# Gay judge refuses to perform straight marriages



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I understand a judge is not obligated to perform weddings but, since she is a public employee, is she not discriminating against straights?


http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-...ight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> I understand a judge is not obligated to perform weddings but, since she is a public employee, is she not discriminating against straights?
> 
> 
> http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-...ight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/


Nope, she just didn't perform wedding ceremonies for anyone, gay, straight, communist, or democrat. She seems to understand "equal application of the law" rather well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It's no different than this Oregon judge who isn't doing weddings although his story is recent and hers is from 2012. http://wiat.com/2015/09/05/oregon-judge-refuses-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/

For those of you interested, the story quotes an ACLU spokesperson speaking in the Oregon judge's defense.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

just goes to show you that apparently heterosexuals will survive because when they hit a wall or a no they deal with getting the goal reached and homosexuals change goals and seek to file lawsuits and punishment. In a zombie or other society break down the homosexuals won't move on to reach the real goal.
This is based on reading the article and that it stated heterosexuals did not sue, the just solved the real issued they faced.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

There are always multiple ways to solve a problem. Some temporarily take care of the immediate situation. Some give long term relief. You're free to choose your own path. As are others.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Just the big picture I gleaned from the op.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> I understand a judge is not obligated to perform weddings but, since she is a public employee, is she not discriminating against straights?
> http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-...ight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/


It's only discrimination when you do it for some but not for others.
When you do it for none, it's a non-issue


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> just goes to show you that apparently heterosexuals will survive because when they hit a wall or a no they deal with getting the goal reached and homosexuals change goals and seek to file lawsuits and punishment. In a zombie or other society break down the homosexuals won't move on to reach the real goal.
> This is based on reading the article and that it stated heterosexuals did not sue, the just solved the real issued they faced.


Heterosexuals don't sue?!?! Must be a lotta gays that have our courts backed up for years with all of their lawsuits!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Just *the big picture* I gleaned from the op.


The "big picture" is there are no grounds for any lawsuits by anyone in this situation, since the first thing the OP states is there is no obligation for a Judge to perform weddings for anyone.

It's not comparable to a County Clerk, whose job is to give licenses *to all* who qualify legally

This is the third or fourth time this scenario has been brought up


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Heterosexuals don't sue?!?! Must be a lotta gays that have our courts backed up for years with all of their lawsuits!


Speaking of lawsuits and gay marriage- anybody e&#322;se curious about how kasilof's lawsuit is coming along?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Speaking of lawsuits and gay marriage- anybody e&#322;se curious about how kasilof's lawsuit is coming along?


I dunno, but she should be getting ready to invest the squilion bucks when it gets resolved. ound:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Speaking of lawsuits and gay marriage- anybody e&#322;se *curious* about how kasilof's lawsuit is coming along?


I have to admit to some degree of curiosity concerning most of her posts


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Both women are ignorant, IMO.

Enough already!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

If she does sue does it prove she's gay since according to her only gays sue?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

They all need a You Tube account, a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Pintrest, and any other form of social media so they can get their 'fool clown 15 min of fame' and leave the rest of us alone.
OMG Becky we have become a society of attention 'garden tools'.
(I don't think the w word is allowed)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wr- I'll respect your decision but I didn't ask the person supposedly involved in the litigation any questions about the alledged pending case. I asked other members about their curiosity about the possible event.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.
> 
> 
> _I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court._
> ...


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gay-Dallas-Judge-Wont-Perform-Marriages-140154903.html

She isn't required to perform marriages.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Dupe post...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-...ight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/

"Her refusal to marry people based on the fact that they were not homosexuals wasn&#8217;t backed by any faith based belief or anything other than a personal vendetta.

So why isn&#8217;t this a big deal? Well, most people that go to her and get turned down go somewhere else.

People that know she is just being an attention seeker go somewhere else without even considering her as an option."

At least the judge showed leadership in being honest about the reason.... not all leaders do that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/this-...ight-marriages-no-jail-time-no-media-outrage/
> 
> "Her refusal to marry people based on the fact that they were not homosexuals wasnât backed by any faith based belief or anything other than a personal vendetta.
> 
> ...


Actually, her refusal had a lot to do with the fact that in 2012 when this story surfaced Texas didn't recognize gay marriage. This judge felt that this was an unequal application of the law ( later proven correct by the US Supreme Court) and refused to participate in any marriages so as not to participate in any act that went counter to our constitution. You might wish to read her own words, not those ascribed to her. 

She did nothing wrong. Neither has the judge I referenced earlier. Performing marriages is not a part of their job description. No one is unduly inconvenienced by their refusal. If you wish to criticize her at least be consistent and offer the same criticism for the Oregon judge and others who have done the same for their own reasons.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I see victim card has been pulled and is in full force.

No marriages for anyone means no victims.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Not to hijack this thread but since the deletions ocurred here I'll address my question to mods here.

If I, or anyone else, finds information about a legal matter involving another member in public documents and records are we barred from discussing it here? If such a legal action becomes part of the public record can we address it? Can we openly ask each other, not requesting the party involved to reply, if anyone has uncovered evidence of something that was once openly discussed by the party involved? If someone has proclaimed publicly in these forums that will take some action based on future events can we ask anyone if that action has occurred subsequent to those events? Just thought I'd ask for a little clarification.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Not to hijack this thread but since the deletions ocurred here I'll address my question to mods here.
> 
> If I, or anyone else, finds information about a legal matter involving another member in public documents and records are we barred from discussing it here? If such a legal action becomes part of the public record can we address it? Can we openly ask each other, not requesting the party involved to reply, if anyone has uncovered evidence of something that was once openly discussed by the party involved? If someone has proclaimed publicly in these forums that will take some action based on future events can we ask anyone if that action has occurred subsequent to those events? Just thought I'd ask for a little clarification.


I noticed that last night the deleted comments were about ongoing court cases. Now it is about a poster being called out.

That poster calls out people all the time about things they have posted in other threads. Does that mean that she will stop that behaviour now that she is expecting other posts to be deleted if she believes she is being called out?

I also assume that we are still able to talk about that court case because she has.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I noticed that last night the deleted comments were about ongoing court cases. Now it is about a poster being called out.
> 
> That poster calls out people all the time about things they have posted in other threads. Does that mean that she will stop that behaviour now that she is expecting other posts to be deleted if she believes she is being called out?
> 
> I also assume that we are still able to talk about that court case because she has.


This is why I asked for clarification. I didn't ask the person who claims to be involved to provide any details or personal information related to this alledged court action. My question was addressed to other other forum members about their curiosity about such matters. I'd just like to be sure who I can ask what before going forward.

Say for example, Hillary joined our little group. Could she ask and be granted all posts relating to her emails be deleted because they discussed possible litigation?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why should you not be able to ask the person themselves? That person posted it here in this forum with lots of information?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Why should you not be able to ask the person themselves? That person posted it here in this forum with lots of information?


I should be able to ask but I'll respect that persons right not to answer any question and won't badger them for one. My question is about how much control can be exerted on my conversations here with other members.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

What's confusing is the information this thread is based on is from 2012. At that time, the judge stopped doing weddings since gays were not allowed to get married in Texas. As performing marriage was not a requirement of her position, this seems to be completely within the law and within her job description.

Fast forward to today. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional, she has performed at least 1 gay marriage. I think if she only performs marriage for gay couples, she is breaking the law. According to SCOTUS, there is marriage, not gay marriage and straight marriage, so refusing to marry straights would be discriminatory and illegal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> What's confusing is the information this thread is based on is from 2012. At that time, the judge stopped doing weddings since gays were not allowed to get married in Texas. As performing marriage was not a requirement of her position, this seems to be completely within the law and within her job description.
> 
> Fast forward to today. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional, she has performed at least 1 gay marriage. I think if she only performs marriage for gay couples, she is breaking the law. According to SCOTUS, there is marriage, not gay marriage and straight marriage, so refusing to marry straights would be discriminatory and illegal.


This is her quoted in the 2012 article.

"An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples *until same-sex couples can also wed*."


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What's confusing is the information this thread is based on is from 2012. At that time, the judge stopped doing weddings since gays were not allowed to get married in Texas. As performing marriage was not a requirement of her position, this seems to be completely within the law and within her job description.
> 
> Fast forward to today. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional, she has performed at least 1 gay marriage. I think if she only performs marriage for gay couples, she is breaking the law. According to SCOTUS, there is marriage, not gay marriage and straight marriage, so refusing to marry straights would be discriminatory and illegal.


A judge can choose to marry whoever they wish. The judge that performed the ceremony for my wife and me was the friend of the lawyer our maid of honor worked for. He didn't normally do marriages but did it as a favor for the lawyer. The same standard applies to the judges refusing to do same sex marriages. It's not their job and they can't and shouldn't be compelled to. I agree with the ACLU spokesman quoted in the story I linked and disagree with the gay activist. Sometimes you've just got to let people, even judges, be themselves.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> This is her quoted in the 2012 article.
> 
> "An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples *until same-sex couples can also wed*."


That's what I said.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> A judge can choose to marry whoever they wish. The judge that performed the ceremony for my wife and me was the friend of the lawyer our maid of honor worked for. He didn't normally do marriages but did it as a favor for the lawyer. The same standard applies to the judges refusing to do same sex marriages. It's not their job and they can't and shouldn't be compelled to. I agree with the ACLU spokesman quoted in the story I linked and disagree with the gay activist. Sometimes you've just got to let people, even judges, be themselves.


Can't possible be right. Because if that's how the law worked, bakers wouldn't have to bake cakes for gay marriages, since baking cakes is not a requirement of their jobs. They choose to bake wedding cakes.

Whether it is required by her job description or not, she can't discriminate. Or maybe you have identified the loophole for baker's. Write the job description for employees so that it they are not required to bake wedding cakes. They can decide for each customer if they wish to or not. Pretty ridiculous isn't it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> That's what I said.


The point is she has not said that she would not marry heterosexual couples now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Can't possible be right. Because if that's how the law worked, bakers wouldn't have to bake cakes for gay marriages, since baking cakes is not a requirement of their jobs. They choose to bake wedding cakes.
> 
> Whether it is required by her job description or not, she can't discriminate. Or maybe you have identified the loophole for baker's. Write the job description for employees so that it they are not required to bake wedding cakes. They can decide for each customer if they wish to or not. Pretty ridiculous isn't it?


Wrong. The baker advertised wedding cakes for sale. By doing so he wrote it into his own job description that he would bake and sell cakes of a certain design. He opened his business to the public and operated as a public accomodation. As such his job description includes serving the public. The gay couple was part of public and the law in that jurdisdiction required they be served as such.

Judges are under no obligation to perform any marriage ceremony. 

Discrimination is legal. There are many ways to discriminate legally both in in public and private. Businesses can legally discriminate. It's been discussed ad naseum. What businesses and individuals cannot do is break the laws against certain discriminatory actions. It's not that hard to discriminate and not break the law. That's a personal choice and while I may find some of those that do repugnant they should suffer no legal penalty for being who they are


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Wrong. The baker advertised wedding cakes for sale. By doing so he wrote it into his own job description that he would bake and sell cakes of a certain design. He opened his business to the public and operated as a public accomodation. As such his job description includes serving the public. The gay couple was part of public and the law in that jurdisdiction required they be served as such.
> 
> Judges are under no obligation to perform any marriage ceremony.
> 
> Discrimination is legal. There are many ways to discriminate legally both in in public and private. Businesses can legally discriminate. It's been discussed ad naseum. What businesses and individuals cannot do is break the laws against certain discriminatory actions. It's not that hard to discriminate and not break the law. That's a personal choice and while I may find some of those that do repugnant they should suffer no legal penalty for being who they are


My post stands as is. I did not reference any specific baker, but bakers in general. If a judge can discriminate by claiming it is not in their job requirements, so can a baker or a photographer or a caterer or a minister. But you are arguing that the judge can and the others can't. I don't understand that kind of logic.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Has this judge refused to marry heterosexuals since this recent change in the laws?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> My post stands as is. I did not reference any specific baker, but bakers in general. If a judge can discriminate by claiming it is not in their job requirements, so can a baker or a photographer or a caterer or a minister. But you are arguing that the judge can and the others can't. I don't understand that kind of logic.


Wrong again. I'm saying that anyone can discriminate, be it a judge or a baker. There are many legal avenues that allow it. There are places in this country open only to men. Places that a woman cannot step foot on. Places where a woman cannot drive into the parking lot. Perfectly legal. Wish to discriminate - go ahead. Just do it legally.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Has this judge refused to marry heterosexuals since this recent change in the laws?


All I read was that she had performed 1 marriage for a gay couple. No mention if she had performed any other marriages.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Can't find anything that says she is refusing to marry heterosexuals now that gay marriage is legal. If she is refusing, imo...it is discrimination because she is using the powers vested in her by the government to perform weddings and if she refuses to marry straights, then it seems discriminatory.


But nothing says she isn't marrying straights.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well wr, since you stated that as the reason for your deletion can you proved proof of your statement as it has opened up a can of worms ..

Where did you learn of the status of the case?

Be honest provide that support. 

Or state the reason truthfully as to why you deleted.

I have been keeping my mouth shut over your choice to state that..


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

*******************


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Has this judge refused to marry heterosexuals since this recent change in the laws?


It really doesn't matter. He (or she, doesn't matter) has already used personal opinion as the final decision in whether they have performed their job duties. It is every bit as bad a choice as refusing to marry gays once the law changed. Public officials do not have the luxury of choosing which laws they will carry out. Period. 
If they do, they should expect to be subject to discipline. And then whether the law is wrong or right can be part of their hearing.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It really doesn't matter. He (or she, doesn't matter) has already used personal opinion as the final decision in whether they have performed their job duties. It is every bit as bad a choice as refusing to marry gays once the law changed. Public officials do not have the luxury of choosing which laws they will carry out. Period.
> If they do, they should expect to be subject to discipline. And then whether the law is wrong or right can be part of their hearing.


Yeah...in this case they do. Judges are not required to perform weddings as part of their job. They can do them and many charge for them. So she chose not to. Across the board with no discrimination.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well wr, since you stated that as the reason for your deletion can you proved proof of your statement as it has opened up a can of worms ..
> 
> Where did you learn of the status of the case?
> 
> ...


Where did Wr say anything about you or your "case"? And it doesn't even look like she deleted any of your posts. You're crying because you don't like the reason she deleted other people's posts?

Looks like you are trying to get attention.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HT software is set up so members can delete or amend their own comments and whatever they delete remains permanently deleted but any thread or post deleted by a mod, even at the request of the OP are only deleted from public viewing.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Can't possible be right. Because if that's how the law worked, bakers wouldn't have to bake cakes for gay marriages, since baking cakes is not a requirement of their jobs. They choose to bake wedding cakes.
> 
> Whether it is required by her job description or not, she can't discriminate. Or maybe you have identified the loophole for baker's. Write the job description for employees so that it they are not required to bake wedding cakes. They can decide for each customer if they wish to or not. Pretty ridiculous isn't it?



You might want to think very carefully about where your current trajectory will lead. Because if you really want to argue that this Judge has to marry all comers then it will put your Ministers in a bad position when they want to pick and choose who they officiate weddings for.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Well wr, since you stated that as the reason for your deletion can you proved proof of your statement as it has opened up a can of worms ..
> 
> Where did you learn of the status of the case?
> 
> ...


So just to clarify you are cool with us asking about your gay marriage case?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> So just to clarify you are cool with us asking about your gay marriage case?


Yes, because how can it be okay for KH to reference it, but no one else?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I am not responsible for what was in posts deleted or in the change for the reason giving...I have not that power


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I am not responsible for what was in posts deleted or in the change for the reason giving...I have not that power


Are you responsible for having them deleted in the first place, what ever the reason?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> So just to clarify you are cool with us asking about your gay marriage case?


To be clear, I didn't ask her about her case. I asked others about the level of curiosity they might have about it. My question required no response from her nor was any expected. Nothing I asked could have affected any litigation she might have pending.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> You might want to think very carefully about where your current trajectory will lead. Because if you really want to argue that this Judge has to marry all comers then it will put your Ministers in a bad position when they want to pick and choose who they officiate weddings for.


I'm saying that the SCOTUS has told us there is just marriage - not gay or straight marriage. If that is true, then how can a judge only perform marriages if the couples are gay?

You seem to want it both ways, as long as it agrees with your views. Do I understand correctly?

I am trying to be consistent. All people must follow the law, but they are allowed to seek accommodation for religious reasons. What is the religious principle on which the judge can base only marrying gay couples? I haven't heard of such a religion, so you can educate me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I am not responsible for what was in posts deleted or in the change for the reason giving...I have not that power


What was the reason you requested deletion? If you don't wish to discuss it openly I'll accept a pm and promise to keep its contents confidential.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm saying that the SCOTUS has told us there is just marriage - not gay or straight marriage. If that is true, then how can a judge only perform marriages if the couples are gay?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways, as long as it agrees with your views. Do I understand correctly?
> 
> I am trying to be consistent. All people must follow the law, but they are allowed to seek accommodation for religious reasons. What is the religious principle on which the judge can base only marrying gay couples? I haven't heard of such a religion, so you can educate me.


Nope, you misunderstand them again. A judge has no legal obligation to perform any marriage thus they can turn down the request for such for any reason. They don't have to claim some religous exemption from a requirement that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter to me or the law. My position has been consistent in this. No judge has to perform straight weddings, no judge has to perform same sex weddings, no judge has to perform any weddings. They can choose to perform or not perform a wedding for any reason they wish, religous or not. No legal double standard and I don't care either.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Are you responsible for having them deleted in the first place, what ever the reason?


Crickets....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Most definitely I did flag it ...
There should be no problem with myself or any member flagging a post we have a is due with...why eels would there be a system set up for that and rules on a forum?

Now, that that is cleared up... should any feel that the need to know the status of my contract with the state pm me and state any and all in for confidential.

Back to the original topic of a judge who chose to use her position for political reasons.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Most definitely I did flag it ...
> There should be no problem with myself or any member flagging a post we have a is due with...why eels would there be a system set up for that and rules on a forum?
> 
> Now, that that is cleared up... should any feel that the need to know the status of my contract with the state pm me and state any and all in for confidential.
> ...


Pretty sure you don't get to direct which way a conversation here goes.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Most definitely I did flag it ...
> There should be no problem with myself or any member flagging a post we have a is due with...why eels would there be a system set up for that and rules on a forum?
> 
> Now, that that is cleared up... should any feel that the need to know the status of my contract with the state pm me and state any and all in for confidential.
> ...


So you flagged it but called out WR for not putting a reason that you were okay with.

So I guess you will have no problem with anyone else getting any of your posts deleted because there is a system there for it and therefore you should have no problem if they think it should be deleted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Can't possible be right. Because if that's how the law worked, *bakers wouldn't have to bake cakes for gay marriages, since baking cakes is not a requirement of their jobs*. They choose to bake wedding cakes.
> 
> Whether it is required by her job description or not, she can't discriminate. Or maybe you have identified the loophole for baker's. Write the job description for employees so that it they are not required to bake wedding cakes. They can decide for each customer if they wish to or not. *Pretty ridiculous isn't it*?


That's in the top five most ridiculous things I've heard on the internet.

You can NOT compare a retail store open to the public to a Judge who can choose whether or not to perform weddings at their discretion.

One has an obligation to serve all customers, and the other simply does not.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Nope, you misunderstand them again. A judge has no legal obligation to perform any marriage thus they can turn down the request for such for any reason. They don't have to claim some religous exemption from a requirement that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter to me or the law. My position has been consistent in this. No judge has to perform straight weddings, no judge has to perform same sex weddings, no judge has to perform any weddings. They can choose to perform or not perform a wedding for any reason they wish, religous or not. No legal double standard and I don't care either.


That makes no sense. I go back to my baker example. If baking wedding cakes is not in the job requirements and is an optional service, do you agree the baker can decide who they will bake a wedding cake for? That they can do wedding cakes just for straight weddings?

Of course you don't. You think that is discriminatory, but they are exactly the same. 

The baker could have a policy that said "We don't make wedding cakes". Then they would be allowed to turn down all requests for a wedding cake.

But as soon as they provide the service of making a wedding cake to a single customer, they must make it for all customers who want a wedding cake. Once a service is offered, they cannot discriminate in the future.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's in the top five most ridiculous things I've heard on the internet.
> 
> You can NOT compare a retail store open to the public to a Judge who can choose whether or not to perform weddings at their discretion.
> 
> One has an obligation to serve all customers, and the other simply does not.


Not only can I, I did and I still do. It makes no difference if the person is a judge or a baker. If they offer a service, it must be non-discriminatory. I learned that from you liberals.

It is funny to watch you all argue a judge can discriminate against straights, but a baker can't discriminate against gays.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> That makes no sense. I go back to my baker example. If baking wedding cakes is not in the job requirements and is an optional service, do you agree the baker can decide who they will bake a wedding cake for? That they can do wedding cakes just for straight weddings?
> 
> Of course you don't. You think that is discriminatory, but they are exactly the same.
> 
> ...


You've offered no proof the judge has refused any weddings at all since the laws changed. You just keep repeating things already said countless times

Bakers bake wedding cakes. It's not an "optional service". 
It's something they advertise

It has nothing to do with judges at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Not only can I, I did and I still do. It makes no difference if the person is a judge or a baker. If they offer a service, it must be non-discriminatory. I learned that from you liberals.
> 
> It is funny to watch you all argue a judge can discriminate against straights, but a baker can't discriminate against gays.


You don't seem to understand one is a retail business, open to the public, and the other is someone who can choose whether they WANT to do it on a case by case basis. 

Judges have the power to perform weddings, but have no *obligation* to do so.

They are not the same situations, and cannot be compared as if they are.

Judges are not "offering" any service. They can *choose* to do it if they want to


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Pretty sure you don't get to direct which way a conversation here goes.....


No simply stated where I am heading on ... 

So, since the judge clearly stated that her refusal to to create and opening to address homosexual ban on marriage was that not to use the bench for the purpose of a political agenda.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> No simply stated where I am heading on ...
> 
> So, since the judge clearly stated that her refusal to to create and opening to address homosexual ban on marriage was that not to use the bench for the purpose of a political agenda.


Hmmm. It sure seems like you're trying to dictate the subject of the thread. 

You openly and publicly crowed about the lawsuit-that-now-must-not-be-mentioned in several threads and now when another poster refers to the suit (which if it actually exists is a matter of public record and not remotely a private matter) you are screeching to have the posts deleted.

If it does exist and was filed in state or federal court, it should be easily found via the Internet.

So how long before you wail to have this post deleted?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm saying that the SCOTUS has told us there is just marriage - not gay or straight marriage. If that is true, then how can a judge only perform marriages if the couples are gay?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways, as long as it agrees with your views. Do I understand correctly?
> 
> I am trying to be consistent. All people must follow the law, but they are allowed to seek accommodation for religious reasons. What is the religious principle on which the judge can base only marrying gay couples? I haven't heard of such a religion, so you can educate me.


Ah. I didn't understand before what you were aiming at there. Technically speaking I would say you are correct from a legal standpoint. From a personal standpoint though I think both the Judge and the potential Minister will be able to look at the couple and see if the people requesting them to officiate are gay or hetero. And they will make their choices based on that. 

You are allowed to seek accommodation for your religious beliefs so long as it does not infringe on other people's rights or break the law itself. The Judge was not doing either, there were people in the same building who could perform a marriage for anyone who wanted one. 

What you seem to be missing here is that your clerk in Kentucky was offered the same accommodation and she flat refused it. She was offered the choice of letting her clerks hand out the licenses she found religiously offensive and she said NO.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've offered no proof the judge has refused any weddings at all since the laws changed. You just keep repeating things already said countless times
> 
> Bakers bake wedding cakes. It's not an "optional service".
> It's something they advertise
> ...


You need to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. My post was in response to someone else and to their specific post. I never said the judge has refused any weddings. Read all my posts. Never said it.

We were debating a hypothetical. What is the difference between a judge refusing to marry a straight couple and a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What is the difference between a judge refusing to marry a straight couple and a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?


That (along with several other points) has been explained to you repeatedly, so I have to assume your asking yet again exactly is what you accused me of doing:



> You need to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> What you seem to be missing here is that your clerk in Kentucky was offered the same accommodation and she flat refused it. She was offered the choice of letting her clerks hand out the licenses she found religiously offensive and she said NO.


That is your opinion and the opinion of many others. It is not my opinion nor the opinion of others. I'm not going to argue this, because you can't convince me and I can't convince you. 

I will explain one last time my thinking on this. While several here keep telling me I am wrong, I have seen no facts that bear that out. 

She and some other county clerks believe, and I believe, that under current Kentucky law, the country clerk is the only person AUTHORIZED to issue marriage certificates. That is why her name and title are on the certificates, according to this argument. IMO, what authorized means is that by having her name and title on the marriage license, the license is recognized as authorized by the state of Kentucky. The elected clerk is the agent for the state, the deputies are not. Anything they do is under the authority of the county clerk.

Any deputy clerk can hand out the license and sign it, but they can't substitute their name for hers as the authorizing agent. Simply taking her name off and substituting a deputy is in violation of state law.

This is what I think will take place to resolve this issue:

Eventually, I think either the Kentucky legislature will act to clear up any confusion and create an accommodation that resolves the problem or Davis will sue the state of Kentucky under EEOC and a court will decide the issue.

Again, this is my interpretation after reading Eugene Volokh's article in the Washington Post.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I will explain *one last time* my thinking on this.


You've said that more than once also.
I'm doubting it


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> You need to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. My post was in response to someone else and to their specific post. I never said the judge has refused any weddings. Read all my posts. Never said it.
> 
> We were debating a hypothetical. What is the difference between a judge refusing to marry a straight couple and a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?


Hypothetically there would be no difference "if" the judge routinely performed gay weddings but refused to perform straight weddings based on the fact the couple was straight. However the judge in the article is/was refusing to perform any weddings at all. Which is her prerogative.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> It really doesn't matter. He (or she, doesn't matter) has already used personal opinion as the final decision in whether they have performed their job duties. It is every bit as bad a choice as refusing to marry gays once the law changed. Public officials do not have the luxury of choosing which laws they will carry out. Period.
> If they do, they should expect to be subject to discipline. And then whether the law is wrong or right can be part of their hearing.


Judges have the power to perform weddings, they are not required to do so. Here in ky our county magistrates also have that power, if they choose to use it fine, I have yet to hear of any of them doing so. They mostly stick to keeping the county roads maintained. There is no law to be carried out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm saying that the SCOTUS has told us there is just marriage - not gay or straight marriage. If that is true, then how can a judge only perform marriages if the couples are gay?
> 
> You seem to want it both ways, as long as it agrees with your views. Do I understand correctly?
> 
> I am trying to be consistent. All people must follow the law, but they are allowed to seek accommodation for religious reasons. What is the religious principle on which the judge can base only marrying gay couples? I haven't heard of such a religion, so you can educate me.


Then be consistent and comment on the many judges refusing to officiate at gay weddings. I'll be consistent in my belief that a judge can refuse to officiate any wedding for any reason. The law agrees. A judge is under no obligation to perform any marriage. It's not their job. It's something they're allowed to do if they wish. Its a personal decision. The judge that officiated my wedding discriminated against all the couples he said no to. But he didn't use his power to keep them from marrying. He did nothing illegal or immoral. A judge refusing to do gay weddings does nothing illegal or immoral. A judge refusing to do straight weddings does nothing illegal or immoral. A judge doing weddings only for left handed people does nothing illegal or immoral. I can keep going but I hope you get my consistent point by now.

Bakers and other business people can discriminate. What they cannot do is claim not to by operating a public accomodation and then refuse to accomodate the public. Wish to discriminate? Do it legally. I don't condemn the bakers for their beliefs. I think they should have the right to serve only who they wish. And legally they have that right. They just have to exercise that right legally.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

So, it seems an elected official in KY, refused to sell licenses to a gay couple because of her religious belief.

That was wrong - regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, it is legal. She was an elected official, - not a private person.

A judge decides to stop performing marriages because it was illegal for gay couples to marry.

I believe, since performing marriages wasn't a mandated part of her job, she was in the right. I don't like her stance, but it's legal.

A baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple.

I believe that was his right. There is a big difference between elected/appointed officials and a private citizen.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hypothetically there would be no difference "if" the judge routinely performed gay weddings but refused to perform straight weddings based on the fact the couple was straight. However the judge in the article is/was refusing to perform any weddings at all. Which is her prerogative.


Since the only thing left in the absence of gay marriage is heterosexual marriage, it is disingenuous to say "all" marriages. What he did was refuse to officiate at heterosexual marriages. 
In essence, he did commit a violation of the civil rights laws if he stated he was stopping officiating heterosexual marriages (presuming gender is a protected class) until his demands were met. 
The only way that he would not was if he never had performed a marriage at all, ever. And kept his mouth shut about the reason. Then the law would happily assume it was an unbiased personal choice.
It would then be the same as the now infamous bakers refusing to make any wedding cakes. The hook for them was refusing gay wedding cakes. There was no law for them insisting on wedding cake production for bakers, just as you say no law for this judge.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)




----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Since the only thing left in the absence of gay marriage, it is disingenuous to say "all" marriages. What he did was refuse to officiate at heterosexual marriages.
> In essence, he did commit a violation of the civil rights laws if he stated he was stopping officiating heterosexual marriages (presuming gender is a protected class) until his demands were met.
> The only way that he would not was if he never had performed a marriage at all, ever. And kept his mouth shut about the reason. Then the law would happily assume it was an unbiased personal choice.
> It would then be the same as the now infamous bakers refusing to make any wedding cakes. The hook for them was refusing gay wedding cakes. There was no law for them insisting on wedding cake production for bakers, just as you say no law for this judge.


The difference lies in the fact that this woman judge is not in the business of performing wedding ceremonies... She does have the authority to do so if she opts to. I also have every right to help a stranded motorist.... If I want to. The baker was in the business of baking wedding cakes and selling them to the public at large. There are anti discrimination laws in effect that prohibits his anti gay discrimination when dealing with the public at large.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Then be consistent and comment on the many judges refusing to officiate at gay weddings. I'll be consistent in my belief that a judge can refuse to officiate any wedding for any reason. The law agrees. A judge is under no obligation to perform any marriage. It's not their job. It's something they're allowed to do if they wish. Its a personal decision. The judge that officiated my wedding discriminated against all the couples he said no to. But he didn't use his power to keep them from marrying. He did nothing illegal or immoral. A judge refusing to do gay weddings does nothing illegal or immoral. A judge refusing to do straight weddings does nothing illegal or immoral. A judge doing weddings only for left handed people does nothing illegal or immoral. I can keep going but I hope you get my consistent point by now.
> 
> Bakers and other business people can discriminate. What they cannot do is claim not to by operating a public accomodation and then refuse to accomodate the public. Wish to discriminate? Do it legally. I don't condemn the bakers for their beliefs. I think they should have the right to serve only who they wish. And legally they have that right. They just have to exercise that right legally.


That is one strange interpretation of anti-discrimination law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> That is one strange interpretation of anti-discrimination law.


There is no law broken by the judge who chooses not to do a wedding for any reason. I apparently cannot repeat this often enough to please you. The ACLU agrees with me. They are quoted in my link describing a judge refusing to perform gay weddings. Judges have no obligation to perform any wedding. No law requires them to do any wedding. They can refuse to do any wedding for any reason. It's not an interpretation by me. It is a fact of life and law. 

The bakery issue was discussed in its own thread. A specific law was broken. It was the law that doesn't allow public accomodations to discriminate against several protected classes, including in that jurisdiction, gays. The bakery chose to operate as a public accomodation and was thus subject to all laws and statutes governing them. They violated the law in refusing service based only on the couples sexual orientation. They could have operated as a different form of business and discriminated against whomever they wished. Discrimination is legal in this country. Businesses do it openly and legally every day based on things like religion, race, and sex and no laws are broken. 

The cases are in no way analogous no matter how hard you try to interpret them as being so. You claim to only follow facts. There they are. Follow them or provide some facts of your own. Despite protests to the counter your interpretations can mean you're wrong.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> There is no law broken by the judge who chooses not to do a wedding for any reason. I apparently cannot repeat this often enough to please you. The ACLU agrees with me. They are quoted in my link describing a judge refusing to perform gay weddings. Judges have no obligation to perform any wedding. No law requires them to do any wedding. They can refuse to do any wedding for any reason. It's not an interpretation by me. It is a fact of life and law.
> 
> The bakery issue was discussed in its own thread. A specific law was broken. It was the law that doesn't allow public accomodations to discriminate against several protected classes, including in that jurisdiction, gays. The bakery chose to operate as a public accomodation and was thus subject to all laws and statutes governing them. They violated the law in refusing service based only on the couples sexual orientation. They could have operated as a different form of business and discriminated against whomever they wished. Discrimination is legal in this country. Businesses do it openly and legally every day based on things like religion, race, and sex and no laws are broken.
> 
> The cases are in no way analogous no matter how hard you try to interpret them as being so. You claim to only follow facts. There they are. Follow them or provide some facts of your own. Despite protests to the counter your interpretations can mean you're wrong.


Thanks for pointing out that link

BECAUSE IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING



> According to Santos, a court ruling in Nebraska clearly allows judges to bow out of marrying same-sex couples. But if they do, they also give up their right to officiate any wedding.


http://wiat.com/2015/09/05/oregon-judge-refuses-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The difference lies in the fact that this woman judge is not in the business of performing wedding ceremonies... She does have the authority to do so if she opts to. I also have every right to help a stranded motorist.... If I want to. The baker was in the business of baking wedding cakes and selling them to the public at large. There are anti discrimination laws in effect that prohibits his anti gay discrimination when dealing with the public at large.


Apparently it's true that the law favored the conviction of the baker because it happened. The baker was in the business of baking, of which wedding cakes were a part- he thought that wedding meant heterosexual unions but surprise on him. 
However, his refusal to supply service strictly based on the nature of the participants was exactly what the judge did. Exactly. She was also in the business of supplying services to the public in exactly the same way as the baker- the general, not discriminated against, public. If the judge was not legally obligated to provide services, neither was the baker. That is why I said it hinges on whether the judge had rendered such services in the past- that is evidence that she was now illegally discriminating.
To decide that she had the right to do this same thing while the baker did not is simply applying the same standard, non discriminatory service to the public, to convict the one but exonerate the other based on sympathy for the goal. But it's pretty disrespectful of the principle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> So, it seems an elected official in KY, refused to sell licenses to a gay couple because of her religious belief.
> 
> That was wrong - regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, it is legal. She was an elected official, - not a private person.
> 
> ...


No, the baker cannot choose his customers based on sex because his business is open *to the public*.

That has been illegal since 1964


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Apparently it's true that the law favored the conviction of the baker because it happened. The baker was in the business of baking, of which wedding cakes were a part- he thought that wedding meant heterosexual unions but surprise on him.
> However, his refusal to supply service strictly based on the nature of the participants was exactly what the judge did. Exactly. *She was also in the business of supplying services to the public in exactly the same way as the baker- the general, not discriminated against, public.* If the judge was not legally obligated to provide services, neither was the baker. That is why I said it hinges on whether the judge had rendered such services in the past- that is evidence that she was now illegally discriminating.
> To decide that she had the right to do this same thing while the baker did not is simply applying the same standard, non discriminatory service to the public, to convict the one but exonerate the other based on sympathy for the goal. But it's pretty disrespectful of the principle.


As has been explained several times, a judge has no obligation to perform wedding ceremonies for anyone, for any reason.

They are NOT "serving the public" by "offering wedding services".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Thanks for pointing out that link
> 
> BECAUSE* IT SAYS* EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING
> 
> ...


It also says the judge "refused to issue marriage licenses" which is something judges don't do at all. The portion you quoted is an *opinion *voiced by the ACLU, who also said:



> âIn Oregon, judges donât have to marry people,â Matt Dos Santos, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union said.


If they don't have to do it , they aren't "discriminating" if they choose not to.

It's just another non-story about "discrimination" that never happened, and another lame attempt to compare it to Kim Davis and her *actual* discrimination



> Same-sex weddings are continuing in Marion County, despite controversy over Judge Day.
> 
> Staff members are issuing licenses to couples, and other judges are available to perform ceremonies.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Can't be hate if it's gay(.)or(?)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Can't be *hate* if it's gay(.)or(?)


The ones showing the most hate here seem to be some who also claim to be the most "Christian" or "religious"


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It also says the judge "refused to issue marriage licenses" which is something judges don't do at all. The portion you quoted is an *opinion *voiced by the ACLU, who also said:
> 
> If they don't have to do it , they aren't "discriminating" if they choose not to.
> 
> It's just another non-story about "discrimination" that never happened, and another lame attempt to compare it to Kim Davis and her *actual* discrimination


What didn't you get about the court case that said either perform all marriages or perform none? Which is exactly what it says throughout the article. 

It may be worded poorly, but what it said was the judge didn't have to marry straight people because he was not required to perform marriages. But if he chose to not marry straight people, he couldn't marry gay people either.

It makes no difference if performing marriage is an option or a requirement of your job - you can't discriminate.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> What didn't you get about the court case that said either perform all marriages or perform none? Which is exactly what it says throughout the article.
> 
> It may be worded poorly, but what it said was the judge didn't have to marry straight people because he was not required to perform marriages. But if he chose to not marry straight people, he couldn't marry gay people either.
> 
> It makes no difference if performing marriage is an option or a requirement of your job - you can't discriminate.


Adage- only the wearer knows the shoe pinches. But that should be no excluse for dismissing everyone else's complaint. 

Why does that seem such a mindset? That the only shoe that matters is their own. And allowing that others might have a problem is an unbearable betrayal of their own concern?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> What didn't you get about the court case that said either perform all marriages or perform none? Which is exactly what it says throughout the article.
> 
> It may be worded poorly, but what it said was the judge didn't have to marry straight people because he was not required to perform marriages. But if he chose to not marry straight people, he couldn't marry gay people either.
> 
> It makes no difference if performing marriage is an option or a requirement of your job - you can't discriminate.


No one discriminated.

It's all hypothetical speculation

It's all just a distraction from Davis


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one discriminated.
> 
> It's all hypothetical speculation
> 
> It's all just a distraction from Davis


I'll take that as I'm right and you're wrong. Hopefully Yvonne's hubby will be along to also admit I was right and he was wrong.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I'll take that as I'm right and you're wrong. Hopefully Yvonne's hubby will be along to also admit I was right and he was wrong.


In actuality, it was the exact same discrimination but the judge has both TPTB and the Internet Crusaders of PC on her side. The judge use the exact same basis for discrimination and still could count on getting the same pay. Unfortunately for the baker (at least one I read) made the same choice but it was a serious financial ding.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

What a great idea. The Internet Crusaders of PC- pronounced ick pic.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> In actuality, it was the exact same discrimination but the judge has both TPTB and the Internet Crusaders of PC on her side. The judge use the exact same basis for discrimination and still could count on getting the same pay. Unfortunately for the baker (at least one I read) made the same choice but it was a serious financial ding.


The judge couldn't discriminate. He stopped doing all marriages.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> In actuality, it was the exact same discrimination but the judge has both TPTB and the Internet Crusaders of PC on her side. The judge use the exact same basis for discrimination and still could count on getting the same pay. Unfortunately for the baker (at least one I read) made the same choice but it was a serious financial ding.


Not the same at all.
The baker bakes cakes for a living. He discriminated against (pretty much) a protected class.

The judge judges for a living. Because of her occupation, she also has the legal capacity to perform weddings but it is not part of her job and she doesn't get paid if she chooses to do so. Unless she asks for money from the people she marries. She has not discriminated against anyone. She refused all weddings and now she is doing weddings.

Where is the discrimination?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I'll take that as I'm right and you're wrong. Hopefully Yvonne's hubby will be along to also admit I was right and he was wrong.


It makes no difference how you "take it".

The law states they cannot discriminate. But they haven't broken any laws so what does that matter?

The judges in all the examples shown didn't discriminate against anyone

It's still a distraction to draw attention from Davis and her obvious and proven religious discrimination.

If you want to pretend that somehow makes you "right", who really cares other than you?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference how you "take it".
> 
> The law states they cannot discriminate. But they haven't broken any laws so what does that matter?
> 
> ...


You lost me again. This thread has nothing to do with Davis.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, the baker cannot choose his customers based on sex because his business is open *to the public*.
> 
> That has been illegal since 1964


There's legal and there's right - that's my point.

What if someone wanted a very 'rude' cake - could they then refuse?

The idea of 'protected' segments of a population just doesn't jibe with a country that spends a lot of time, effort and money on 'equality'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> In actuality, it was *the exact same discrimination *but the judge has both TPTB and the Internet Crusaders of PC on her side. The judge use the exact same basis for discrimination and still could count on getting the same pay. Unfortunately for the baker (at least one I read) made the same choice but it was a serious financial ding.


There was no "discrimination". 

They performed NO ceremonies for anyone, and cannot be required to do so.

Moonriver:


> You lost me again. This thread has nothing to do with Davis.


The only reason these judges are being mentioned is in comparison to Davis and then to "bakers" when those cases are not the same at all. (for the tenth time)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The judge *couldn't* discriminate. He stopped doing all marriages.


He* didn't* discriminate
It's still a non issue.
We all now know discrimination is illegal, even if you agree with those who do it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> There's legal and *there's right* - that's my point.
> 
> *What if someone wanted a very 'rude' cake - could they then refuse?*
> 
> The idea of 'protected' segments of a population just doesn't jibe with a country that spends a lot of time, effort and money on *'equality'*.


Yes, offensive language or design is legal grounds for refusal, since the same rules apply *equally*


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> The judge couldn't discriminate. He stopped doing all marriages.


There were no other marriages to perform so that is not enough in his case. He announced it. He withheld his services to one class because another was not being served. And yet he kept his job. 
If he quit his job, fine. If he kept his mouth shut as to why, then it was not a provable discrimination. But he created the proof with his words.
What if he said he would not allow probate to go through because a gay person could not inherit under the law? Or refused divorces to heterosexual people for the same reason? Just as discriminatory and would lead to the same place as the others find themselves at the moment- jail.
Yet you would excuse him his discrimination solely because he choses to discriminate on an optional duty? Baking a cake is optional- only the words of the baker got him a fine. His options were not respected, why should this judge get away with it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> What a great idea. The Internet Crusaders of PC- pronounced ick pic.


Isn't that one of those "disparaging remarks" you said should be deleted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> There were no other marriages to perform so that is not enough in his case. He announced it. He withheld his services to one class because another was not being served. And yet he kept his job.
> If he quit his job, fine. If he kept his mouth shut as to why, then it was not a provable discrimination. But he created the proof with his words.
> What if he said he would not allow probate to go through because a gay person could not inherit under the law? Or refused divorces to heterosexual people for the same reason? Just as discriminatory and would lead to the same place as the others find themselves at the moment- jail.
> 
> ...


He didn't "discriminate" against anyone. 
Everyone was treated identically
Your entire premise is based on a fantasy.



> disÂ·crimÂ·iÂ·nate
> [dis&#712;krim&#601;&#716;n&#257;t]
> VERB
> recognize a distinction; differentiate:
> ...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What didn't you get about the court case that said either perform all marriages or perform none? Which is exactly what it says throughout the article.
> 
> It may be worded poorly, but what it said was the judge didn't have to marry straight people because he was not required to perform marriages. But if he chose to not marry straight people, he couldn't marry gay people either.
> 
> It makes no difference if performing marriage is an option or a requirement of your job - you can't discriminate.


Here's the story about the Nebraska case. http://m.omaha.com/news/nebraska/sa...e44-ad2e-59aa-b704-8488d430dafd.html?mode=jqm

There was no prosecution because no law was broken. There was no civil suit because there were no grounds. What did happen was an ethics board was asked for and rendered an opinion. It's not an opinion that carries any real legal weight. It's an opinion that hasn't been tested before the state Supreme Court who would have to rule on it. 

If you can show me the law or ordinance a judge would violate by performing marriages only for those people he chooses to based on whatever criteria he chooses to use you'll go some way towards proving your point. I can point to the specific laws broken by the bakers. It's an easy distinction to make.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Certain discriminatory acts are. I'll even modify my position a bit and leave some room that a judge who sells his services to officiate weddings may be violating a law because it meets some level of commercialism. It's a bit gray and you'd have to show me the law but I might be convinced. A judge who requires no payment or remuneration for their services would be exempt. You cannot regulate who one volunteers to serve. Because a business donates to one cause results in no further requirement that they donate to all causes. Because a judge volunteers their services to a gay or straight couple triggers no further requirement that they volunteer those services to all couples. That same standard applies to all of us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'll even modify my position a bit and leave some room that a judge who sells his services to officiate weddings may be violating a law because it meets some level of commercialism.


"Ministers" who run wedding chapels are required to serve all patrons regardless of gender or religion, because they operate as a business instead of a "church", so if a judge did advertise weddings for a fee I don't see how that wouldn't also be a "business" that would fit the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Ministers" who run wedding chapels are required to serve all patrons regardless of gender or religion, because they operate as a business instead of a "church", so if a judge did advertise weddings for a fee I don't see how that wouldn't also be a "business" that would fit the Civil Rights Act.


Most judges, even those that accept a fee, don't advertise their services. It might be a generally known thing that $50 is the standard thank you or a donation to the judge's favorite charity is "appreciated" but I've never seen sign posting fees in a judge's chambers or courtroom or heard of a judge handing out a bill for such services. Most such payments are "voluntary" and "customary". Whether this meets the standards of commercial activity and is thus regulated as such is unclear to me. It may be, it may not be. As far as I know it's not been tested in a court of law.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Most judges, even those that accept a fee, don't advertise their services. It might be a generally known thing that $50 is the standard thank you or a donation to the judge's favorite charity is "appreciated" but I've never seen sign posting fees in a judge's chambers or courtroom or heard of a judge handing out a bill for such services. Most such payments are "voluntary" and "customary". Whether this meets the standards of commercial activity and is thus regulated as such is unclear to me. It may be, it may not be. As far as I know it's not been tested in a court of law.


My post was based on what it specifically said in the 1st link you posted.



> According to Santos, a *court ruling in Nebraska* clearly allows judges to bow out of marrying same-sex couples. But if they do, they also give up their right to officiate any wedding.


I had no reason to think the information you referenced was incorrect.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> My post was based on what it specifically said in the 1st link you posted.
> 
> I had no reason to think the information you referenced was incorrect.


I just followed the facts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> My post was based on *what it specifically said* in the 1st link you posted.
> 
> I had no reason to think the information you referenced was incorrect.


I explained to you that comment came from the ACLU, and not from a *credible* source, which should have given you a hint it wasn't necessarily accurate. 

If you had done more research instead of assuming it was fact, you would have found the truth.

There was never any discrimination in the judges case.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> That is your opinion and the opinion of many others. It is not my opinion nor the opinion of others. I'm not going to argue this, because you can't convince me and I can't convince you.
> 
> I will explain one last time my thinking on this. While several here keep telling me I am wrong, I have seen no facts that bear that out.
> 
> ...



Okay once again now I understand the point you are trying to make. I think you are right that this will not be resolved until the KY legislature does something. And I agree they are most likely to work out a compromise of some sort that allows her to follow her conscience. I don't know that their compromise will be considered legal though. Or that it will make it past higher court rulings if it is challenged. It depends on how they wind up handling it. 

It's still not fair to the people who should have gotten their licenses and didn't just because she refused to do her job and hand them out. She made no effort to work towards a solution that would have allowed them to get what they had a legal right to receive. 

I tried to read the Volokh post but it keeps telling me I have to subscribe.


----------

