Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nothing to compare. There is only one kind of marriage, according to the law.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
You have no say in the matter. The Law is the Law.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?Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.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.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
try a different example.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.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.
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.
you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.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.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.
In the course of performing a perfectly legal marriage, there is no possibility of his impartiality being questioned or somehow polluting the outcome of the ceremony. I've never seen recusal being used because of a personal religious belief that has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the ceremony.Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.
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?
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.
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.
No court requires that you do so and no court requires that your oath be to God.A court is not a church. You don't practice religion there.In our country, what Anthony Kennedy says has more weight than what Jesus said, because Jesus isn't a Supreme Court Judge.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
Sorry but I take Jesus over Kennedy. People still have the right to practice religion. In fact THAT is mentioned in the Constitution. Homo marriage? Nope
Some courts still have you swear on the bible.
-Geaux
It also says we should stone people to death, yet here we stand with rocks in hands...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
Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...Definition of RECUSEThe idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.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?
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.
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.
Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.
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.
No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.Not wedding a couple of fags is like being the Taliban?The law says they can marry. His job is to follow the law. If we start putting religion above the laws we will be like the Taliban.
Lefties believe in some really weird shit.
Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.Not wedding a couple of fags is like being the Taliban?
Lefties believe in some really weird shit.
Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.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?Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.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.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
try a different example.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.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.
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.
It's funny that you are calling us authoritarian when you are supporting big government deciding who he will and will not marry. That is authoritarian.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.Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.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.You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.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.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.
then they cant force him to marry homosexuals based on their lack of religious belief.No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.Not wedding a couple of fags is like being the Taliban?
Lefties believe in some really weird shit.
Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.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.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.
Nobody said they hated homosexuals. Not agreeing with gay marriage is not hate for the person.Marriage is a sacrament IN A CHURCH. My marriage, by a Judge who was my friend, was not a sacrament. Oh, and by they way, fuck you for your bigotry. There is no war on Christianity; there is a war on pricks like you who pervert a religion about love into one about hate.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?Judges change the juries recomendations all the time.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.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
try a different example.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.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.
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.
It's funny that you are calling us authoritarian when you are supporting big government deciding who he will and will not marry. That is authoritarian.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.Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.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.You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.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.
Petty*** dumbfuck.Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
You really are dim, aren't you. My guess is your sole understanding of our judicial system comes from your time spent answering for petting crimes.
A judge refusing to perform a gay wedding is not demanding that other exercise their religion, they are still free to get married by someone else. It would only be a demand if that judge made it illegal for anyone to perform the marriage. He did not.Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.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.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.
It is actually from practicing law for 25 years. Recusal is when a judge cannot fairly preside over a dispute between two parties. A judge whose religious faith would not allow him to impose the death penalty cannot preside over a death penalty case because he could not fairly decide the issue and apply the law as written. There is no "dispute" that he has to decide. He is no different that the clerks who refuse to do their jobs in issuing a piece of paper. He can refuse to perform marriages at all or he can perform them without regard to his personal beliefs.Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.Do they not follow religious law like this judge is?
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
You really are dim, aren't you. My guess is your sole understanding of our judicial system comes from your time spent answering for petting crimes.
Must you always resort to name calling when you know you are losing an argument?Liberty is protected, you stupid twat. So is equal protection of the law. The free exercise of religion is protected; demanding that others exercise YOUR religion is not. The free exercise clause does not permit folks to ignore laws of general application on the basis of their faith.you need to get it through your thick fucking skull, religion is specifically protected in the constitution, marriage is not.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.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.
Your inability to express yourself in a respectable manner causes me to think you have never practiced law. Unless you consider being a defendent as practicing.It is actually from practicing law for 25 years. Recusal is when a judge cannot fairly preside over a dispute between two parties. A judge whose religious faith would not allow him to impose the death penalty cannot preside over a death penalty case because he could not fairly decide the issue and apply the law as written. There is no "dispute" that he has to decide. He is no different that the clerks who refuse to do their jobs in issuing a piece of paper. He can refuse to perform marriages at all or he can perform them without regard to his personal beliefs.Marrying people isn't his job. Judges are paid to abide by the law and their conscience. That means you remove yourself from the court if you feel you cannot perform your duty in good conscience.No, he is not entitled to refuse to do his job based on his religious beliefs. He cannot be forced to keep the job, but he can be given the choice to perform the job or resign.No, they throw gays off of rooftops. That's sorta different.
Because of religious laws. Our judges shouldn't be following religious laws like the Taliban.
The judge is following religious beliefs. Something he is entitled to under the US Constitution.
You really are dim, aren't you. My guess is your sole understanding of our judicial system comes from your time spent answering for petting crimes.
