Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

and by forcing him to perform the wedding, would his right to his religion be violated in favor of those seeking marriage?

 

[Skylar]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

Isn't that illegal?

only based on a supreme court ruling in Reynolds VS the U.S. But, reason used for that ruling was made null when the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage.

Who says that the Reynold's ruling was made 'null' by Obergefell? Obergefell never even mentions Reynolds. Let alone overturned it or nullified it.

So who are you citing on the 'nullification' of Reynolds? It sounds like its just you citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

 

[Ravi]

Of course there is a need. Not everyone believes in god, Judges are tasked to officiate at weddings. If they can't do the tasks required of them without discriminating, they should not be judges

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

in which case the law is in violation of his right to religion without it being hindered, and he should sue.

 

[Skylar]

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

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.

and by forcing him to perform the wedding, would his right to his religion be violated in favor of those seeking marriage?

If his religion prevents him from doing his job......then he needs to find another job.

And you never did answer my question: So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

so the judge should marry a man to two wives?

Isn't that illegal?

only based on a supreme court ruling in Reynolds VS the U.S. But, reason used for that ruling was made null when the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage.

Who says that the Reynold's ruling was made 'null' by Obergefell? Obergefell never even mentions Reynolds. Let alone overturned it or nullified it.

So who are you citing on the 'nullification' of Reynolds? It sounds like its just you citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

If you have no clue on the ruling just say so. Im citing the reason for both. They dont match up, if Reynolds is upheld, then the gay marriage can be refused. If gay marriage is upheld, then the Reynolds ruling is no longer valid.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

muslim
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.

and by forcing him to perform the wedding, would his right to his religion be violated in favor of those seeking marriage?

If his religion prevents him from doing his job......then he needs to find another job.

And you never did answer my question: So does a judge imposing his religious beliefs upon unwilling people using the power of the State violate the Federal Constitution?

You just need to go away until you learn to read. it has been answered, you just choose to keep asking the same question because you have little ability to comprehend.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

I'm sure there were some judges who refused to marry inter-racial couples. What happened to them?

A few years back a Judge did refuse to wed a interracial couple, so it still goes on even in today time.

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

 

[Brain357]

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

 

[bodecea]

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

in which case the law is in violation of his right to religion without it being hindered, and he should sue.

Nope...he isn't doing his job.

 

[Skylar]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

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?

Did that muslim judge swear to uphold the constitution of the United States when He took on the job?

Yup. Just like the judge in the OP.

So if the Muslim judge can't impose his religion upon unwilling people using the power of the State.....why can the Christian judge?

now the question here is if the right to religion as actually written holds more or less weight than the right to marry, which is not specifically written. One of the two rights are going to be violated.

The judge is an officer of the court. He represents the State. And the State has no religious rights.

If he's using his position as a representative of the state to impose his personal religious views upon unwilling people......that's the establishment of religion. As its state authority he's wielding in imposing religion. And an explicit violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Is opting out an option or is that just him not doing his job? If he puts his beliefs above the law for weddings, how many other decisions is he doing the same?

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

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

 

[Brain357]

You lost me there. Why do we need judges to be tasked to officiate at weddings? What is the point of having judges be the official master of ceremonies for weddings? I thought Judges were supposed to Judge over trials. Why do we need them to marry people?

Judges, Justice of the Peace, Mayors....whoever

They are still not allowed to bring their religion into their official capacities

We are also not allowed to bring religion into government and marriage is a religious activity to people of religion... so... letting people opt out is the right thing to do and you know it.

The task has been fundamentally changed. New government employees for a position that marries people will have to sign up for marrying gays as well, that much is clear. At issue in my opinion is the current employees who took up said positions prior to the change. They should be given the choice of marrying people, including gays, or no longer being given the task of marrying people at all as a government official.

It isn't a religious activity if a judge is officiating.

Huh? How does a marriage become a non-religious activity for a Judge when the Judge performs it? Huh?

I am flabbergasted that you don't know the difference between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony.

Nice to see flabbergasted used. Should be more common.

 

[Ravi]

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

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

No, it is not. Jeesh, do you ever read anything?

 

[RKMBrown]

He is entitled to his beliefs, you are confusing laws with beliefs. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing. This is about freedom of religion, constitutional rights and the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to go against their beliefs. The couple got married, they should let it go. But no, as usual they and people like you want to make this huge issue out of it. It's getting old. I've said all along let them get married but I'm at the point I'm sick of the "you must bow down to us" attitude the homos have.

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

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.

 

[Brain357]

Again, judges are not required to perform marriages. You cannot force him to do it

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

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.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

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?

Did that muslim judge swear to uphold the constitution of the United States when He took on the job?

Yup. Just like the judge in the OP.

So if the Muslim judge can't impose his religion upon unwilling people using the power of the State.....why can the Christian judge?




now the question here is if the right to religion as actually written holds more or less weight than the right to marry, which is not specifically written. One of the two rights are going to be violated.

Nice to see you finally posted your actuall knowledge on this matter.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

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

No, it is not. Jeesh, do you ever read anything?

Yes it is. A judge is not REQUIRED to perform marriages. They can if they wish but are not required to do so

 

[Brain357]

If he were a priest I would be fine with it. But his job is to follow the countries laws, not poorly defined religious laws. If he is going to choose religion he cannot do his job.

Judges are not required to perform marriages. That is the thorn in this thing. A state determines who can perform marriages, they don't require anyone to do it. If I were the judge I'd opt out of performing any marriages

Judges are 'required' to perform any official task that's part of their duties assignment. And officiating weddings is part of that duties assignment.

Not true. I'm pretty sure that no one is 'required' to perform any official task that is against their religion.

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.

I don't think a gay marriage is performed any different for a judge.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wouldn't he be failing to do his job? And again what other decisions does he let religious beliefs go above the law?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Judges are not required to perform marriages. It is their choice to do so if they wish

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.

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.

Sigh....you're too stupid to deal with. Get a new screen name, yours does not fit. Have a great day