Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[bodecea]

Not true in this case.

"The court uses a weekly rotation of judges to perform marriages and handle other unscheduled matters. McConnell was on duty Monday when he refused to perform the wedding."

Ohio Judge Wants to Know If He Can Refuse Gay Weddings - ABC News

He was on duty. His duty is to act in accordance to the law. He failed to do so and should retire.

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Does the bible mention civil marriage at all?

 

[Ravi]

If its part of their job, yes they are. It would be like a Buddhist working at a slaughter house refusing to kill animals or handle meat....but still expecting to get paid.

If your religion prevents you from performing your job, then that's a valid justification for letting someone go. And by the judge's own admission, he was failing to perform official actions as part of his duties assignment.

Would a fundamentalist Muslim judge be justified in refusing to rule in any manner that didn't uphold Sharia law? Or say, refuse to hear any case involving domestic violence because his religious beliefs allowed for beating your wife?

If not, why not?

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

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.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

Depends on your location.

You cannot grandfather clause away someone's legal rights.

If that were true there would be no business with steps. all would have been changed over to ramps, same with new homes, no steps, all ramps.
and you are not grandfathering away someones rights by not installing a ramp.

You are grandfathering away someone's rights by not doing your job as a judge.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Stop being redundant. It's not part of his job, it's his choice to perform marriages.

So he chooses if he's going to do his job? I don't think so.

so, lets say at work, and I have no idea what you do, I assume it is above a janitor level position.
So, you come in one day and are at the computer working on whatever it is you work on, and the boss says, we are going to get rid of the cleaning crew, its going to be your job to clean the stains out of the toilets every day.
You just do it without complaint? no extra cash? no discussion? you just go in and clean up the bowl after bubba destroys it? You could quit I suppose, but what if you actually need that paycheck in order to take care of your family.

What religious objection would I have to cleaning toilets?

And of course, the judge is being asked to do the same thing he already does: officiate a wedding. There's no legal distinction between a same sex or opposite sex wedding.

They're both just marriage under the law.

question was not directed at you, I would assume based on your comprehension that being directed to clean a toilet would not be outside of the scope of your current job duties.

He's not objecting because its outside the scope of his duties. The judge acknowledges that officiating the wedding is PART of his duty assignment. Destroying your analogy.

Instead, the judge is objecting on the basis of his religious beliefs. Any analogy that you wish to invent would need to use the correct basis of objection to be a valid analogy.

He is objecting because the definition of marriage has changed to something that he is religiously objected to. Although in reality I think that he is suffering from the "Ick Factor" and is using religion as an excuse. but I cant prove that.

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like he refused to do his job.

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

 

[LindaVance826]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

American law is not sharia law. So your strawman does not hunt.

A judge may have many activities, marriage appears to be an activity some are expected to do. However there has been a fundamental change to marriage now. Thus the activity is different. Thus, our employees that perform said activities deserve the option of opting out on religious grounds. It is not justified to add a new task to job then fire someone that refuses to do the new task based on religious grounds. You will loose this one. You can force new judges to do the task by putting it on the job requirements and having them sign up for it in order to take the job, but you can't fire people cause they don't want to do this task.

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.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

Depends on your location.

You cannot grandfather clause away someone's legal rights.

If that were true there would be no business with steps. all would have been changed over to ramps, same with new homes, no steps, all ramps.
and you are not grandfathering away someones rights by not installing a ramp.

You are grandfathering away someone's rights by not doing your job as a judge.

Then you are grandfathering away someones rights by not having the ramp.
The idea of grandfathering is that everything does not have to change everytime something new comes along.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the Judicature be required to take a morals test for Standing purposes instead of any drug test?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Exactly. And if your religion prevents you from doing your job, that's a valid basis for firing someone. Religion doesn't mean you get to ignore your job duties and still expect to get paid.

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Should the Judicature be required to take a morals test for Standing purposes instead of any drug test?

He would have taken that morals test before the decision, so it would not have made a difference. They do however have to take courses on ethics.

 

[Brain357]

Yes, exactly. The religious people are just angry and pouting because they can't get their way and make themselves feel better by making another group of Americans into second class citizens. They are running out of people to openly hate.

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

 

[Ava]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

If I were gay and interested in marriage to same-sex, I wouldn't want someone to marry us unless they wanted to. Don't be laying any negative vibes on our desire for commitment. And we won't sue you if you don't want to marry us and that is because we believe in freedom of choice, in more ways than one.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

From what Im reading here, the vast majority are in favor of, or at least not adverse to same sex marriage. However at the same time they are smart enough to realize that religious freedom is equally important.

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

Just like there is nothing in the constitution that says they have the right to be married, the Bible can be read in such a way that by marrying them you are a willing party to it and subjected to the same punishment as those being married.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the Judicature be required to take a morals test for Standing purposes instead of any drug test?

He would have taken that morals test before the decision, so it would not have made a difference. They do however have to take courses on ethics.

Shouldn't a Judge have standing for "moral" jurisdictional purposes or should subject matter specialists be subpoenaed for inquiry purposes?

 

[RKMBrown]

The court said it did

based on what. Marriage has never been a right, it has always been a privilage. You dont need to apply with the government to exercise a right.

Th Supreme Court says otherwise. About 4 times going back nearly half a century.

Where is it written into the constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a right need be enumerated to exist?
You may wanna take a look at the 9th amendment. With special attention to the words 'reserve' and 'rights'.

You miss the point.
The legal institution of marriage exists because of the laws that create it. Laws do not create rights.
Absent those laws, or upon their repeal, marriage as a legal institution creases to exist. Absence of a law cannot take away a right.
That is, marriage exists because the state created it and the states can take it away; that being said, marriage cannot be a right.

Incorrect. Life is a right. Marriage is a fundamental part of that right.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Should the Judicature be required to take a morals test for Standing purposes instead of any drug test?

He would have taken that morals test before the decision, so it would not have made a difference. They do however have to take courses on ethics.

Shouldn't a Judge have standing for "moral" jurisdictional purposes or should subject matter specialists be subpoenaed for inquiry purposes?

who's idea of morality are we using here. Morals and laws are not the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Have you heard of a thing called a Grandfather clause? If you have a private business you would not have to install a handicap ramp unless you did some type of building upgrade that required permits.

Depends on your location.

You cannot grandfather clause away someone's legal rights.

If that were true there would be no business with steps. all would have been changed over to ramps, same with new homes, no steps, all ramps.
and you are not grandfathering away someones rights by not installing a ramp.

You are grandfathering away someone's rights by not doing your job as a judge.

Then you are grandfathering away someones rights by not having the ramp.
The idea of grandfathering is that everything does not have to change everytime something new comes along.

Again, the ramp depends on the city ordinance. Often businesses are given time to comply, that is true. But in this case no one is being given time to comply with the law. Nor should they be since it was just ruled that SSM is as much marriage as OSM.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Pathetic Hissy fits over Obergefell

It has been said of those on the right that whatever doesn’t kill them will make them crazier, and since Obergfell, they have been proving that adage correct time and again.

We all know about the bakers, the photographers and the wedding planners who claim that they can’t do their jobs and provide their services to gay couples because of their “deeply held religious beliefs. And we know about all of the new Jim Crow state laws that purport to protect religious freedom but really support discrimination.

That is all shameful and ridiculous in itself. But now we have public officials-civil servants who work for the government taking it upon themselves to defy the law. They are advocating anarchy.

They could just as well decide that they do not want to allow interracial couples to marry based on some religious prohibition. However, they won’t because outward racial bigotry is frowned upon-although still there just under the surface.

They might also find a religious reason to deny a marriage license to those who have been divorced, or who have had a child outside of marriage but they won’t do that either. Why? Because most of them have probably done those things themselves. What about interfaith couples? Denying them a license would not go over to well either.

This is the height of hypocrisy. If they can’t do their job they should get another one. Here are some examples:

Gay Couples Across The Nation Still Denied Right To Marry Due To Public Employees' Religious Beliefs Gay Couples Across The Nation Still Denied Right To Marry Due To Public Employees Religious Beliefs - The New Civil Rights Movement


Even though the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is legal across the country, 14 magistrates in North Carolina have chosen to not perform same-sex marriages by taking advantage of a recusal law that passed last month. They are citing a “sincerely held religious objection” for their recusal. According to the Charlotte Observer, those magistrates will not be able to perform civil marriages for any couple, gay or straight, for at least six months.


A video of a Kentucky county clerk denying a male couple their marriage license has gone viral this week. The clerk can be heard telling the couple they need to go to another county.

In Ohio, Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell refused to marry two women because of his Christian beliefs. He released the following statement:


In Texas, a same-sex couple was denied a marriage license every day until they filed a federal lawsuit. Why?

They just need to get over it!

 

[bodecea]

Isn't freedom of religion what the pilgrims left England for? How about pacifists who don't believe in war? Or the Muslims who won't buy from Subway because they sell bacon. The Americans who are standing up to a law that is against their religion are standing firm in their faith. God and his Word are the highest Power.

What do you think should happen to a pacifist who voluntarily joins the military then refuses to shoot at the enemy?
What do you think should happen to Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take passengers with pets or with alcohol?
What do you think of the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their religious freedom and refused to give it to others...in fact killed other christians such as Quakers?

 

[RKMBrown]

How do you see the 14th applying to same sex marriage.

Equal treatment under the law. If a officer of the court marries straight couples....the 14th dictates he cannot treat gay couples unequally. That is gender discrimination.

muslim

The state can not make or uphold laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

And for the 3rd time: Does using the state to impose your religious views on unwilling people violate the federal constitution?

How many times would you suggest I ask the question before you'll attempt to answer it?

you have already been answered, Im sorry if you cant understand it.

No, I haven't. You've said the State cannot make laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

Okay. So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

This is the 4th time I've asked. You clearly have no answer.

What judge has imposed his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State to violate the Federal Constitution? Are you trying to derail the thread?

The judge in the OP. He denied services he was obligated to provide as officer of the court because his religion mandated that those seeking those services shouldn't have them.

That's the imposition of his religious beliefs. And using the State to impose them. The 'unwilling' would be those who wanted to get married.

Incorrect. Just as the JUDGE CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GETTING MARRIED YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM TO ******* MARRY YOU, YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIECE OF SHIT.

 

[Brain357]

Does the bible say a judge cannot marry two men or women?

Actually the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time more than one wife was acceptable.
Im not basing my opinion on what the Bible does or does not say, that should be obvious since I am in favor of same sex marriage.
The way I see it, if its such a sin that someone is going to hell for engaging in it, it would still only affect me if I married another man. since I dont see that happening in the near or distant future, Im not too worried.
Homosexual references were mostly made in Leviticus, The Mosaic laws. When Jesus came along, the job of judging others sins was no longer in the hands of man. If I am going to follow the Mosaic laws, then I need to follow them all, not just the ones that suit my needs.

Based on that the judge is ok to marry them. Nobody is saying the judge needs to become homosexual.

I personally agree, however because I view something in one way does not mean that everyone else has to view it that way too.
I would marry them, Hell, I would even attend the wedding party afterwards.

If there is nothing in the bible that says marrying them is a sin, then he really has no religious base for not marrying them.

Just like there is nothing in the constitution that says they have the right to be married, the Bible can be read in such a way that by marrying them you are a willing party to it and subjected to the same punishment as those being married.

Yes religion can be twisted in many ways through interpretation. Which is why it has no place in our laws.