Louisiana justice of the peace denied marriage license to interracial couple

[nodoginnafight]

The JOP is an instrument/agent of the government, or a state actor.

Loving cleary points out a state can not deny a marriage license to different races.

The "state" didn't deny a marriage license.

The "state" through this agent, refused to marry an interracial couple.

 

[jillian]

If he has the right to decline to marry people for any reason, that would include discriminatory reasons.

no. that isn't the law. read the post again.

Not sure what Loving v VA is, sounds like a court ruling. I'll take you for your word that it outlawed anti-miscegenation laws, but a justice not performing a marriage isn't the same as passing into law a ban on interracial marriages.

loving v virginia is a supreme court case.

if the agents of the state discriminate, they are acting on behalf of the state.

again, why would you defend racist trash?

 

[theHawk]

Not sure what Loving v VA is, sounds like a court ruling. I'll take you for your word that it outlawed anti-miscegenation laws, but a justice not performing a marriage isn't the same as passing into law a ban on interracial marriages.

He refused to issue them a marriage license, period. This is not legal.

VA's statutory scheme, which included refusal to issue such, was struck down:

...The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [n7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [p7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [n8]...


Loving v. Virginia

There is no prohibition against issuing a marriage license based on races.

A justice refusing to "do his job" isn't the same as legislation being passed banning interracial marriages throughout the whole state.

What do you propose? This person be forced to marry someone?

 

[theHawk]

The JOP is an instrument/agent of the government, or a state actor.

Loving cleary points out a state can not deny a marriage license to different races.

The "state" didn't deny a marriage license.

The "state" through this agent, refused to marry an interracial couple.

If the state doesn't have that policy, then its clear the "agent" wasn't acting on behalf of the state.

 

[lawbuff]

There is no prohibition against issuing a marriage license based on races.

The you and I disagree on the decisional merits of Loving!

 

[rightwinger]

At the end of the article the guy said:

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

So if the guy doesn't want to marry them.

I don't believe he should be forced to marry them.

The couple just needs to go somewhere else.

If he feels so strongly about his values he shouldn't be Justice of the Peace. Once he accpts the position he is obligated to treat everyone equally

 

[lawbuff]

If the state doesn't have that policy, then its clear the "agent" wasn't acting on behalf of the state.

Again, color of law, state actor.

If we agree, and it is law, that states and thier subdivisions/Counties, here a Parish, are the SAME sovereign for double jeopardy purposes, can we not align this with color of law as a comparative analysis?

 

[theHawk]

There is no prohibition against issuing a marriage license based on races.

The you and I disagree on the decisional merits of Loving!

I am not disagreeing with you on the merits of the Loving SCOTUS case.

I'm just not seeing how it is applicable here because there is no law in LA that bans interracial marriages.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The stupid Justice does not need to be a Justice. And any children in his house needs to be removed right now.

Last I checked we are actually ALLOWED in this free society to have our own beliefs and to act on them so long as they violate no law. Since this racist person can not deny them the right to marry he has broken no law, violated no oath and has done nothing but exercise his Constitutional protected right to be a racist.

To bad for all you whiners. Now find me someone that violated a law and we can have another discussion. But the 1st Amendment is EXACTLY for these kind of dumb people just like for the rest of us. Freedom is, well, messy.

The Constitution protects the right to be a racist?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

What will be the future of the white and the black race if more and more couples decide to follow their path?

Isn't racial diversity something that enriches, something that add diversity to the human family? Something that is worth preserving?

It's ironic that we probably have 9 whites and 1 black participating in this discussion and the only person worried about the future of these two varieties of human beings is a latino : )

Latino as in Hispanic, Españole, o Italiiano, Português, François, România, o Brazileño? Which kind of latino are you referring to.... If the ones from the Americas, aren't we referring to what one Pope called "La Raza Santa" or mestizo people? And do you have any awareness of how extensive the mixing around the Mediterrenean has been and is?

Or perhaps your confusion can be cleared up by understanding that a "Latino" is one who is part of a LANGUAGE GROUP, and is not of any particular RACE!

 

[lawbuff]

I am not disagreeing with you on the merits of the Loving SCOTUS case.

I'm just not seeing how it is applicable here because there is no law in LA that bans interracial marriages.

It matters not, the SC ruled the 14th AM prohibits such ban.

Alabama, if I remember my facts right, took such laws off the books only around 2004, even though they had NO force of law after Loving, 1967.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he doesn't want to marry them.

He shouldn't be force to.

They just need to go somewhere else to get married.

Do you apply that principle to all forms of racial discrimination? Or just people acting in an official capacity?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The "state" didn't deny a marriage license.

The "state" through this agent, refused to marry an interracial couple.

If the state doesn't have that policy, then its clear the "agent" wasn't acting on behalf of the state.

Wrong - the agent IS acting on behalf of the state - by definition - in the performance (or non-performance) of his state-sanctioned duties.

He SHOULD be forced to do the job he was elected to do. If he cannot - because of his own personal beliefs - then he should never have run for the position that requires him to do so.

What if a policeman let's his partner get shot and killed because he is morally opposed to shooting his own weapon?

Shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

If Archie Bunker here can't perform his state duties in accordance with state law - he shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

 

[theHawk]

The stupid Justice does not need to be a Justice. And any children in his house needs to be removed right now.

Last I checked we are actually ALLOWED in this free society to have our own beliefs and to act on them so long as they violate no law. Since this racist person can not deny them the right to marry he has broken no law, violated no oath and has done nothing but exercise his Constitutional protected right to be a racist.

To bad for all you whiners. Now find me someone that violated a law and we can have another discussion. But the 1st Amendment is EXACTLY for these kind of dumb people just like for the rest of us. Freedom is, well, messy.

The Constitution protects the right to be a racist?

Of course it does. Otherwise folks like Al Sharpton would be in jail!

 

[theHawk]

The "state" through this agent, refused to marry an interracial couple.

If the state doesn't have that policy, then its clear the "agent" wasn't acting on behalf of the state.

Wrong - the agent IS acting on behalf of the state - by definition - in the performance (or non-performance) of his state-sanctioned duties.

He SHOULD be forced to do the job he was elected to do. If he cannot - because of his own personal beliefs - then he should never have run for the position that requires him to do so.

What if a policeman let's his partner get shot and killed because he is morally opposed to shooting his own weapon?

Shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

If Archie Bunker here can't perform his state duties in accordance with state law - he shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

It does depend on his actual job description, if he is required to marry anyone that asks. Usually JPs do not have to marry anyone, like in New England area where gay marriage is legal, but justices are allowed to refuse to marry gays.

If he is required to, then I would agree with you that he shouldn't be in the job and should quit or be fired.

As I stated before, no one is forced to do their job if they don't want to. Refusing to do ones job isn't illegal unless it can cause harm like the your cop example. As far as I know refusing to marry a couple isn't the same as allowing someone to die.

 

[jillian]

If the state doesn't have that policy, then its clear the "agent" wasn't acting on behalf of the state.

Wrong - the agent IS acting on behalf of the state - by definition - in the performance (or non-performance) of his state-sanctioned duties.

He SHOULD be forced to do the job he was elected to do. If he cannot - because of his own personal beliefs - then he should never have run for the position that requires him to do so.

What if a policeman let's his partner get shot and killed because he is morally opposed to shooting his own weapon?

Shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

If Archie Bunker here can't perform his state duties in accordance with state law - he shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

It does depend on his actual job description, if he is required to marry anyone that asks. Usually JPs do not have to marry anyone, like in New England area where gay marriage is legal, but justices are allowed to refuse to marry gays.

If he is required to, then I would agree with you that he shouldn't be in the job and should quit or be fired.

As I stated before, no one is forced to do their job if they don't want to. Refusing to do ones job isn't illegal unless it can cause harm like the your cop example. As far as I know refusing to marry a couple isn't the same as allowing someone to die.

You're not following. HE CANNOT discriminate. If he doesn't want to do a wedding on the date you want, he can decline.

HE CANNOT DECLINE FOR THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN.

And luckily, you don't have to agree. That's why we have Courts.

And the others are being far more patient with you than I ever would be.

 

[Neser Boha]

Not sure what Loving v VA is, sounds like a court ruling. I'll take you for your word that it outlawed anti-miscegenation laws, but a justice not performing a marriage isn't the same as passing into law a ban on interracial marriages.

He refused to issue them a marriage license, period. This is not legal.

VA's statutory scheme, which included refusal to issue such, was struck down:

...The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [n7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [p7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [n8]...


Loving v. Virginia

There is no prohibition against issuing a marriage license based on races.

A justice refusing to "do his job" isn't the same as legislation being passed banning interracial marriages throughout the whole state.

What do you propose? This person be forced to marry someone?

When he decided he wanted the job, he knew what he was getting himself into. It was i his job description to marry couples - no matter what ethnicity each of them were - and he refused to do so based on discriminatory grounds. He knew he was acting against the law and he knew he would get into trouble for it. He just did. There needs to be a way of punishing such behavior.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The Constitution protects the right to be a racist?

One can be one, one is not allowed to act out or act upon that belief set when it affects others in some particular ways.

Actually, I think the only freedom that is allowed to racists is freedom to speak, or write, and then only as long as they do not incite hateful acts by others.....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What the hell people?!?!?

He is a justice of the peace and not a church/temple/mosque official. He is legally required to marry any man and woman that applies regardless of his personal opinion on iterracial marriage.

Why are people trying to defend this guy scoffing on his taxpayer funded job duties?

 

[Intense]

He refused to issue them a marriage license, period. This is not legal.

VA's statutory scheme, which included refusal to issue such, was struck down:

...The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [n7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [p7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [n8]...


Loving v. Virginia

There is no prohibition against issuing a marriage license based on races.

A justice refusing to "do his job" isn't the same as legislation being passed banning interracial marriages throughout the whole state.

What do you propose? This person be forced to marry someone?

When he decided he wanted the job, he knew what he was getting himself into. It was i his job description to marry couples - no matter what ethnicity each of them were - and he refused to do so based on discriminatory grounds. He knew he was acting against the law and he knew he would get into trouble for it. He just did. There needs to be a way of punishing such behavior.

He needs to find other employment. That should cover it for now. Allow time for it to sink in that thick skull.