Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Judge Refuses To Marry Gay Couple

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    First, this is very small part of their duties.
    That's irrelevant to my question.

    I think Leonhard's solution is perfectly reasonable. But you guys don't want compromise. It is like a doctor in a publicly funded health clinic being forced to do abortions. So the qualified, caring doctor should be fired in that case?
    Yes. If a person refuses to perform all of the duties required of them by their job, it is reasonable for that person to lose that job.

    This has zero to do with separation.
    It has everything to do with Church/State Separation. We are talking about a person employed by the State who acts as a representative of the State who is refusing to perform the duties required of him by the State for religious reasons. It is entirely possible for this judge to perform his civil duties while still maintaining his private convictions. Presiding over a civil marriage ceremony is neither an explicit nor an implicit approval of the ethics of that marriage, and it is certainly not a celebration of that marriage.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
      Jim the Constitution(the law of the land) protects our sincerely held religious belief not to participate in something we think is sin and there is a federal law that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations as was done here as an acknowledgment of said protection you are wrong here.
      Reasonable accomodations RTT, reasonable. It is not reasonable that a judge can recuse himself of his duties as a judge.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
        oh it is Jim it is true you and your hypocritical intolerant bigoted buddies dont' want to hear the TRUTH do you. you want to continue striveing to take away the rights of others for your supposed rights.

        Jim I"m sorry but regarding the Constitution Your rights end where mine begin.
        Oh it is true? Reference please.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Reasonable accomodations RTT, reasonable. It is not reasonable that a judge can recuse himself of his duties as a judge.
          There was another judge handle to do it JimL it was reasonable.

          What is unreasonable is for hypocritical intolerant bigots like you and your ilk not wanting to live and let live here. the rights of that couple were not trampled on like you and your ilk are wanting to do to the judge and others like him because you don't' like their world view.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Oh it is true? Reference please.
            Here it is
            Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-09-2015, 10:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              A judge's duty is to judge issues of law. Civil ceremonies aren't a duty at all. The marriage occurs when the paper is signed. The ceremony is window dressing. It serves no legal function at all.

              A judge rightfully recusing himself when he has a conflict is doing his duty. Even if the ceremony mattered there is no issue.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                Interesting. I've never heard this, before. Perhaps, since the ideal is so close to the heart of the American Foundation, it is one which is not often discussed by Catholics in America. Does this mean that Roman Catholic lawyers and judges in the US who support the stark separation of Church and State are to be deemed heretics?
                There are many judges who could legitimately be recognised as heretics by Catholics, based on the Churches own teachings. Whether a particular judge who supported the seperation of State and Church, is a heretic, depends on whether or not he considers this the gold standard. I can imagine a judge who in his heart of hearts believes that if the whole country was Catholic, and the government was in submission to the papacy and the Vatican, and through that obedient to God, that this would be greater... but for practical reasons, in particular the fact that devout Catholics are not 70% of the country, that this remains an ideal for now.

                The Church seperates the notion of material coorporation from formal coorporation. Its pretty much what you're appealing to, that a person could perform a marriage but not be guilty of it in as much as they were obedient to their job. Stepping down from their job, or resisting in small ways, would then be a greater good. Though I'm not convinced a Catholic judge could perform a gay wedding in good conscience, the Bishops would have to give permission for it more or less, as its up to them to judge these cases.

                I'm not talking about firing anyone "for the sake of ideological purity." I'm talking about removing a person from a position which entails duties that person refuses to perform.
                In Denmark we have doctors who refuse to perform abortion, and its been like that for four decades. None of them are ever threatened with the prospect of being fired, even though you could interpret 'abortion' as one of their duties.

                Whether or not their refusal is based upon religious precepts is entirely irrelevant.
                It isn't to me. If it is to the law, then there's something wrong with the law.

                If a person is unwilling to perform his job to its fullest, is it unreasonable to ask that this person be replaced by someone who is willing to perform his job to its fullest?
                Not if its a practical problem, and it wasn't in this case.

                Again, I completely agree that the judge has a right to refuse to perform marriages for religious reasons. However, he does not have a right to retain a position for which he refuses to perform all the duties.
                I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about whether why the hetz on this guy, when other countries, like my own would just have let him be and found replacements. That was easily done. The lesbian couple only had to wait fourty minutes more. That's about it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                  I don't see anywhere in that law where an employee can refuse to do the job required of him. Perhaps you can point out that specific part of the law. If it is against ones religious belief to perform the tasks required of a job then it is not the employers responsibility accomodate him. Thats part of his job! What if there is no one to stand in for the employee, or what if they all recuse themselves from doing their job on religious grounds?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                    There was another judge handle to do it JimL it was reasonable.
                    Possibly, but we are not discussing just this particular case. It is also questionable as to whether an undue burden is placed on the part of the employer to find someone else to perform the job.
                    What is unreasonable is for hypocritical intolerant bigots like you and your ilk not wanting to live and let live here. the rights of that couple were not trampled on like you and your ilk are wanting to do to the judge and others like him because you don't' like their world view.
                    Clam yourself down RTT, just as an employer can not discriminate against persons, neither can an employee discriminate in the performance of his job, which is what refusing to perform the marriage would be doing. But I'm sure there will be law suits coming in this regard, so we will see who is right.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      Yes. If a person refuses to perform all of the duties required of them by their job, it is reasonable for that person to lose that job.
                      Spoken like a true doctrinaire liberal. No accommodation, no matter how reasonable, will be offered.

                      It has everything to do with Church/State Separation. We are talking about a person employed by the State who acts as a representative of the State who is refusing to perform the duties required of him by the State for religious reasons. It is entirely possible for this judge to perform his civil duties while still maintaining his private convictions. Presiding over a civil marriage ceremony is neither an explicit nor an implicit approval of the ethics of that marriage, and it is certainly not a celebration of that marriage.
                      I agree that this is a modern leftist twisting of the principle of separation, but it certainly is not historical, nor did the Founders hold to any such notion.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        If I walk into a mosque or a buddhist temple, I respect their religious beliefs by taking off my shoes. When I walk into a courtroom, I expect my religious beliefs to be respected, which most definitely don't include allowing the judge to impose his religious beliefs on me.

                        Dude needs to find another job, or learn to respect the religious beliefs of anyone who walks through his door, so long as he's working for me.


                        Do you pray facing Mecca? Or abstain form pork? Or, if your workmate was a Muslim, would you likewise fast during Ramadan?

                        If you go to a Buddhist temple do you give alms to the monks, light some incense,bow and pray to the Buddha image?
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          That's irrelevant to my question.

                          Yes. If a person refuses to perform all of the duties required of them by their job, it is reasonable for that person to lose that job.

                          It has everything to do with Church/State Separation. We are talking about a person employed by the State who acts as a representative of the State who is refusing to perform the duties required of him by the State for religious reasons. It is entirely possible for this judge to perform his civil duties while still maintaining his private convictions. Presiding over a civil marriage ceremony is neither an explicit nor an implicit approval of the ethics of that marriage, and it is certainly not a celebration of that marriage.
                          The bolded sentence is itself a belief that others may not share: in fact, for many religious people there is no, and can be no, separation between 'public' and 'private'. You are imposing your own belief on such people.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post

                            Yes. If a person refuses to perform all of the duties required of them by their job, it is reasonable for that person to lose that job.

                            It has everything to do with Church/State Separation. We are talking about a person employed by the State who acts as a representative of the State who is refusing to perform the duties required of him by the State for religious reasons. It is entirely possible for this judge to perform his civil duties while still maintaining his private convictions. Presiding over a civil marriage ceremony is neither an explicit nor an implicit approval of the ethics of that marriage, and it is certainly not a celebration of that marriage.
                            This position would ultimately end in discrimination of Christians because on the one hand they are not allowed to opt out of duties, say performing abortion, because of religious conviction and on the other they would not be allowed to open their own Christian hospital because if someone came in wanting an abortion and they said 'no' then that would be discrimination as per progressives. In other words there is nowhere where the Christian is able to work as a doctor and he/she is in effect barred from that position.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In the UK if someone goes into a pharmacy wanting the emergency contraceptive pill* from the pharmacist, he/she is able to decline to dispense it because of religious conviction. However the pharmacist is not allowed to say anything which can be seen in any way as judgmental to the client and they have to point the person to the nearest place where they can get the emergency contraceptive pill. If the person comes in with a doctors script for the emergency contraceptive pill then the pharmacist is legally obliged to dispense.

                              *the pill for use after sexual intercourse where it is feared conception may have been likely.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                If I walk into a mosque or a buddhist temple, I respect their religious beliefs by taking off my shoes. When I walk into a courtroom, I expect my religious beliefs to be respected, which most definitely don't include allowing the judge to impose his religious beliefs on me.

                                Dude needs to find another job, or learn to respect the religious beliefs of anyone who walks through his door, so long as he's working for me.
                                Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post


                                wow... so if a Christian doesn't agree with the marriage, but still allows it to be done by another judge, it's bigotry?
                                Y'all are free to hop on whatever hobby horse you find most comfortable, but if you're going to quote my post when doing so, you really should respond to it. Apparently you're sensitive to charges of bigotry, so sensitive you defend yourself before any accusation has been made. Kinda telling, in the proverbial 28:1 kinda way.

                                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                Do you pray facing Mecca? Or abstain form pork? Or, if your workmate was a Muslim, would you likewise fast during Ramadan?

                                If you go to a Buddhist temple do you give alms to the monks, light some incense,bow and pray to the Buddha image?
                                I'm vegetarian, dude. If you really wanted to go there, you should have asked if I sample all the dishes at the pot luck. No, I don't, but then again, neither does anyone else. Some of that stuff is just hideous.

                                Now I've been told I'm welcome to pray in a mosque, but that's never been a requirement for admission. I do give alms to the monks in the temple, and light incense, though I don't go beyond a fairly minimal gesture of respect to the images of the boddhisatvas. I don't prostrate. I was once boxed into the prayer area in a mosque by a human swarm during a religious festival. There was no way to exit gracefully after their heads hit the floor; it was beyond packed. In the event, I sidled up to the nearest pillar, bowed my head and put my hand over my heart until they'd finished their raka'at. Similarly, when visiting my brother's church, I exit the pew with his parishioners, step aside while they head for communion, sit down, and then rejoin the queue to take my seat as they come back.

                                All of these omissions attracted attention, but no one had any issues with them because I'd gone to to the minimal trouble needed to show sympathy for their beliefs. These were simple, painless, but otherwise unremarkable gestures of respect paid to adherents in their places of worship. If I didn't feel comfortable performing them, I wouldn't visit temples, mosques, or churches, a point you've artlessly elided here.

                                A civil ceremony in front of a judge or a justice of the peace comes with a common expression for us yanks.

                                We call it "not a church wedding."

                                The judge in question here apparently feels the need to insert his religious meanings into our secular ceremony. This is wholly inappropriate. It's not his church, these are not his parishioners, and moreover to the contrary, this is the designated space in our society for a non-religious wedding. To give the guy the credit he's due, he did wish them well after finding someone else to perform the ceremony. Kudos for that, but considering his other duties, it's still quite troubling. If he's not willing to recognize our non-religious weddings, "So help me God," I'd question his ability to recognize my non-religious oath.

                                We have an actual instance outside the conditional, though I expect it will vanish as the court becomes more familiar with the change in its duties. But leaving a couple hanging for forty minutes isn't acceptable. We can't single people out like that. It should be noted that if they hadn't been delayed, we wouldn't know about this, and if there are no further delays, we'll never hear about it again. The religious accommodation sought by the judge — to find someone else — is quickly becoming common practice. In this case, it just needs to be smoothed out.


                                A more intractable issue arises with folks like Kentucky's Casey Davis who wish to make these delays official. I wouldn't object to his suggestion of putting marriage licenses online, especially if facilities and assistance were provided, but they're not online today, and same sex marriage is now the law of the land. We'll discover soon enough whether a county court clerk has to follow it.
                                "The rest of the county court clerks are complying with the law regardless of their personal beliefs," Beshear said in a statement. "The courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X