Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Ravi]

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

There was no case in my use of the term.

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

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

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

recusals specific to the judiciary are reserved for case law.

Omg

Recusal is a verb, ya dumb ass.

— re·cus·al \-ˈkyü-zəl\ noun

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

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

so in your small mind it is ok to fire someone over religious belief?

It is okay to fire someone for not doing their job.

If I tell one of my staff that he needs to make copies for me, if he says he won't do it, because it violates his religious beliefs, then I am firing him for not doing his job- not because of his religious beliefs.

However that said- as I recall, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. If there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made- such as this judge not doing any marriages, in exchange for handling other types of judicial responsibilities, and another employee can handle the marriages- that might be a reasonable accommodation.

Kind of case that makes employment lawyers lots of money.

The judge is seeking to be pulled from the marriage rotation. That seems reasonable.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It is part of his "religious beliefs" - now you are picking and choosing what religious beliefs to protect?

if you can show me where its ok to make your own laws and totally disregard the entire constitution, I will agree that the animal humpers have a right to violate our constitution with their own misguided version of a law.

Its not okay to make your own laws(unless you are a legislature) or disregard the Constitution.

No one but legislatures and Congress are making laws. No one is disregarding the Constitution.

Well maybe this judge.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

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

I do not know if he does or not. I can only go by what he himself said. But IF he marries straight couples he is obligated to marry gay couples under the law and under the constitution.

Agreed... As a government official he should not be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to marry gays while continuing to marry heteros.

so what are we arguing about?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. Soooo . . . is it just "some sins" you are against, or all sins? Who picks which sins are the ones that are "bad enough" to refuse service to another person who is also perhaps "flawed" in your eyes? What about fatties? What about smokers? What about drunks and drug addicts? I mean, a lot of times you can tell a drunk or a druggie when you see him/her. Do you refuse to do business with them too? Is it solely up to your own discretion, when running a business, who is a sinner and not worthy of being served and who is?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

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

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

so in your small mind it is ok to fire someone over religious belief?

It is okay to fire someone for not doing their job.

If I tell one of my staff that he needs to make copies for me, if he says he won't do it, because it violates his religious beliefs, then I am firing him for not doing his job- not because of his religious beliefs.

However that said- as I recall, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. If there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made- such as this judge not doing any marriages, in exchange for handling other types of judicial responsibilities, and another employee can handle the marriages- that might be a reasonable accommodation.

Kind of case that makes employment lawyers lots of money.

The judge is seeking to be pulled from the marriage rotation. That seems reasonable.

Well said!

 

[Ravi]

Lol! Too funny how the conservative Christians are totally losing their minds over the gays.

nobody is losing their mind over gays. The problem is religious freedom being violated once again.

The problem is "religious freedom" is getting stretched so thin it's becoming a code word for bigotry.

Absolutely. And that really isn't good for religion as a whole. In fact I believe it will eventually will doom religion. Kind of like the confederate flag.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Funny. You guys have a LOT of rules. I'm quite sure some of you have and do (and I mean regularly) commit sins yourselves. Ever think about that? Yet, here you are . . . preaching about your "religious views." Lol. I've met some "christian conservative" men before.

Difference is that Im not arguing for my personal religious views. I would perform the marriage. no problem. be happy to do it.
Im arguing for someone elses religious rights.
the gays can get married anywhere, Im sure there is another judge in the building that would be happy to perform the wedding.
the judge in question however, needs to have the ability to maintain what he feels is a religious and moral obligation, regardless of my view.

 

[ChrisL]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

 

[Ravi]

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

There was no case in my use of the term. The definition provided two definitions, one narrow to cases, that does not apply, and one broadly to other situations that does apply. Again not sure why you think the "broadly" phrase in the definition applies to cases, when in fact it said broadly, as in not to cases... you are interpreting the definition incorrectly. Note the semicolon in the definition.

The first definition was referring to how a judge uses a recusal.

The second was just a broad definition of the word itself. ....not how a judge uses a recusal



Good ******* lord its not this hard. Recusals IN THE JUDICIARY are to eliminate bias WHEN TRYING A CASE. How is that not common sense? Theres no "recusal" for officiating marriage, theres no "bias" inherent with a NONDECISION. LOL WOW

Correct and when he's performing the marriage he's not acting as a judge, he's acting as an officiator of the ceremony. Thus my broad use of the term was correct since it did not apply to a case but rather to the marriage ceremony that he recused himself from presiding over.

If he's not acting as a judge, how can he use recusal as an excuse?

Religious freedom is the excuse. Recuse is a verb. Good lord you are dense.

Are you going to apologize for that? :LMAO:

 

[Skylar]

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

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

I do not know if he does or not. I can only go by what he himself said. But IF he marries straight couples he is obligated to marry gay couples under the law and under the constitution.

Agreed... As a government official he should not be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to marry gays while continuing to marry heteros.

so what are we arguing about?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

As long as it wouldn't create an undue burden for the other judges nor significantly impact the ability of couples to get married, I think removing him from the judicial rotation is reasonable.

As officiating weddings and adjudicating are different. And have little to do with other.

 

[Ravi]

Hmmm. I wonder how many of the people preaching about their religious views are "sin free" anyway.

I wonder if the judge eats shellfish.

 

[ChrisL]

What if I hung a sign outside of my business saying "I don't serve ugly people"???

 

[RKMBrown]

There was no case in my use of the term.

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

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

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

recusals specific to the judiciary are reserved for case law.

Omg

Recusal is a verb, ya dumb ass.

— re·cus·al \-ˈkyü-zəl\ noun

recuse verb...

 

[Pop23]

As well as eligibility. Soon the judge could be asked to perform a plural marriage, or an incestuous marriage.

Simply a mess

Not really a mess- if the Judge opts out of performing all legal marriages he should be fine.

Plural marriages and incestuous marriages of all kinds are illegal in Ohio, so he could be asked- but ignore any illegal requests to marry.

When they are no longer illegal? Unless you see a Complelling state interest in denying the right, they soon could be. As of yet no one had forwarded that interest.

Check the law- still illegal. Show me where plural marriages or sibling marriages have been legalized.

I will wait.

^^^troll doing what trolls do

Need a bit of a history lesson? How much longer has same sex been banned compared to legal? And dates please.

You understand that when CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are afforded to a new group, laws have to change to accommodate those changes, right?

What does not exist today, can and will exist tomorrow thanks to the creation of new rights being granted.

You didn't do well in civics class, now did you?

So you are just doing your usual troll dance.

Plural marriages, sibling marriages- still illegal.

Well you certainly added nothing to the discussion, did you?

Tell me oh wise one, how many laws were changed, modified or eliminated entirely when the civil rights act was passed?

You don't have to be specific, 10? 100? Thousands perhaps?

Oh, one day they were on the books, the next, POOF, gone (or added, just sayin)

But you do not care about future generations of possibly inbred children. I get that.

Your side is stuck in the hippy dippy days of, if it feels good, do it

 

[Maryland Patriot]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

We do that all the time.
Im not going to invite a known nose picker out to lunch. or am I going to want stinky fouling the air in my car, so he is not going to get a ride, ugly is another matter, I can play pool or go out to lunch with an ugly person (I assume you mean looks) but Im not going to be humping them in the shower anytime soon.
so yes, we all discriminate to some degree with those that we dont agree with or that we are repulsed by.

 

[Pop23]

What if I hung a sign outside of my business saying "I don't serve ugly people"???

You'd exclude yourself

That's just dumb

 

[Ravi]

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

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

I do not know if he does or not. I can only go by what he himself said. But IF he marries straight couples he is obligated to marry gay couples under the law and under the constitution.

Agreed... As a government official he should not be allowed to discriminate against gays by refusing to marry gays while continuing to marry heteros.

so what are we arguing about?

Whether we should be able to fire him for discriminating against gay couples. While I'm ok with removing him from the job of marrying people if he discriminates based on religious grounds, I'm not ok with removing him from the job of being a judge. IMO these are two distinct jobs.

From what he wrote he wants the special privilege of being allowed to violate the constitution by continuing to marry straight couples while refusing to marry gay couples.

 

[ChrisL]

And what about me? If you can claim religious beliefs to discriminate that which you feel is a "sin" then why can't I discriminate against people who I just think are disgusting? Perhaps they smell bad? Maybe they're ugly?

We do that all the time.
Im not going to invite a known nose picker out to lunch. or am I going to want stinky fouling the air in my car, so he is not going to get a ride, ugly is another matter, I can play pool or go out to lunch with an ugly person (I assume you mean looks) but Im not going to be humping them in the shower anytime soon.
so yes, we all discriminate to some degree with those that we dont agree with or that we are repulsed by.

We are talking about doing business here. Not in my personal life. If I find ugly people as repulsive as you find gay people, then why can't I refuse service to them?

 

[Coyote]

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

Refusing to perform a legal job-related duty should result in impeachment. If we let people decline however respectfully to perform their duty on spec, where does it end? Gonna let them refuse to try a case involving a gay bashing because they don't think gays deserve legal protection?

Wanna be reliigous, more power to you. But you swear to be an officer of the court, or a judge you're obligated to do your ******* job.

Why would gays want to be married by someone who was 'forced' to join the freaks?

-Geaux

Why would a gay couple know that the judge is a Christian freak?

A magistrate or judge is assumed to be conducting a CIVIL ceremony - why would they expect otherwise?