Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Ravi]

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....

Says you. The judge had a different take (bold added for emphasis):

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment"

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

'Duties assignment' just kicks the shit out of your claim that he has no such duty. Its part of his job.

And instead of carrying out his job, he's abusing his power as a representative of the State. And denying state services that those denied have a constitutional and legal right to.....because his specific religious beliefs insist that these people shouldn't have them.

That's establishment of religion by the State. And an violation of the 1st amendment.

.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

He need not accept any lifestyle. He need only do his job. If he can't, that's ample justification to fire him. Regardless of why.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

No, marriage is a religious sacriment...IF YOURE RELIGIOUS.

ill be going to vegas in April for my cousins very non religious MARRIAGE

Ok, so the judge is religious, therefore its a religious sacriment to him. forcing him to perform it is violating his rights. to threaten to fire him for not performing it would also be a violation.

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

 

[Skylar]

You dont dictate our laws to us.

Your religion is wholly irrelevant in the case of state marrage.

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

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

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

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

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

Not according to our law. And our law is the only relevant standard in a discussion of legality.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

actually, since marriage as defined is a religious sacrement, its the state that does not get to define it for the Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

No, marriage is a religious sacriment...IF YOURE RELIGIOUS.

ill be going to vegas in April for my cousins very non religious MARRIAGE

Ok, so the judge is religious, therefore its a religious sacriment to him. forcing him to perform it is violating his rights. to threaten to fire him for not performing it would also be a violation.

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

No, marriage is a religious sacriment...IF YOURE RELIGIOUS.

ill be going to vegas in April for my cousins very non religious MARRIAGE

Ok, so the judge is religious, therefore its a religious sacriment to him. forcing him to perform it is violating his rights. to threaten to fire him for not performing it would also be a violation.

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

Both are perfectly fine - an employer doesnt have to recognize tour religious feelings, same as YOU dont have to work for that employer. NO violation.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the Muslim judge would have the right to refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia.......if it was wrong to do otherwise in his 'religious mind'?

If not, why not?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Marriage is an elective power of a judge, not a duty.....

Says you. The judge had a different take (bold added for emphasis):

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment"

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

'Duties assignment' just kicks the shit out of your claim that he has no such duty. Its part of his job.

And instead of carrying out his job, he's abusing his power as a representative of the State. And denying state services that those denied have a constitutional and legal right to.....because his specific religious beliefs insist that these people shouldn't have them.

That's establishment of religion by the State. And an violation of the 1st amendment.

.....or did it never occur to you to wonder why the only consequences he's facing is a few calls for impeachment from rabid Leftists? Sorry, you can't force people to accept your lifestyle. Get used to freedom because it's not going away any time soon.

He need not accept any lifestyle. He need only do his job. If he can't, that's ample justification to fire him. Regardless of why.

Idiot, that means the marriage was on his docket. Judges have docket cases reassigned for many reasons, including, as is in this case, a personal conflict of interest. Nothing is going to happen to this judge except for you in the *** militia bitching and moaning about it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

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

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

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

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

Then the Muslim judge would have the right to refuse to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia.......if it was wrong to do otherwise in his 'religious mind'?

If not, why not?

sharia law is not protected by our constitution. we have our own laws.
You continue to show your ignorance of our constitution. You really should stop.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Ok, so the judge is religious, therefore its a religious sacriment to him. forcing him to perform it is violating his rights. to threaten to fire him for not performing it would also be a violation.

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

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

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

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.

The idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.

Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

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

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

 

[G.T.]

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

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

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

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

 

[G.T.]

American law is also not Christian law. There was no strawman.

If a law changes people don't have to follow the law? Are you being serious? If the city my business is in decides I have to put in a wheelchair ramp I don't have to do it because it is a new law? LMAO

I think what the judge should do is express to a potential couple that he has reservations about marrying them and if they agree, he will bring in another judge to perform the ceremony and pay the other judge out of his own pocket. If the couple doesn't agree, tough titties.

Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.

The idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.

Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

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

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

You really dont understand my post?


Really?


Really?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

Umm.....

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

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

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

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

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.

You can't change someone's job by adding a new duty that goes against their religion, then fire them for refusal to do the new duty on religious grounds. For example, if you add abortion to a job's duties, you can't force someone to kill babies when it is against their religion.

Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.

Ok, yes you can. And yes, you will likely loose a civil law suit on the grounds of religious discrimination. So here's to hoping you authoritarian types get your way and the judge sues and wins a few hundred million.

It's funny that you are calling us authoritarian when you are supporting big government deciding who he will and will not marry. That is authoritarian.

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

 

[Skylar]

He's not forced to perform it. He can choose not to....and be impeached. As his religious conviction makes it impossible for him to do his job.

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

Umm.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

Umm.....

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

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

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

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

Amd hes free to quit.

No violation.

and he is free to stay. No violation.

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

 

[koshergrl]

You are right....we can't force people to do their job. That's what canning them is for.

You can't change someone's job by adding a new duty that goes against their religion, then fire them for refusal to do the new duty on religious grounds. For example, if you add abortion to a job's duties, you can't force someone to kill babies when it is against their religion.

Sure you can. Unless they want to quit, which is totally up to them.

Ok, yes you can. And yes, you will likely loose a civil law suit on the grounds of religious discrimination. So here's to hoping you authoritarian types get your way and the judge sues and wins a few hundred million.

It's funny that you are calling us authoritarian when you are supporting big government deciding who he will and will not marry. That is authoritarian.

What the **** 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.

 

[RKMBrown]

Recusing oneself from marrying someone on religious grounds is a legal act, stop acting like a moron.

The idea of recusing onesself is to eliminate the appearance of or possible bias when deciding a case.

Marrying people as an official of the State is not a case.

Definition of RECUSE
transitive verb : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest.

I'm using the term in the broader context of avoiding a conflict of interest, more specifically an interest based on religious grounds.

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

Not officiating a marriage.

Youd think thats obvious.

What case are you talking about? You smoking weed?

You really dont understand my post?


Really?


Really?

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