Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe one day it will be reversed and bigots such as the judge will not only be able to not get married but have their marriages not be recognized. I wouldn't shed a tear if such a thing happened. They don't have any problem discriminating against others but then they'll get furious if the same thing happened to them. I think it's time to legislate an anti bigot law that prohibits the marriage of people who want to prohibit the marriage of others just because they have a different religious belief or sexual orientation. Maybe if they were the ones being prohibited from being married then they would see what it actually feels like to be persecuted.
OK, I will cede this point. Although the Constitution does not guarantee it, the SCOTUS has seen fit to include it.
Is this a case of him using a religious exemption? Can he simply refuse to marry whomever he wants?
So what? Is there a reason they just don't go to a different guy?
That has not been established.
Yes. That reason is that their constitutional rights are being violated.
When we are faced with a case of Party A violating the constitutional rights of Party B, we put the onus of accommodation on Party A, not party B. This is glaringly obvious to both the habitually obtuse as well as to the rest of us.
By "we" I mean those of us who genuinely care about constitutional rights.
Yes. That reason is that their constitutional rights are being violated.
When we are faced with a case of Party A violating the constitutional rights of Party B, we put the onus of accommodation on Party A, not party B. This is glaringly obvious to both the habitually obtuse as well as to the rest of us.
By "we" I mean those of us who genuinely care about constitutional rights.
Given the additional fact that this officiant is not paid by the state or county, but by the couple, and that he is a minister of his church, I am not sure that constitutional rights come into play. If anything, it was the fact that the couple was not told there was a different officiant for non-religious ceremonies. I think this case is a bit more complicated than the original article made it out to be. I do think that the county should not be having an "official" officiant who only does Christian ceremonies though. I wonder if there will be a lawsuit and what the result might be.
Given the additional fact that this officiant is not paid by the state or county, but by the couple, and that he is a minister of his church, I am not sure that constitutional rights come into play. If anything, it was the fact that the couple was not told there was a different officiant for non-religious ceremonies. I think this case is a bit more complicated than the original article made it out to be. I do think that the county should not be having an "official" officiant who only does Christian ceremonies though. I wonder if there will be a lawsuit and what the result might be.
From your link:
Quote:
Bud Roth is a court appointed officiant in Franklin County, Virginia. He performs wedding ceremonies for couples who go to the courthouse to get married. Atheists, however, have no right to get married as far as he’s concerned.
When Morgan Strong and Tamar Courtney contacted the county courthouse to seal their love for each other after six years together, they were directed to Roth. Roth refused to perform the ceremony at the courthouse and only agreed to marry the couple if they tied the knot at his church.
Roth is an agent of the state. As such, he is not free to decide not to marry people based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). If he feels he cannot do that in good conscience, then he should not be a court appointed officiant. His job is to marry people who come to Franklin County for a civil marriage ceremony, not to marry people who come to Franklin County for a civil marriage so long as he approves of the ceremony or of their religious beliefs.
By refusing to act in his court-appointed capacity unless the couple agreed to get married in his church, he is in flagrant violation of both the Establishment Clause of Amendment I and the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV.
Roth is free as a private citizen to decline to marry individuals for whatever reason he chooses. Roth is free as a religious figure to decline to marry individuals for whatever reason he chooses. But as long as Roth is a court appointed officiant - a capacity that he chose for himself - he is not free to discriminate based on the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of his prospective customers who want to get married in the courthouse.
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
Just out of interest Vizio, why wouldn't you marry a Christian to someone of another religion?
(I'm going to grit my teeth and ignore the same gender couples policy).
Yes. That reason is that their constitutional rights are being violated.
When we are faced with a case of Party A violating the constitutional rights of Party B, we put the onus of accommodation on Party A, not party B. This is glaringly obvious to both the habitually obtuse as well as to the rest of us.
By "we" I mean those of us who genuinely care about constitutional rights.
So, just like the Christian baker that got harassed for having a moral conviction, the affected party just wants to be a bully and force their will on the guy?
The Bible forbids it. It's my conviction. I would not do it...if they want to, there are plenty of other ways to get it done.
Ok. Well I'm genuinely very confused with this so you might have to really help me out here. (You probably know by now that I'm not exactly very bible savvy.)
Who made this rule?
Was it Jesus himself that forbade his followers from marrying people who were not 'Christian' then?
I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion.
That to me is an unusual combination of tolerance and intolerance. Back in the day I knew many an evangelical minister who would be creeped out at the concept of marrying a couple of unbelievers and restricted their services solely to believers and often solely to people who were in their judgment believers.
I take it your policy is based on the fact that, while the Bible doesn't prohibit marriage between unbelievers, it prohibits a believer being "unequally yoked" with an unbeliever?
So, just like the Christian baker that got harassed for having a moral conviction, the affected party just wants to be a bully and force their will on the guy?
I don't think the baker issue is a fair comparison. This guy is a government appointee. The baker is not. The First Amendment applies to the officiant, but does not apply to the baker (although other things, like the Civil Rights Act, may apply).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
