Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[paddymurphy]

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.

The Bible says plenty about homosexuality. This is an interesting case, I'm curious how it will play out. They still got married by another judge so what's the big deal

And none of what it says is at all relevant to his refusal to enforce the law. He is a judge, not a legislator. He enforces the law; he does not get to change it.

 

[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.

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.

Incorrect. Employees have rights. For example, employees have grounds to refuse certain types of tasks.

 

[G.T.]

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.

The idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.

Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

Just like there is nothing in the constitution that says they have the right to be married, the Bible can be read in such a way that by marrying them you are a willing party to it and subjected to the same punishment as those being married.

Now there is. It's called case law which is part of constitutional law as of June 26.. BTW, there is nothing in the text of the constitution that says that anybody has the right to be married, but for heterosexuals it has always been treated as a right. Imagine the outrage if an opposite couple were to be turned away.

 

[Ravi]

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?

I don't think he should be forced against his will. He can be reassigned. He can retire. He can do many things. But he cannot refuse to uphold the law. The judge is not a priest or a rabbi performing a religious ceremony. He is a civil servant serving his little corner of the public by performing civil ceremonies.

 

[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.

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

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

Incorrect. Employees have rights. For example, employees have grounds to refuse certain types of tasks.

Employees' rights are posted right on the wall behind me, real time, right now.

Theyre not able to block changes to their duties, unless there is grounds to accuse the employer of abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

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

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.

 

[paddymurphy]

My husband informs me that laws vary from state to state but a judge is not required by law to marry anyone. A state authorizes who can perform weddings but does not require anyone to do it. He said this judge should opt out of all weddings until the Ohio Courts determine proper procedure

And your husband is correct. If he opts out of all weddings, that is proper. He cannot, however, discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as to who he will marry.

 

[Brain357]

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

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

Well if she in fact was allowed to do that then he should also. Not sure if anything did happen to this woman however.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The Bible says plenty about homosexuality. This is an interesting case, I'm curious how it will play out. They still got married by another judge so what's the big deal

Remind me what it says about same-sex marriage. Why don't you apply your bible to interracial marriage - after all, it was used to justify those laws too.

Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman. Stop comparing straight marriage to homo marriage. That won't fly with

Nothing to compare. There is only one kind of marriage, according to the law.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

Just like there is nothing in the constitution that says they have the right to be married, the Bible can be read in such a way that by marrying them you are a willing party to it and subjected to the same punishment as those being married.

Now there is. It's called case law which is part of constitutional law as of June 26.. BTW, there is nothing in the text of the constitution that says that anybody has the right to be married, but for heterosexuals it has always been treated as a right. Imagine the outrage if an opposite couple were to be turned away.

But its been declared a right in caselaw. Back when "jungle fever" was for whatever fucked yp reason illegal and being decided upon

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Not true. In most states, the Jury decides the penalty and the Judge has to impose it. He has no discretion. Stop commenting on things that make you look stupid. How about the catholic judge refusing to allow Catholics to divorce? Is that OK?

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

As we've been saying.

The difference of course is that this woman is doing it to *make a point*...i.e., she's a political judge.

The Christian judge is abstaining because he feels his soul will be in danger if he participates in sacrilege.

How is a civil ceremony, permitted by law, a sacrilege? You folks need to get something through your thick fucking skulls: the bible is not law. Religion is completely irrelevant to the application of the law.

Marriage, to Christians, is a sacrament. This is why we objected to the state redefining it. And your insistence that BECAUSE the state has redefined it, it can't be sacrilege and therefore Christians must accommodate and participate in it, is exactly why we object so vehemently to the SCOTUS ruling. YOU DON'T DICTATE OUR FAITH TO US. You don't think it's sacrilege..you go ahead and marry your brother, your mother, your dog...perform the marriage of the two faggots next door, we don't care. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. And no law will ever compel us to.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

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

Difference here is that she for one has not religious or moral grounds to refuse, and for two it was a part of the job when she took it.
not the same as a judge refusing a new rule based on his religous beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.

Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

Just like there is nothing in the constitution that says they have the right to be married, the Bible can be read in such a way that by marrying them you are a willing party to it and subjected to the same punishment as those being married.

Now there is. It's called case law which is part of constitutional law as of June 26.. BTW, there is nothing in the text of the constitution that says that anybody has the right to be married, but for heterosexuals it has always been treated as a right. Imagine the outrage if an opposite couple were to be turned away.

But its been declared a right in caselaw. Back when "jungle fever" was for whatever fucked yp reason illegal and being decided upon

That's correct

 

[paddymurphy]

We all know being a fag cork soaker is unhealthy..

-Geaux

Statistics on HIV AIDS and health related issues CARM Homosexuality

1. Emotional Health
   1. Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
   2. Professional psychiatrists say homosexual men are less happy: "A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo-sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women,' (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many. 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
2. Psychological Health
   1. High rate of psychological counseling among lesbians: "In a national health care survey 75% of the nearly 2000 lesbian respondents reported they had pursued psychological counselling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 . . . " (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. "Homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. Study by Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities . . . " Table 21.12" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
3. Physical health
   1. Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.' Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   2. Higher Alcoholism among Lesbians: "'Lesbians are 3 times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviours. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations,' Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238–244." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
   3. Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Great source. Would you go to a NAZI website for data on Jews? Or a KKK website for data on African Americans? Actually, you probably do that already.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.

Ok, yes you can. And yes, you will likely loose a civil law suit on the grounds of religious discrimination. So here's to hoping you authoritarian types get your way and the judge sues and wins a few hundred million.