Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Skylar]

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

 

[Skylar]

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

Sigh....you're too stupid to deal with. Get a new screen name, yours does not fit. Have a great day

Congrats, Brain. You're on Sassy's ignore list. You got too factual. And willful ignorance is her only response to facts.

 

[ChrisL]

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

 

[Ravi]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.

If a law changes people don't have to follow the law? Are you being serious? If the city my business is in decides I have to put in a wheelchair ramp I don't have to do it because it is a new law? LMAO

I think what the judge should do is express to a potential couple that he has reservations about marrying them and if they agree, he will bring in another judge to perform the ceremony and pay the other judge out of his own pocket. If the couple doesn't agree, tough titties.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.

If a law changes people don't have to follow the law? Are you being serious? If the city my business is in decides I have to put in a wheelchair ramp I don't have to do it because it is a new law? LMAO

I think what the judge should do is express to a potential couple that he has reservations about marrying them and if they agree, he will bring in another judge to perform the ceremony and pay the other judge out of his own pocket. If the couple doesn't agree, tough titties.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

 

[Brain357]

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

If I am given a new job duty and I refuse to do it they would very likely fire me. That's what happens when you don't do your job.

 

[Ravi]

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.

If a law changes people don't have to follow the law? Are you being serious? If the city my business is in decides I have to put in a wheelchair ramp I don't have to do it because it is a new law? LMAO

I think what the judge should do is express to a potential couple that he has reservations about marrying them and if they agree, he will bring in another judge to perform the ceremony and pay the other judge out of his own pocket. If the couple doesn't agree, tough titties.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

Depends on your location.

You cannot grandfather clause away someone's legal rights.

 

[Skylar]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

Its a religious belief. And your basis of ignoring the law and imposing your religion is that an official task is against their religion.

That's not a 'strawman'. That's an apples to apples comparison. With the Fundamentalist Muslim jujdge and the Christian judge in the OP using the *exact same* rationale for imposing their religious beliefs:

To do otherwise would violate their religion.

You're trying to move your goal posts now, bizarrely trying to apply something other than 'religious belief' to the Muslim. When Sharia is an explicitly religious belief. And meets every criteria used by the Christian judge.

Why the double standard?

However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different.

The activity is the same: officiating weddings. There's no legal distinction between a same sex or opposite sex wedding. They're both just weddings. And each is as legally valid as the other.

The judge is imposing his personal religious beliefs onto unwilling people....and using the State to do it. That violates the Establishment clause. In addition to violating his duty as an officer of the court.

That's two valid grounds to fire the guy.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.

If a law changes people don't have to follow the law? Are you being serious? If the city my business is in decides I have to put in a wheelchair ramp I don't have to do it because it is a new law? LMAO

I think what the judge should do is express to a potential couple that he has reservations about marrying them and if they agree, he will bring in another judge to perform the ceremony and pay the other judge out of his own pocket. If the couple doesn't agree, tough titties.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

Depends on your location.

You cannot grandfather clause away someone's legal rights.

If that were true there would be no business with steps. all would have been changed over to ramps, same with new homes, no steps, all ramps.
and you are not grandfathering away someones rights by not installing a ramp.

 

[Skylar]

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

What religious objection would I have to cleaning toilets?

And of course, the judge is being asked to do the same thing he already does: officiate a wedding. There's no legal distinction between a same sex or opposite sex wedding.

They're both just marriage under the law.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business. Somehow I missed seeing that asterisk. Judges marrying is an elective procedure just like it is for pastors. The way you people think it's ok to force people into the homosexual agenda is sick, depraved, and evil. You people deserve to be loathed.

 

[Skylar]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business.

Its the Bill of Rights that prevents the State from imposing a specific religion upon unwilling people. And the judge is a representative of the State, a gate keeper of state authority. And he's using his religious beliefs as a basis of denying couples state services they have a constitutional and legal right to.

That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Brain357]

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

What religious objection would I have to cleaning toilets?

And of course, the judge is being asked to do the same thing he already does: officiate a wedding. There's no legal distinction between a same sex or opposite sex wedding.

They're both just marriage under the law.

question was not directed at you, I would assume based on your comprehension that being directed to clean a toilet would not be outside of the scope of your current job duties.

 

[Skylar]

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

What religious objection would I have to cleaning toilets?

And of course, the judge is being asked to do the same thing he already does: officiate a wedding. There's no legal distinction between a same sex or opposite sex wedding.

They're both just marriage under the law.

question was not directed at you, I would assume based on your comprehension that being directed to clean a toilet would not be outside of the scope of your current job duties.

He's not objecting because its outside the scope of his duties. The judge acknowledges that officiating the wedding is PART of his duty assignment. Destroying your analogy.

Instead, the judge is objecting on the basis of his religious beliefs. Any analogy that you wish to invent would need to use the correct basis of objection to be a valid analogy.

 

[danielpalos]

muslim
you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

What judge has imposed his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State to violate the Federal Constitution? Are you trying to derail the thread?

The judge in the OP. He denied services he was obligated to provide as officer of the court because his religion mandated that those seeking those services shouldn't have them.

That's the imposition of his religious beliefs. And using the State to impose them. The 'unwilling' would be those who wanted to get married.

and by forcing him to perform the wedding, would his right to his religion be violated in favor of those seeking marriage?

If his religion prevents him from doing his job......then he needs to find another job.

And you never did answer my question: So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

I believe more fiscally responsible Judicial activism should have included a mandamus to lower our tax burden by not putting him in such a position to harm the greater glory of his immortal soul due merely to an exercise of a civil office of public Trust--and, simply have it recorded for public acts purposes.

 

[bodecea]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Funny how you people think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when somebody is an employee of government or opens a business. Somehow I missed seeing that asterisk. Judges marrying is an elective procedure just like it is for pastors. The way you people think it's ok to force people into the homosexual agenda is sick, depraved, and evil. You people deserve to be loathed.

How is firing someone for not doing their job mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Could you point that part out for us?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.