US Judge Selects Work based on Clients Race

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

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.