Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[danielpalos]

Should the Judicature be required to take a morals test for Standing purposes instead of any drug test?

He would have taken that morals test before the decision, so it would not have made a difference. They do however have to take courses on ethics.

Shouldn't a Judge have standing for "moral" jurisdictional purposes or should subject matter specialists be subpoenaed for inquiry purposes?

who's idea of morality are we using here. Morals and laws are not the same thing.

Doesn't Standing require some sort of "test"?

 

[Brain357]

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

If it is a mandatory part of his job he has to do it, quit, or be fired. I haven't seen any links stating if it is in fact a mandatory job requirement. I would assume so, but am no judge expert.

 

[RKMBrown]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

Strawman... pacifists don't join the army, duh.

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

To me there's a difference, yes. This judge does not think so on religious grounds, who am I to force his belief against his will?

 

[bodecea]

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Your authoritarian desire to fuck over everyone that disagrees with your point of view is ironic, isn't it?

 

[bodecea]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

Strawman... pacifists don't join the army, duh.

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

To me there's a difference, yes. This judge does not think so on religious grounds, who am I to force his belief against his will?

You didn't pay much attention when Desert Storm started, did you? We had a wave of "sudden" pacifists who had joined the peacetime military and suddenly faced the prospect of going to Iraq. Do you think they go much sympathy? Do you?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

If it is a mandatory part of his job he has to do it, quit, or be fired. I haven't seen any links stating if it is in fact a mandatory job requirement. I would assume so, but am no judge expert.

Nope. That's not the way it works.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.

You can't change someone's job by adding a new duty that goes against their religion, then fire them for refusal to do the new duty on religious grounds. For example, if you add abortion to a job's duties, you can't force someone to kill babies when it is against their religion.

 

[koshergrl]

For one thing, marrying people isn't a mandatory part of being a judge. Some do it, some don't. They opt out all the time. It sort of a side thing they do in addition to their regular duties, and you have to get them to agree to it before they'll do it. Brain's name is obviously wishful thinking.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.

You can't change someone's job by adding a new duty that goes against their religion, then fire them for refusal to do the new duty on religious grounds. For example, if you add abortion to a job's duties, you can't force someone to kill babies when it is against their religion.

Marrying people isn't part of a judge's duties.

 

[RKMBrown]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

Strawman... pacifists don't join the army, duh.

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

To me there's a difference, yes. This judge does not think so on religious grounds, who am I to force his belief against his will?

You didn't pay much attention when Desert Storm started, did you? We had a wave of "sudden" pacifists who had joined the peacetime military and suddenly faced the prospect of going to Iraq. Do you think they go much sympathy? Do you?

When you sign up for the military you agree to fight. When you signed up to be a Judge, in the past, you did not sign up to marry gays. Marrying gays is new. To make an analogy you would have to show me where those pacifists thought they would not have to fight when they signed up to be in the military.

 

[G.T.]

He should be fired asap

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Did that muslim judge swear to uphold the constitution of the United States when He took on the job?

Yup. Just like the judge in the OP.

So if the Muslim judge can't impose his religion upon unwilling people using the power of the State.....why can the Christian judge?

now the question here is if the right to religion as actually written holds more or less weight than the right to marry, which is not specifically written. One of the two rights are going to be violated.

The judge is an officer of the court. He represents the State. And the State has no religious rights.

If he's using his position as a representative of the state to impose his personal religious views upon unwilling people......that's the establishment of religion. As its state authority he's wielding in imposing religion. And an explicit violation of the 1st amendment.

Recusing oneself is not forcing oneself on others you dumb ass.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO FUCKING MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

If it is a mandatory part of his job he has to do it, quit, or be fired. I haven't seen any links stating if it is in fact a mandatory job requirement. I would assume so, but am no judge expert.

Nope. That's not the way it works.

Link?

 

[G.T.]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

Strawman... pacifists don't join the army, duh.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

To me there's a difference, yes. This judge does not think so on religious grounds, who am I to force his belief against his will?

You didn't pay much attention when Desert Storm started, did you? We had a wave of "sudden" pacifists who had joined the peacetime military and suddenly faced the prospect of going to Iraq. Do you think they go much sympathy? Do you?

When you sign up for the military you agree to fight. When you signed up to be a Judge, in the past, you did not sign up to marry gays. Marrying gays is new. To make an analogy you would have to show me where those pacifists thought they would not have to fight when they signed up to be in the military.

Jobs evolve at the whim of the employer. The employee cannot block a change to gis or her job, they have no grounds.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.

 

[paddymurphy]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

Strawman... pacifists don't join the army, duh.

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

To me there's a difference, yes. This judge does not think so on religious grounds, who am I to force his belief against his will?

You didn't pay much attention when Desert Storm started, did you? We had a wave of "sudden" pacifists who had joined the peacetime military and suddenly faced the prospect of going to Iraq. Do you think they go much sympathy? Do you?

Military service is not comparable.
when you join the military the chance of actually having to participate in a war is real. Thats what the military does. unless you are a total idiot, you realize that the ultimate duty of the military could bring you in to harms way.
When the Judge was sworn in, the idea of homosexual marriage was not a real threat, it was not something that was a known duty of the job.

 

[Brain357]

This is interesting.
Gay Texas Judge Refuses to Perform Marriage Ceremonies - ABC News

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

He should be impeached. His job is to follow the law. Imagine if a Judge refused to impose the death penalty after jury recommended it solely on the basis of his faith? Or a Catholic Judge in family Court refusing to issue divorce decrees when the parties are Catholic? There is no difference.

Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.
try a different example.