Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Skylar]

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.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? His decision was a personal decision, ya moron.

Ravtard doesn't get that it's AUTHORITARIAN to force people to perform sacrilegious ceremonies, but it's NOT authoritarian to allow them to abstain.

Yeah most authoritarians get confused when it comes to liberty. They think liberty means they get to force people to do their bidding.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

so threats from the government against someone due to their religion is acceptable to you?
I would think that would be a violation of his written constitutional rights.

Umm.....

You are free to leave any job you wish due to religious reasons....therefore, no violation has occurred.

being free to leave and being force to leave are not the same thing.

His inability to do his job is what forced him to leave. Religion doesn't mean you can ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

His duties remained the same: officiate weddings. The law recognizes no distinction between same sex and opposite sex weddings. Its all just marriage.

His religious beliefs prevented him from doing his job. And if he can't do his job, that's ample justification for replacing him with someone who can.

up until just a week or so ago, marriage was a man and a woman. well within the confines of his religious convictions.
the law did recognize a distinction between the two. and since the courts found it necessary to specifically rule on it, they too see a distinction.
it would be a violation of a written right to threaten his job over a non written right.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

You really dont understand my post?


Really?


Really?

He's not presiding over a case. He's presiding over a marriage. The term recusal fits to the act of removing oneself from participation in the marriage proceedings based on religious grounds.

Recusals are used in the context of the judge removing himself from a case

Not a marriage...a marriage is not a case. Exactly. Jeebus

 

[rightwinger]

Its part of their job description in many jurisdictions, acting in the role of officer of the courts.

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

You say two different functions... then you mix them. Make up your mind. You can't have both separation of and mixing at the same time. Either it's a separate job or it's not a separate job. If it is a separate job that has changed then why do we have to force him, the judge, to agree to do this changed job? What gives us the right to force him to marry people if he does not want to marry people?

There is no mixing...it is a non-religious ceremony and the Judge is merely officiating
I am not forcing him to do anythig. He is not being forced to be a judge. But if he chooses to accept the position, he must put aside his religious beliefs

 

[Skylar]

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.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

You really dont understand my post?


Really?


Really?

He's not presiding over a case. He's presiding over a marriage. The term recusal fits to the act of removing oneself from participation in the marriage proceedings based on religious grounds.

Recusal only applies if there's a legal case. Which mandates a conflict between two parties.

There's no conflict, nor legal proceeding in officiating a marriage. There's a reason the judge never mentions 'recusal' anywhere in his explanation. The term has nothing to do with officiating a wedding.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

being free to leave and being force to leave are not the same thing.

His inability to do his job is what forced him to leave. Religion doesn't mean you can ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

Thats completely up to the employer. Not him. Duh.

in that case, his job is being threatened because of his religion. Violation of rights.

 

[G.T.]

His inability to do his job is what forced him to leave. Religion doesn't mean you can ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

Thats completely up to the employer. Not him. Duh.

in that case, his job is being threatened because of his religion. Violation of rights.

No, his job is being threated because he refuses to do it.

No violation of right....iust a violation of the employer employee relationship.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

You say two different functions... then you mix them. Make up your mind. You can't have both separation of and mixing at the same time. Either it's a separate job or it's not a separate job. If it is a separate job that has changed then why do we have to force him, the judge, to agree to do this changed job? What gives us the right to force him to marry people if he does not want to marry people?

There is no mixing...it is a non-religious ceremony and the Judge is merely officiating
I am not forcing him to do anythig. He is not being forced to be a judge. But if he chooses to accept the position, he must put aside his religious beliefs

If the state or federal government require him to put aside his religious belief, then arent they endorsing a lack of religion just the same as they would be endorsing a religion if they based a refusal for gay marriage based on Biblical reasons?

 

[Skylar]

His inability to do his job is what forced him to leave. Religion doesn't mean you can ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

Thats completely up to the employer. Not him. Duh.

in that case, his job is being threatened because of his religion. Violation of rights.

Nope. As his religious rights don't grant him the authority to ignore his job duties and still collect his pay check.

IIf you can't do a job, that's ample justification for replacement. Your argument would be akin to a Buddhist who worked at a Slaughterhouse, but refused to kill any animal or work with any meat.

But still expects to collect a paycheck.

Um, no.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

Thats completely up to the employer. Not him. Duh.

in that case, his job is being threatened because of his religion. Violation of rights.

No, his job is being threated because he refuses to do it.

No violation of right....iust a violation of the employer employee relationship.

His job when taken did not involve something that was wrong in his opinion.

 

[Skylar]

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

You say two different functions... then you mix them. Make up your mind. You can't have both separation of and mixing at the same time. Either it's a separate job or it's not a separate job. If it is a separate job that has changed then why do we have to force him, the judge, to agree to do this changed job? What gives us the right to force him to marry people if he does not want to marry people?

There is no mixing...it is a non-religious ceremony and the Judge is merely officiating
I am not forcing him to do anythig. He is not being forced to be a judge. But if he chooses to accept the position, he must put aside his religious beliefs

If the state or federal government require him to put aside his religious belief, then arent they endorsing a lack of religion just the same as they would be endorsing a religion if they based a refusal for gay marriage based on Biblical reasons?

The only thing he's required to do is his job. If he can't do his job, he's replaced with someone who can.

That's not a violation of rights. That's simple failure to do his job.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No, his duties changed to something other than what he agreed to when he was hired. based on his religious views, he is not obligated to comply.

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

Thats completely up to the employer. Not him. Duh.

in that case, his job is being threatened because of his religion. Violation of rights.

Nope. As his religious rights don't grant him the authority to ignore his job duties and still collect his pay check.

IIf you can't do a job, that's ample justification for replacement. Your argument would be akin to a Buddhist who worked at a Slaughterhouse, but refused to kill any animal or work with any meat.

But still expects to collect a paycheck.

Um, no.

DId the Buddhist take that job with full knowledge that it would involve slaughtering? or did the buddhist take a job somewhere that suddenly decided they would get into the slaughter business and try to force him to comply with their new line of income.

 

[Ravi]

Marriage isn't defined as a religious sacrament. Invalidating your entire premise.

Marriage is a religious sacrement, your lack of relgious knowledge does not make reality invalid.
civil unions could be considered non religious, however the ceremony that goes with a marriage is religious

How so? The last wedding I went to was performed by a notary. There was nothing religious about the ceremony.

Then that is a civil union, not a Marriage. Consider it more of a contract.

And THAT is what the judge was being asked to perform. A civil union. Religious marriages occur in church.

In his religious mind, its wrong for same sexes to marry. He has a right to refuse.

I don't think he does. Especially as a representative of the government. You cannot show favoritism when representing the government as it violates the constitution.

I think a case could be made that he be allowed to not perform any wedding ceremonies period as long as there is someone on hand to do so.

But then again, how can he even allow himself to work for a state if SSM are happening under his jurisdiction?

 

[mdk]

The amount of willful ignorance is this thread is truly mind boggling.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Thats nice....but this is all written in the context of presiding over a case...

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

The 'case' in your definition. Refusals apply to cases. Not acting as an officiator.

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good fucking lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? His decision was a personal decision, ya moron.

Except he's the representative of the government.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? His decision was a personal decision, ya moron.

Ravtard doesn't get that it's AUTHORITARIAN to force people to perform sacrilegious ceremonies, but it's NOT authoritarian to allow them to abstain.

Yeah most authoritarians get confused when it comes to liberty. They think liberty means they get to force people to do their bidding.

Right. Representatives of the government can do any damn thing they please.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah, well the "officer" of the courts job description just changed didn't it? Seems to me we need to allow a transition time. I don't like the idea of changing the duties of a job and forcing our employees to do something that is against their religious beliefs. We should allow some wiggle room for such people to opt out. Just as we should allow some corporations to not have to pay for abortions, we should allow our employees to not perform a ceremony that is against their religion. I think the Judge is wrong, but I don't think I should be able to force my opinion on the Judge.

The state or local province should fill the void with someone that is willing / wants to do the task.

If they do fire the Judge, I would hope he sues them for all they have and wins.

Liberty should be a two way street.

Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end? Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?

>>> Where does the infusion of personal religion into official judicial duties end?
That's easy, it doesn't end.

>>> Does it ONLY apply to same sex marriage?
No it does not, just the opposite. Judges are expected to recuse themselves when conflicts pop up. Would you want a Judge presiding over your case that has a personal conflict?

Two different functions. A judge is not expected to make a decision in a marriage. He is not ruling on whether the couple should or should not be allowed to marry.

As a judge he is expected to put aside his religious beliefs and follow the law. The law says same sex couples can marry

You say two different functions... then you mix them. Make up your mind. You can't have both separation of and mixing at the same time. Either it's a separate job or it's not a separate job. If it is a separate job that has changed then why do we have to force him, the judge, to agree to do this changed job? What gives us the right to force him to marry people if he does not want to marry people?

There is no mixing...it is a non-religious ceremony and the Judge is merely officiating
I am not forcing him to do anythig. He is not being forced to be a judge. But if he chooses to accept the position, he must put aside his religious beliefs

I agree, if he chooses to accept a position that "carries" the duty of marrying gay folk, then he must put aside his religious beliefs. However, that is not the case. He did no choose to accept a position that carried said duty. This duty is new. Thus... where we are is new and requires some means to mitigate the new situation. You may have some desire to screw over anyone that have a difference of opinion in this regard, I do not. IMO there is no reason to force people to going against their religious belief in this matter. It's beyond ludicrous to think we should.