Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[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.

Except he's the representative of the government.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

 

[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?

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

There was no case in my use of the term.

There is in the law. Judicial disqualification (ie recusal) applies only to legal proceedings. Which by definition require parties in conflict. Recusal exists to insure that a judge will be fair to both parties and not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with religious objections to officiating a marriage. Which is why the judge never uses the term recusal. You do, pretending to speak for him.. And you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Doing nothing, by backing out of a task based on religious grounds is a time honored tradition. Doing anything they please? ROFL Are you mentally handicapped or something?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

 

[Ravi]

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

You should recuse yourself

 

[Skylar]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

 

[G.T.]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

First Amendment has dick to do with employment

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

There is in the law. Judicial disqualification (ie recusal) applies only to legal proceedings. Which by definition require parties in conflict. Recusal exists to insure that a judge will be fair to both parties and not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with religious objections to officiating a marriage. Which is why the judge never uses the term recusal. You do, pretending to speak for him.. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Recusal is a term that can be used in a broader context. Are you really this stupid that you don't know that?

There are many common uses of the term recusal outside of the courtroom. Another common use of the term recusal:

• Boards of directors. In these cases, a member of a corporate board of directors may remove himself (or be removed) from participation in a matter before the board because of a conflict of interest.

 

[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.

Except he's the representative of the government.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

Individuals enjoy God given rights. Not governments. Jesus on a cracker.

 

[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

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.

His duty is to marry couples under the law. There's no legal distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples in marriage. His duty is the same.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

 

[G.T.]

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.

There is in the law. Judicial disqualification (ie recusal) applies only to legal proceedings. Which by definition require parties in conflict. Recusal exists to insure that a judge will be fair to both parties and not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with religious objections to officiating a marriage. Which is why the judge never uses the term recusal. You do, pretending to speak for him.. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Recusal is a term that can be used in a broader context. Are you really this stupid that you don't know that?

recusals specific to the judiciary are reserved for case law.

Omg

 

[Ravi]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

Exactly.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

>>> 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.

His duty is to marry couples under the law. There's no legal distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples in marriage. His duty is the same.

there was a distinction, so his duty is not the same.
are you 14 or something? you really dont debate like an adult.

 

[Skylar]

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.

There is in the law. Judicial disqualification (ie recusal) applies only to legal proceedings. Which by definition require parties in conflict. Recusal exists to insure that a judge will be fair to both parties and not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with religious objections to officiating a marriage. Which is why the judge never uses the term recusal. You do, pretending to speak for him.. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Recusal is a term that can be used in a broader context. Are you really this stupid that you don't know that?

Not under the law. Which is why the judge in the OP never so much as mentions recusal.

The Judicial disqualification has nothing to do with officiating marriages. But adjudicating legal proceedings. Which by definition involve parties in conflict. None of which exists in officiating a marriage.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

If someone will not perform their job they are subject to dismissal. He wouldn't be fired for his religious belief. He would be fired for not doing his job.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

and the state forcing him to comply is an infringment on his relgious rights, and thats a constitutional violation.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

First Amendment has dick to do with employment

Thanks for showing how fucking stupid you are.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Business isn't allowed to change their business model because of an employee's religious belief?

they can do what they want, but if its immoral in the eyes of the employee and the fire him for not complying, then he has a case for a lawsuit. speaking in religious terms mind you.

If someone will not perform their job they are subject to dismissal. He wouldn't be fired for his religious belief. He would be fired for not doing his job.

Show us where it says in his job description that he has to marry people.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So? See first amendment come back after you've read it.

He's a representative of the state, using state power to enforce his religious beliefs on unwilling people.

That's establishment of religion. And a constitutional violation.

and the state forcing him to comply is an infringment on his relgious rights, and thats a constitutional violation.

The State is forcing him to do nothing. He can refuse to do his job and the State will find someone who can. The man has a choice. What he doesn't have is the right to ignore his job duties and still collect a paycheck.