US Judge Selects Work based on Clients Race

[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.

[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.

[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.