Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

a reply to: Klassified

Did he refuse personally, or did he try to prevent them from happening altogether?

a reply to: Klassified

Which he is allowed to do because performing any wedding is optional. Not required. Nor is there a law or requirement for a judge to justify not performing a marriage. I think his decision to not marry anyone was a thoughtful response.

Is it the fact that these are government workers exercising their decision not to perform actions that go against their faith or is it the fact that Christians are exercising their religious priorities over the law of the land? As a general rule, we all have lines we won't cross. I.e. work in an abortion clinic, perform executions of condemned murderers etc. Yeah, that sounds extreme but we can't judge what is extremely offensive to another person. Regardless of past actions, people choosing not to "sin", go against their conscience....whatever you want to call it, should be allowed to follow their conscience. Should government workers be given less rights than any other employee?

Jean Camara, a former employee of Costco is suing the wholesale giant stating that he was discriminated against for his personal beliefs. Camara, a self-professed devout muslim who worked as a cashier’s assistant at the Sunset Park Brooklyn in 2012 alleges that the store discriminated against him and his beliefs after he refused to touch products that contained pork or alcohol.

Camara alleges that the stores managers reassigned him outside of the store collecting shopping carts with no explanation after he had explained to them that touching the products in question went against his religion.

libertynews.com...

(CNN)—A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

***SNIP***

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

Flight attendant investigated for photos on tarmac

She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said


www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Klassified

Did he refuse personally, or did he try to prevent them from happening altogether?

As far as I know, he only refused personally, but his reasoning was because they were gay. He changed it to no marriages later, if I am understanding the situation correctly.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Metallicus

The only assholes are the people denying people the right to marry when it is there job to do so.
I wonder why you bleat freedom but don't like some groups to have that freedom?.

I am pro-gay marriage. Let them get married (no one is stopping them), but forcing people into compliance is anti-freedom.

a reply to: Klassified

Then that sounds like he is saying I am not forcing my beliefs on you, go get married. But you want others to be able to force their beliefs on him, and force him personally to do it. The only one who you are talking about having beliefs forced on them is the Judge, he did absolutely nothing to stand in the way of other people's beliefs.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Klassified

Then that sounds like he is saying I am not forcing my beliefs on you, go get married. But you want others to be able to force their beliefs on him, and force him personally to do it. The only one who you are talking about having beliefs forced on them is the Judge, he did absolutely nothing to stand in the way of other people's beliefs.

And you don't see the selective servicing of the public, by a public servant a problem?

I'm sorry, we can't serve you at this office, because you're gay, straight, black, white, male, female, but I think the office in the next county serves your kind. Here's a map. Have a nice day.
Oh, their office sent you here? Sorry, wrong office. You'll have to back to the county on the other side of your county. They serve your kind over there. Oh wait. No they don't. They changed that last week. You'll have to go 2 counties over. Sorry.

a reply to: Klassified

Now you are making stuff up. Show me where those scenarios happened. They didn't. When you have to lie it shows your position is pretty weak.

Show me where this Judge is required to do weddings.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Using the government to do so, no he absolutely does not. It is the very first thing the founders restricted the government from doing.

By your understanding of Rights, he could always quit. Oh wait, he did.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Using the government to do so, no he absolutely does not. It is the very first thing the founders restricted the government from doing.

By your understanding of Rights, he could always quit. Oh wait, he did.

Cheers - Dave

Him quitting is violating someone's civil rights. He can't quit, he must be forced to do it.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It is marriage bleat all you want but it is.
Its law I suggest getting over it.
Does it effect you in the slightest gay folk getting wed? Nope? Then why does it bother you so much?.

I guess by your estimation, judges are magic now, they can simply change reality on the whim of a lobbyist. As far as effecting me well, the alterations in language and definitions will eventually effect us all.

Why does my having a contrary opinion to yours bother you so much?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Using the government to do so, no he absolutely does not. It is the very first thing the founders restricted the government from doing.

By your understanding of Rights, he could always quit. Oh wait, he did.

Cheers - Dave

Him quitting is violating someone's civil rights. He can't quit, he must be forced to do it.

Yeah. That's exactly what the LGBTQ crowd think. They gonna drag us down to their level so they can feel more equal while destroying society. Seems pretty selfish and egocentric to me.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Metallicus

The only assholes are the people denying people the right to marry when it is there job to do so.
I wonder why you bleat freedom but don't like some groups to have that freedom?.

I am pro-gay marriage. Let them get married (no one is stopping them), but forcing people into compliance is anti-freedom.

So forcing judges to do their job is "anti-freedom"?

Anti-freedom is when Judges like this one use their position of power to IMPOSE their religious morals on other people.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Klassified

Now you are making stuff up. Show me where those scenarios happened. They didn't. When you have to lie it shows your position is pretty weak.

Show me where this Judge is required to do weddings.

First off, that remark is quite offensive, ad hominem, and uncalled for. Secondly, the scenario I demonstrated was very realistic, if elected and appointed government employees can cherry pick their duties, and who they want to serve, and not serve...

One little-known and controversial practice might be behind some of this unexpected compliance. In Utah, North Carolina, Texas and other states, local governments are shifting responsibilities so that employees who object to gay marriage do not have to be involved with wedding licenses at all. In this scenario, the objectors’ co-workers or other government officials rotate to handle the task, allowing clerks who object to fade into the background and not participate.

But a group of Columbia University law professors argue in a recent memo that these kinds of exemptions create “conscience creep,” in which government employees can refuse to provide more and more services that violate their beliefs. And what happens when no one wants to provide the service? “The exemption proposals would make the efficacy of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry contingent upon their being able to find a public official who has no objection to their having such a right,” they write.

Link
Enough said. We'll have to agree to disagree from this point.

originally posted by: muse7
Off to jail he goes

You can't use Government to force people to practice your religion and to abide by your personal morals

IS it really him denying them their rights? They can go elsewhere to get married so its not really a violation of their rights unfortunatly.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: muse7
Off to jail he goes

You can't use Government to force people to practice your religion and to abide by your personal morals

IS it really him denying them their rights? They can go elsewhere to get married so its not really a violation of their rights unfortunatly.

Yes he is denying them their rights.

A judge can't pick and choose which laws he's going to uphold.

originally posted by: Klassified
First off, that remark is quite offensive, ad hominem, and uncalled for.

You created a scenario that did not happen to prove this is wrong. That's called lying.

originally posted by: muse7
Yes he is denying them their rights.

A judge can't pick and choose which laws he's going to uphold.

By not doing any weddings he is denying them their rights? Can you show me the law that says he must do weddings?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
How can he be a judge in a case involving ANY LGBT person, if he has such bias against them? He clearly has bias against them if he won't fulfill his oath to the Constitution. I don't think he can be a good judge, if he can't perform his duties because of bias...

It's one of MANY cases to come, I'm afraid.

What this is going to end up exposing is the bias underhanded old boys club tactics utilised by some in the legal system to pervert justice in the name of personal interest.

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: muse7
Off to jail he goes

You can't use Government to force people to practice your religion and to abide by your personal morals

IS it really him denying them their rights? They can go elsewhere to get married so its not really a violation of their rights unfortunatly.

Yes he is denying them their rights.

A judge can't pick and choose which laws he's going to uphold.

Actually, they can pick and chose. It's called setting a precedent. It's a way of getting rid of bad laws and making better laws. The LGBTQ crowd has the right to challenge laws just like the other 95% plus population. But personally I think people have had enough of this politically correct BS. The times, they are a'changing. All these lame laws and alleged hate crimes are producing a bunch of whiny self-entitled babies and criminals. People are not going to put up with it much longer. Oh, BTW, did you hear about the gay couple that molested 5 of their 8 adopted boys? Icwonder how many more cases there are like that? I was going to put up a link, but there were so many of them and different cases. Not saying all gays are like that, but you don't give an allegedly reformed alcoholic the keys to a hard liquor warehouse.

Cheers - Dave