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
Printable View
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
Non-PC....?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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.
Which actually puts you on a par with most yanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Of course not. He should harden the :daisy: up and do it, to borrow from an australian saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
But he shouldn't be forced into doing it.
Nope. He is free to decide whether he wants to continue doing his job or resign.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Refusing to do your job gets you fired every other place in the world. I see no reason why this should be any different.
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.
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.
I would certainly try to get another judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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.
Nonsense!Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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 ~;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Justice of the Peace's here are not paid, but volunteers.
You don't have to be paid to be employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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.
ahh this guys a total piece of crap who reflects badly on his country, i apologize for him, the ******