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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    To repeat myself - there is no issue at all. The ceremony is mere window dressing - it has no effect in law. Sign the papers, congrats, you're married as far as the law is concerned. That's it - it's over.

    A judge's duty is to decide matters of law - and to recuse himself when there is a conflict that might affect his judgment. Declining to do something that has no effect in law is no abdication of duty whatsoever. Even if it had an effect, recusal is the appropriate response. A judge should never involve himself in matters of law where his impartiality may be rightfully questioned - which is why recusal exists.

    There. Is. No. Issue.
    There is an issue. His abdication of his duties as an employee is an abdication of his duties as an employee period. An employee can't say, "I will do this part of my job, but I won't do this part because I don't believe in it." An employer doesn't have to accomodate an employees beliefs, if the employees beliefs mean that the employee can refuse to do his job. Thats just silly.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      So basically, you think other people should be forced to do things that violate their beliefs even though you yourself decline to participate in things that are at odds with your beliefs.
      I don't think that Lao, who for one thing doesn't even exist, was speaking in terms of his employment. Nobody is forced to do things, but if they sign on and are paid to do things then they can't decline to do them and expect to continue to get paid for it.

      And the ceremony thing is stupid - it has no effect in law and is not a judicial duty. It's window dressing - the signing is the actual marriage.
      The ceremony thing, whether you believe it to have no effect in law or not, is part of the job requirement. You can't tell your employer, I don't believe in this aspect of my duties so I will not perform that aspect of my job.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        There is an issue. His abdication of his duties as an employee is an abdication of his duties as an employee period. An employee can't say, "I will do this part of my job, but I won't do this part because I don't believe in it." An employer doesn't have to accomodate an employees beliefs, if the employees beliefs mean that the employee can refuse to do his job. Thats just silly.
        Sorry Jim they do just because you dont like it doens't mean it is not the law again Here is the proof you tried to hand wave away.
        You can ignore and deny the truth all you want JimL but it doesn't mean it isn't true that employer's do have to make reasonable accommodations in cases like the OPs to allow their employee's their constitutionally protect religious right not to go against their religious conscience. That is what rightfully happened here whether you hypocritical intolerant bigots like it or not. Justice was done in this case unlike what happened to the cake baker and photographer.
        Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-11-2015, 04:29 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          The ceremony thing, whether you believe it to have no effect in law or not, is part of the job requirement. You can't tell your employer, I don't believe in this aspect of my duties so I will not perform that aspect of my job.
          SEE my above post showing how wrong you are again.
          Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-11-2015, 03:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
            Sorry Jim they do just because you dont like it doens't mean it is not the law again Here is the proof you tried to hand wave away.
            You can ignore and deny the truth all you want JimL but it doesn't mean it isn't true that employer's do have to make reasonable accommodations in cases like the OPs to allow their employee's their constitutionally protect religious right not to go against their religious conscience. That is what rightfully happened here whether you hypocritical intolerant bigots like it or not. Justice was done in this case unlike what happened to the cake baker and photographer.
            RTT, I asked you when you previously posted this link to the law in question to point out to me where specifically it states that exempting an employee from his duties due to his/her beliefs was what the court meant by "reasonable accomodation." Simply linking to the law again doesn't answer that question. I understand that an employer has to make reasonable accomodations, but having to accomodate an employee, who due to their beliefs, completely refuses to perform certain aspects of their job is not a "reasonable accomodation." If you could show a specific article of the law with which you arrived at that interpretation, then we can discuss it, otherwise your assertion about the law is meaningless.
            Last edited by JimL; 07-11-2015, 07:50 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
              SEE my above post showing how wrong you are again.
              Sorry RTT, but the law is not so broad as to excuse an employee from doing the job that he signed on to do, and was hired to do. The law does not mean that an employee can exempt himself altogether from certain duties pertaining to his job discription.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                RTT, I asked you when you previously posted this link to the law in question to point out to me where specifically it states that exempting an employee from his duties due to his/her beliefs was what the court meant by "reasonable accomodation." Simply linking to the law again doesn't answer that question. I understand that an employer has to make reasonable accomodations, but having to accomodate an employee, who due to their beliefs, completely refuses to perform certain aspects of their job is not a "reasonable accomodation." If you could show a specific article of the law with which you arrived at that interpretation, then we can discuss it, otherwise your assertion about the law is meaningless.
                first you need to answer the following question before we go any further in this discussion

                Was there another Judge available to handle the ceremony or not? JimL this question only requires a yes or no answer. I will not discuss what reasonable accommodation means until you give me your yes or no answer to my question. since that yes or no answer well be part of the explanation of what Reasonable Accommodation means and who is supposed to be the one to make reasonable accommodations.
                Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-11-2015, 10:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Actually, I was pointing out the incongruity - I don't think I'd agree that it was hypocrisy since I don't think you realize the parallel exists. More like a double standard, really.

                  And I said nothing at all about 'lack of respect' - not sure where that came from.
                  The parallel was manufactured, and fitted like a cheap suit. More on this in the sequel.

                  Um, other than the 'force of law, constitutionally' part which is nonsense - nothing in the Constitution says a court can't be held in a religious building and historically, churches often served as schools and courtrooms as needed - this is essentially correct - and completely beside the point.
                  You're pushing way too hard on this one, Laura. There's no end to establishment cases handed down by the Supreme Court preserving the secular nature of the courthouse. Holding court inside a building owned by a religious order doesn't change that. That's fact, not nonsense. A religious building doesn't create a religious space except in how it's used. And that religion can change. CP's church, for instance, swaps between two friendly Christian denominations, but even within Christianity, I know of hostile sharing.

                  No prob - because that wasn't what I said. F minus on the reading comprehension there. I specified that the others in question were being asked to do things contrary to their beliefs "when they feel it would create a false impression". Go look again - you even quoted it. It's not necessary to establish that they would create a false impression (similar to slander and libel laws in kind) but that they believed they might. Public impressions are a function of speech rights (think branding and slander) and therefore a person has the right to protect them (slander and libel laws again).
                  Right enough, I filled in your missing meaning, which is still missing, which gives me all the leave I need to continue to do so. I could set this aside as yet another religiously-inspired incoherence, but as it stands, the clear impression is that you're leaving it out because you understand going there would eviscerate your argument.

                  Feel free to correct the omission.

                  What false impression are you claiming, other than the obvious: that a civil wedding ceremony, held in a courthouse, officiated by a judge ... isn't religious.



                  Back to the judge, if that's a false impression, there's no room left to recognize a non-religious marriage. Now it should be noted that he didn't make that claim. You did. And here's the best part of the whole irony. That's not me forcing him into your cheap suit, it's me telling you it doesn't fit. Hey, somebody needs to defend the guy against your false impressions.

                  Uh, granted - so the heck what? It has no effect in law and cannot therefore be considered a judicial duty. If it's not a duty, the judge has no obligation as a judge to perform the thing. It doesn't do anything, isn't a duty and therefore the 'he has a duty' argument is crap.

                  What are you babbling about? There's no reason to allege a ceremony - nor is the judge in question alleged to have falsified one. No idea where 'my wishes' got into this fantasy of yours but the stupid ceremony is NOT a judicial duty. Never has been, isn't now and unlikely to ever be.
                  Speaking of babbling, what are you talking about?

                  You can't seem to divorce your wishes about what is true about marriage ceremonies from what actually is true. So, howsabout you click your shiny heels together and follow us all back to Kansas. A marriage license certifies that an officiant is authorized to perform a wedding ceremony, have it witnessed, and return documentation to the state to have the wedding recognized.

                  There may be exceptions to the inclusion of a wedding ceremony, but I can't find any. There are endless images of marriage certificates where the contrary is witnessed.

                  Again, so what? The law doesn't care if you have the thing or not - in both secular and sectarian cases, the marriage happens when the paper gets signed. Licensure has to do with the couple's expectations - the law couldn't care less if the ceremony is performed as it has no effect in law. Neither one of them do.

                  The limited case where it might matter would involve couples marrying under extreme circumstances (stranded on a deserted island for example). In that limited case the law might well regard the ceremony as the instigation rather than the signing. But you'd be hard pressed to find a case where this actually matters much.
                  You really should google up what's written on that "paper."

                  Good thing I'm starting from a true premise. The ceremony is not a judicial duty. Period. By definition, since judges in the American jurisprudence deal primarily with issues of law (unlike other systems where they deal with issues of fact - which is a rarity in American jurisprudence).

                  A judge has no duty to officiate in a matter that has no effect in law. Period. The civil marriage occurs at the signing - the clerk oversees more legal weddings than the Justice of the Peace does. Any judge can handle the paperwork if necessary (not sure on the specifics but pretty sure they vary by government in the US) so at most, you have a legitimate reason for recusal. The judge down the hall probably didn't even blink when and if it was brought for signature.

                  A judge with a conflict has a duty to recuse so even if you were correct - and you aren't - the judge in question acted properly.
                  Oh my.

                  A conflict of interest in this case would make a judge into a scofflaw.

                  I'm not going there. Feel free to start that fight without me.

                  What we've actually got is a judge, and now a number of county court clerks, who've bowed to public pressure against legally recognizing same-sex marriages. In the process, they've gathered the support of ardent conservatives who in other cases pound shoes on desks demanding strict observance of our laws and the constitution.

                  You can't make this stuff up.

                  Hilarity ensues.

                  These aren't religious weddings, so religious objections don't apply, or shouldn't.

                  Americans have the legal right to be married in front of a judge, which makes marriage ceremonies a judicial duty. This is an accommodation for folks who either can't or won't have a church wedding. If no minister in town will marry you, you can go down to the courthouse and have the judge do it. I don't see much room for alternatives, so even if it wasn't the case, which it is, we'd have to make it so.

                  I know, I know, the whole point here is to deny these folks their marriages. My point is that to the extent you single them out, you verify charges of discrimination, and to the extent you rely on more abstract principles, either the collateral damage is unacceptable, or the principles weigh against you. After the Supreme Court has ruled, we know what the constitution says. Americans can disagree with their decisions, but our legal system cannot, not without abandoning the rule of law, or seeing it fragmented.

                  Supreme Court decisions must be enforced by our court systems. Not necessarily by this judge, but certainly by that courthouse. I think RTT's claims that he should be granted workplace accommodation are infinitely stronger here.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                    first you need to answer the following question before we go any further in this discussion

                    Was there another Judge available to handle the ceremony or not? JimL this question only requires a yes or no answer. I will not discuss what reasonable accommodation means until you give me your yes or no answer to my question. since that yes or no answer well be part of the explanation of what Reasonable Accommodation means and who is supposed to be the one to make reasonable accommodations.
                    Actually, you could argue both cases, and probably should, because both cases are going to arise.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Actually, you could argue both cases, and probably should, because both cases are going to arise.
                      I'm waiting on JimLs answer here. he's the one insisting that it wasn't reasonable for this judge to stand on his constitutional protect first amendment right to practice his religion when the rights of others where not denied int his case and the cake bakers and photographer. he's the one who needs to answer my question.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                        first you need to answer the following question before we go any further in this discussion

                        Was there another Judge available to handle the ceremony or not? JimL this question only requires a yes or no answer. I will not discuss what reasonable accommodation means until you give me your yes or no answer to my question. since that yes or no answer well be part of the explanation of what Reasonable Accommodation means and who is supposed to be the one to make reasonable accommodations.
                        In this particular case, yes. But is finding a replacement a reasonable accomodation for an employer to have to make for a judge whose job it is to uphold the law because he believes the law to be wrong? You could also run into the problem of there being no one to replace the judge, then what?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          There are some things you won't do because they clash with your principles. But you try as far as you are comfortable to be gracious and show respect for others beliefs. That's admirable. I don't see that the judge acted that much differently than you.
                          Not in intention, I expect, but in execution, oh yeah. I didn't leave anybody hanging for forty minutes while I took care of an issue I knew was going to arise. The situations aren't dissimilar. We both headed in knowing our normal rules for behavior were going to change. We both saw this coming. But it didn't take me more than an afternoon's worth of forethought and talking to a few friends to know how best to handle even the most difficult of these visits.

                          As I mentioned earlier, I'd imagine that's already been corrected. I don't expect this case will make the news again. The couple did get married, so there's not much standing for a lawsuit. Can't be much in the way of damages for a forty-minute delay. On the other hand, we already have lawsuits filed by couples who are currently being denied marriage licenses. That needs to get cleaned up right now.

                          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          I think the real issue is how far should people be compelled to live and act in public according to the currently prevalent secular mores? Maybe a secular state should compel judges to officiate at all ceremonies, even if that offends their religious beliefs. And bakers should be forced to provide services for ceremonies they feel are morally wrong, and pastor should not be able to tell their congregations that the Bible says that homosexual behaviour is a sin. And so on.

                          My concern is that this kind of approach sets a precedent of the currently politically dominant worldview imposing it's values and practices on society as whole. Secularists find that approach extremely objectionable when religious rulers take it (Saudi Arabia, etc), I don't know why they don't see that they are effectively doing the same thing.

                          If - as some might say - doing such a ceremony is 'No big deal' because it's meaningless, or because morals are relative, or whatever, then why the insistence that people must kow-tow to the currently fashionable moral ethos? Surely it's also 'No big deal' if a judge excuses himself, or a baker says that they don't supply cakes of that specific kind, or whatever. Right?
                          Your overall point here is well taken. About forty percent of Americans still object to same sex marriage. Now that proponents are in the majority, what should be done about that, and more pointedly, where.

                          In the public sphere, the majority is going to rule. Our public institutions are going to accommodate same sex marriages, starting with the courts. I'll note again that the judge in this case didn't even try to prevent the marriage. I didn't see any governors stopping gay couples at the courthouse doors. That much of the issue has been resolved.

                          The real question is how far that public compulsion as applied to public institutions is going to extend into more private settings as applied to individuals. Is this judge, or even that baker, going to have to deliver that cake. Are churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages going to lose their tax exemptions. And should they.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                            Not in intention, I expect, but in execution, oh yeah. I didn't leave anybody hanging for forty minutes while I took care of an issue I knew was going to arise. The situations aren't dissimilar. We both headed in knowing our normal rules for behavior were going to change. We both saw this coming. But it didn't take me more than an afternoon's worth of forethought and talking to a few friends to know how best to handle even the most difficult of these visits.

                            As I mentioned earlier, I'd imagine that's already been corrected. I don't expect this case will make the news again. The couple did get married, so there's not much standing for a lawsuit. Can't be much in the way of damages for a forty-minute delay. On the other hand, we already have lawsuits filed by couples who are currently being denied marriage licenses. That needs to get cleaned up right now.



                            Your overall point here is well taken. About forty percent of Americans still object to same sex marriage. Now that proponents are in the majority, what should be done about that, and more pointedly, where.

                            In the public sphere, the majority is going to rule. Our public institutions are going to accommodate same sex marriages, starting with the courts. I'll note again that the judge in this case didn't even try to prevent the marriage. I didn't see any governors stopping gay couples at the courthouse doors. That much of the issue has been resolved.

                            The real question is how far that public compulsion as applied to public institutions is going to extend into more private settings as applied to individuals. Is this judge, or even that baker, going to have to deliver that cake. Are churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages going to lose their tax exemptions. And should they.
                            Churches are not required by law to perform same sex marriages, nor should they be, so I don't see any legal reasoning there that should cause them the loss of their tax exempt status.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              In this particular case, yes. But is finding a replacement a reasonable accomodation for an employer to have to make for a judge whose job it is to uphold the law because he believes the law to be wrong? You could also run into the problem of there being no one to replace the judge, then what?


                              Well since there will always be someone else around to do so there will always be someone to replace him. You see here in America in order to uphold the law judges are required to recuse themselves from court cases if there is a conflict of interest in order to uphold the law. So there are other judges around to take over(Not as Teal has pointed that it is necessary since this is not a duty that must be performed by the judge.) The Judge is not and never will be unreasonable in refusing to go against his first amendment right here since the mechanism that works for court cases also works in this case.

                              The law I showed you tells the employer that if there is a reasonable way like there was here to accommodate the Rights of the Employee they must do it which was done here. It is unreasonable for an employer to force an employee to go against his Constitutionally protected right to not to participate in what he sincerely thinks is a sin do to his religious view when there is an alternative as there is here. It is reasonable for an employee to ask for such an accommodation. It is up the the employers to make every reasonable alternative they can and they did here so it is not an issue.

                              Why are so you bound and determined to make an issue where there is none.
                              Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-12-2015, 05:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                                Well since there will always be someone esle around to do it it is a mote point since here in America judges [B][I]are by law required to recuse themselves form court cases if there is a conflict of interest. The Judge is not and never will be unreasonable in refusing to go against his first amendment right . The law I showed you does it tells the employer that if there is a reasonable way like there was here to accommodate the Rights of the judge or others they must do it and they did.
                                Always?

                                I feel for the people in small town America where there is only one judge.

                                I also don't think that CoI rules matter here. This aren't court cases, they're marriages.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X