american laws)

[Strike For The South]

He is free to refuse to do it himself, no? Otherwise he is being forced into doing something against his will, when not doing it is not against the law. That would be against his rights?

(disclaimer to those who do not know: I'm an Aussie, I don't know american laws)

He is free to step down not refuse.

For every law you pass on to another Jotp the government losses street cred. Could you imagine everyone passing something on simply because they didn't like it?

His job is to be a mouthpeice for the government not make his own decsions. If he wants to do that he should go to the private sector.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...(disclaimer to those who do not know: I'm an Aussie, I don't know american laws)

Which actually puts you on a par with most yanks.

[pevergreen]

He is free to step down not refuse.

For every law you pass on to another Jotp the government losses street cred. Could you imagine everyone passing something on simply because they didn't like it?

His job is to be a mouthpeice for the government not make his own decsions. If he wants to do that he should go to the private sector.

Of course not. He should harden the :daisy: up and do it, to borrow from an australian saying.

But he shouldn't be forced into doing it.

[HoreTore]

He is free to refuse to do it himself, no?

Nope. He is free to decide whether he wants to continue doing his job or resign.

Refusing to do your job gets you fired every other place in the world. I see no reason why this should be any different.

[pevergreen]

Refusing to do it for no good reason, but if it is against his beliefs (which I can't see how it is) he can't be forced into doing it.


Which means they are at an impasse.

It would appear so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Is that so?

Let me put it this way, ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?

Yes.

Morons.

Hmmm. In that case, I challange you to a battle of wits.

For the judge?

*nod*

To the death?

*nod*

I accept.

Good, then pour the wine.

[Kralizec]

Judges can (be forced to) recuse if there's a perceived conflict of interest. Beyond that I can't think of any other reason.

If a judge who usually presides over criminal cases refuses to conduct a trial about drug charges because he thinks it should be legal anyway, would you be as understanding?

I could think of more examples, but I won't. I'm having enough trouble trying to understand why the :daisy: anyone would defend this prick anyway.

[pevergreen]

If a judge who usually presides over criminal cases refuses to conduct a trial about drug charges because he thinks it should be legal anyway, would you be as understanding?

I would certainly try to get another judge.

It just seems to go against this whole freedom thing you 'mericans have.

[Strike For The South]

I would certainly try to get another judge.

It just seems to go against this whole freedom thing you 'mericans have.

The government garuntees these people the right to marry. When the man is on the clock he is a goverment agent and should act as such.

This is not about the man excersising his freedom its about the US government denying a couple there rights written into law.

The man can be a flaming racist on his own time.

[HoreTore]

Refusing to do it for no good reason, but if it is against his beliefs (which I can't see how it is) he can't be forced into doing it.

Nonsense!

He already accepted being forced to do such things when he ticked off the box that says "I will do my job" on the paper they gave him when he was hired.

Don't want to do your job anyway? Well then, you have two choices; either resign, or wait for your employed to fire you.

And no, it doesn't matter what reason you have to not do your job, not doing your job is not doing your job.

Start paying some attention here, pever ~;)

[pevergreen]

Is this man a judge?

I'm getting confused, because a Judge and a Justice of the Peace are very different here.

[HoreTore]

Is this man a judge?

I'm getting confused, because a Judge and a Justice of the Peace are very different here.

Doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters, is that he's employed by an employer to do a job.

[pevergreen]

Justice of the Peace's here are not paid, but volunteers.

[HoreTore]

Justice of the Peace's here are not paid, but volunteers.

You don't have to be paid to be employed.

[Beskar]

Justice of the Peace's here are not paid, but volunteers.

Same here.

I was actually going to apply to be a Justice of the Peace, but I am holding the application off for a year, where I would be better suited to doing the duties.

[Centurion1]

ahh this guys a total piece of crap who reflects badly on his country, i apologize for him, the ******