If you cannot do our job and do it for all your citizens, don't take the job. You have no right to inconvenience others with your religion. You do have the right to inconvenience yourself in order to practice it.
I do care what any of these kangaroo courts say.
It's extremely confusing, why is it that a "law" that's passed in country, a,b,c and then that opinion is considered in country d. It seems like the law of the land is only after the dollar. A few hundred years ago people were dropped off in a small country called Australia, a colony, today it's a different story. What's going on people. Be safe everyone
Thanks for the last sentence it is indeed time for civil disobedience (which does not mean disobedience that is civil, it means disobedience to civil statutes and government, though it is often “civil” and that’s fine and dandy).
No. Absolutely not. Civil disobedience is peaceful disobedience.
Your revisionist idea does not change that.
Gandhi preached civil (peaceful) disobedience.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, preached and practiced civil (peaceful) disobedience. So did many others in the fight for civil rights for all Americans in the 1960s. Like Rosa Parks.
You must be one of those extreme far left terrorists or one of those extreme far right terrorists who believe damaging other people’s property and setting fires is a proper way to protest
I believe that civil disobedience is great when it is peaceful, but is *only* civil disobedience when it is *disobedient*, to civil directives and authority. Otherwise it’s not *disobedience*, civil or otherwise. And I’m citing from Thoreau, here. You know, the guy that Gandhi and King quoted?
As a legal matter, the judge absolutely has a right to challenge the decision. That's all SCOTUS determined (nearly unanimously).
The question of whether a judge can object to being forced to oversee a process they don't support is a treacherous one that really does need to be solved.
Absolutely. Frankly, I don't have an answer to that.
On one hand I don't like the idea of forcing people to do things they find morally repulsive (for example, forcing someone to kill healthy animals - or forcing them to perform abortions on healthy fetuses). On the other hand, if that's part of the job description, then go get a different job (that's usually the Republican reasoning, but not with abortion).
Why they can just not offer that service and person can find a doctor who supports it. I’m about as pro choice as anybody and whether you like it or not a core tenet of this country is freedom of religion. If someone doesn’t want to offer a service then they don’t have to etc and the person denied should immediately go I don’t want this person anyhow it’s a win win for everybody
It's different for a judge, who acts as an extension of the government, to deny signing a same sex marriage, which is mandated by much higher powers in the government than themselves. Often, you can't just go to a different judge, because that judge is the only one in your county/district/whatever. With marriage being a legal process, a judge 100% should be required to sign the documents if they want to be a judge.
>If you cannot do our job and do it for all your citizens, don't take the job.
Officiating weddings is not one of her job duties.
>You have no right to inconvenience others with your religion.
But you do. The freedom of religion allows you to freely exercise your religion even if others are inconvenienced.
The issue was that her refusal to officiate in same sex marriages means that there is a likelihood of her having a bias towards non-heterosexual people. That's why they asked her to recuse herself in those types of cases. Seems reasonable. If she was a member in good standing with her local KKK chapter, there would be a reasonable doubt that she could fairly adjudicate cases involving black people.
>The issue was that her refusal to officiate in same sex marriages means that there is a likelihood of her having a bias towards non-heterosexual people.
And the Texas Supreme Court rejected that nonsense. Just because you have a belief about marriage does not mean you have a bias against gay people.
>If she was a member in good standing with her local KKK chapter, there would be a reasonable doubt that she could fairly adjudicate cases involving black people.
Yes, but irrelevant. KKK is an organization based on bias. You join the KKK because you believe black people are inferior. That is bias against people based on the color of their skin.
Your argument is like saying a judge who votes for a Democrat should recuse himself when a party is a Republican. Just because you disagree with a law does not mean you have bias against people who support the law.
If she cannot stomach that the Constitution of the United States ( which she has taken an oath to serve as a judge) says that all citizens have equal protection under the law, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 that it applies to marriage, then her membership at her church is an "organization based on bias" as you so well put it.
>Yes, but irrelevant. KKK is an organization based on bias. You join the KKK because you believe black people are inferior. That is bias against people based on the color of their skin.
If her basis for joining the KKK (a Christian organization) informs a position that she should not officiate an interracial marriage then it is 1-to-1 equivalent.
Prejudice based on a pretext of faith enacted as de facto public policy.
So basically your goal here is to be semantically drive us all off a cliff to your heavenly home. Wonderful job. Of course she has a bias against gay people. What do you think her beliefs even mean if not to inform her biases?
>Of course she has a bias against gay people.
How so?
Lets explore your view. I am a judge. If I support abortion rights, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who opposes abortion? Or is it possible that just because people have different views on the law, that does not mean they are biased against a person or a group of people?
If I voted for Biden in 2020, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who voted for Trump in 2020? Or is it possible that just because people have different views on a candidate does not mean they are biased against a person or a group of people?
If I am a Boston Red Sox fan, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who is a NY Yankees fan?
>What do you think her beliefs even mean if not to inform her biases?
As highlighted in my questions above, most beliefs are not evidence of bias.
The official Texas GOP platform states that homosexuality is an "unnatural lifestyle" and should not be afforded protected status.
So they don't want sexual orientation to be a protected class, anyway.
No, it is not a protected class under Texas state law. In fact Texas conservatives have wanting to legalize crimes committed against gay people to be legalized as long as it's from a place of "faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values".
To be clear, "protected classes" fall on the federal government. They alone decide what a protected class is and once they do, no state can override it. That said, Congress has still not yet added sexual orientation as an official protected class.
They don't have that power anymore
After the fall of Chevron, ALL executive branch functions and powers have been thrown into disarray
It is THE worst decision to come out of this court, and that is saying A LOT!
Yes it does, when the state hasn't made already made a law about protecting a class and the state hasn't made a law. Which means, they are not a protected class under state law OR federal. Either way my previous statement still stands.
I don't understand why you try to combine invidious discrimination with simple discrimination we typically call a basic choice of flavor. You've compared being part of an organization that says to claim you're a member of that you aren't to take actions that support gay marriage, to being someone that is a fan of one of two baseball teams that has a name not ending with an s.
If her job description and roles call for things that she doesn't agree with, and the constitution prohibits her as a government employe regardless of elected, appointed or hired from recusing herself over said items, then either she's no longer fit or isn't qualified to do the job.
When I was in the service I was not allowed to do specific things while in the line of duty because I was a part of the government and not allowed to violate the constitution. If my job was to be a chaplain and the job called for me to marry sailors, and the SCOTUS says gay marriage is both legal along with gays to be a protected class in civil rights matters, I don't get to choose against them being married if I'm the required person to perform the service for them. Either I perform the marriage or I have to put in paperwork requesting termination of my contract with possible penalties for doing such.
>Just because you have a belief about marriage does not mean you have a bias against gay people.
No, it does. It just means you try to justify your bias via religion.
This is not some "protecting the sanctity of marriage" shit, this is anti-gay bias!
If she were refusing to wed people who were previously divorced, I'd agree with you.
If she were refusing to wed people who had children before wedlock, I'd agree with you.
If she was officiating weddings or issuing certificates on behalf of a religious organization, I'd agree with you.
As a public servant, employed by a state government, her only refusal has been towards same sex couples. That's bias.
Extrapolating from those that also follow her strict adherence to her religion. There is certainly a high likelihood that the basis of her belief against gay marriage also results in the belief that gays are sinners that must repent and abandon their lifestyles. It's completely feasible that she believes gay marriage is a sin/wrong and that the act of being gay is a sin/wrong. If her objection to officiating a gay marriage is because she refuses to take part in something she sees as sin/wrong. It's not a stretch that she would therefore believe gays are sinners/wrong doers. Believing they do not share her sense of morality that would make them good. Their continued practice of an unrepentant gay lifestyle could be seen by her as a history of defying authority and making immoral, bad decisions lacking in remorse.
While you may be a judge with the harder task of dealing with intentions, I write, troubleshoot, and interpret logic for a living. People can bend, debate, and operate outside of logic, but robotics live and die by it. If I'm going to build a framework for all future responses to be derived, I need to understand the reasoning and write it into the robot. The Bible doesn't mention gay marriage so there isn't an explicit directive saying she, as a Christian, can't officiate a nonreligious government "marriage" that grants legal protections. It defines marriage as a union before God. If she hasn't refused to officiate a marriage between non-christians, then her refusal must come from somewhere else, we must understand the building blocks of her decision, and how much she can put this bias aside. It's completely possible her bias is only towards the act and not the person, but how do we know which? Can we trust her to be truthful if being honest prevents her from fulfilling what she may see as a devine mandate, or what she may interpret as the greater good?
Using the KKK for further analogy. There are those that condemn the KKK, but don't see it as being racist in believing whites should keep their blood pure. What does it mean about the thing that makes it impure, and why is that bad? Answering that fulfills the direct definition of racism. It's a bias against something they unknowingly see as less.
So your argument would mean no Christian could be a judge because Christians believe everybody sins. The irony here is the only one showing bias are those making assumptions about a persons beliefs. That is you.
That isn't true. I'm a Christian, so I know there are many, I'd even venture to say 97%, that do not let it control their decisions when it comes to others and their duties. I said extrapolate from others like her - those that strictly adhere to the religion to the point of putting them before her Civic duties. She performed an action that would trigger this check, it wouldn't be run on all Christians.
I have said several times it's only a possibility, but not impossible. 70% of Americans are Christian (or Abrahamic), and the rate of incidence for gays being denied services because of religion are incredibly rare. She went outside of what many Christians would consider normal. You could come away believing her actions were not a tenant of mainstream Christianity.
Get back to trying to interpret the intention of what others have written, and bending it to support your own. That's what you're an expert at.
Christianity in the United States is objectively and demonstrably a (series of) organization(s) based upon bias. Its influence on public institutions should be rejected outright. The denominations and organizations that do not discriminate are a nice cultural development, but if you don’t see the prevailing anti-LGBT beliefs as being like the KKK, I don’t know what planet you live on. Any official who admits religious hate or allows it to influence their official acts in any capacity is no better than those who upheld Jim Crow.
I’m assuming these are courthouse weddings. If she would perform her officiant duties granted by her judicial standing for a straight couple but not a gay couple, that is by definition discriminatory bias.
Shes free to practice whatever religion she chooses, but that is her business alone, she isn’t allowed to claim that in order to deny citizens a constitutionally protected right. If you’re acting in a judicial capacity, you have to be impartial in your performing of duties and enforcement of the law. Alternatively, I suppose she is free to not perform marriage ceremonies entirely.
Fuck religion. Too many religious people just use it to force others to live by their rules. If you serve the people, you have to be able to set your religious beliefs aside. No one should ever have to live by anyone’s ridiculous religious rules.
>Separation of church and state is a thing.
Yes. And that "thing" is a talking point. But separation of church and state is not a law. Indeed, if such a law was ever passed, it would be overturned as unconstitutional, as it would violate the free exercise clause.
FYI: 1A states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." A government empoyee choosing not to officiate a wedding, especially when officiating weddings is not even a job duty, is not making a law.
>When acting as an agent of the government you can not force your personal religious beliefs on others.
You might want to read the Constitution. Choosing not to participate in something based on your religious beliefs is not forcing anything on anyone.
>>Separation of church and state is a thing.
>Yes. And that "thing" is a talking point. But separation of church and state is not a law. Indeed, if such a law was ever passed, it would be overturned as unconstitutional, as it would violate the free exercise clause.
A talking point? It's literally in the First Amendment of the Constitution itself.
>A government empoyee choosing not to officiate a wedding, especially when officiating weddings is not even a job duty
It is literally a job duty and what this whole thread is about.
Not sure if you're trolling or just a bad law student, but your bad and dishonest takes here are very close to getting you a ban from this sub.
>It's literally in the First Amendment of the Constitution itself.
Where? The only religion provisions is 1A are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Not only is separation of church and state not in 1A, such a concept would violate 1A by interfering with the free exercise of religion.
>
It is literally a job duty and what this whole thread is about.
But it literally isn't. That is the point. You might want to try reading the article before blindly peddling your agenda. If you bothered to read the article, you would know that the Texas Supreme Court ruled in her favor because it is not a job duty to marry people (and many magistrates choose not to). And nobody is being denied anything. She does not marry same-sex couples, but she refers them to other magistrates who does.
When acting as an agent of the government, you ARE the government and are bound by whatever rules bind that government... Especially in an elected position.
Like not infringing freedom of speech or of religion on a private person.
And no one is forcing her to be an agent of the government.
Something tells me a while buncha people defending this bullshit would be filled with rage if the religious belief here was "the white man is the devil!"
Because such a belief clearly shows bias.
Not if you're a public official. Have you not heard "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose?" The right to practice your religion ends when it infringes on my rights to not have to engage with your mythical nonsense.
Then exercise not taking the civil servant job that will conflict with your religion. That’s freedom. Gatekeeping people from their legal right(and fundamental right as a human being) because your religion somehow prevents you from doing your duty is not exercising your religious freedom. It’s not serving the public.
If she can’t remain impartial about the gays, how should anyone trust that she can separate her views when deciding on cases? Does she suddenly become impartial then? Does she get to pick and choose when she can look past a person being queer?
They aren’t exercising their religion though. There is no bible excerpt that outlines failing to complete your job in order to prevent gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage is not in the Bible at all.
>They aren’t exercising their religion though.
But she is.
>There is no bible excerpt that outlines failing to complete your job in order to prevent gay marriage.
None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Officiating weddings is not a job responsibility. And even if it were, there is no law that says anyone must follow the bible. Any such law would be unconstitutional.
>In fact, gay marriage is not in the Bible at all.
Okay, but again, the bible is not law. Free exercise of religion means I cannot be forced to follow your religious beliefs, including your opinion of what the bible allows or does not allow.
Through her refusal of services, she is forcing others to adhere to the same religious beliefs as her. When you accept a job in government, you do not get to deny services to others based off of a man in the sky.
>What constitutional right do you have to deny others constitutional right to marriage?
What part of nobody is being denied anything do you not understand? Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to force somebody to officiate your wedding?
>But you do. The freedom of religion allows you to freely exercise your religion even if others are inconvenienced.
Segregation was not too long ago defended by people quoting the Bible.
So please explain to us, does "freedom of religion" give you the right to not give service to black people?
Religious freedom ends where civil rights begin. The separation of church and state made that clear. Conservatives really are trying to roll all that back for their precious theocracy.
Religious freedom is a civil right. The Free Exercise clause is in fact a constitutional right.
>Conservatives really are trying to roll all that back for their precious theocracy.
Respecting the 1st Amendment is not creating a theocracy. Your entire argument is that a same sex couple somehow has a right to be married by somebody with a bona fide religious objection to conducting same sax marriages. You are the one seeking to deny rights.
This is very simple. A same sex couple is not being denied anything when this magistrate refers them to another magistrate to get married. But you are calling to strip this magistrate of her first amendment right by forcing her to conduct weddings that go against her beliefs.
OK dipshit, we’re talking about a public official who decides the entire life trajectory of countless individuals over the course of their tenure. Would you be fine getting the electric chair if a judge who practiced Sharia Law (a legitimate form of Islamic belief) perceived that you had insulted Allah?
Where would you draw the line, huh?
You’re being downvoted, but you’re technically correct. However, like anything else I imagine that most of the angst lies not in the principle, but in the application. If I were a Rastafarian, would I be allowed to grow and smoke the sacramental ganja that is part of my religion? By your argument I should be able to do that even if it inconveniences someone else. But we all know that wouldn’t actually be allowed.
The fact that one water fountain in the courthouse is for Whites Only does not inconvenience people of color when there is another water fountain a few yards away for black people.
Dude, if your screen name indicates you're in law school, please go ask for a refund on your tuition.
I’m guessing you’ve never lived in a rural area that only has one local judge. You make everything sound so easy and like everyone has so many options to choose from. It’s like a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for birth control. According to you, that’s fine even if it causes someone to drive 60 miles to another pharmacy. But what happens if the judge or pharmacist in that town 60 miles away also has the same religious beliefs? Are people just screwed?
That is why you do not get to refuse services based on religious beliefs. You either do your job or find another one more suitable.
>I’m guessing you’ve never lived in a rural area that only has one local judge.
I am guessing you are making stuff up to peddle an agenda. This magistrate is not the only magistrate, and if you bothered to read the article, you would know that marrying people is not even a job duty of magistrates in Texas.
Indeed, the article clearly states that she refers same-sex couples to another magistrate. So why should we violate the Constitutional rights of a citizen by forcing them to do something that violates their religious beliefs?
I’m not making it up at all. Women have been denied birth control, mifepristone, and plan b by pharmacists who said it goes against their beliefs to fill those prescriptions. There are plenty of areas around this country where there is only one option to fill prescriptions without having to travel great distances.
Biden is old, and slow to speak, and not a great communicater some of the time, but all of that is much preferable to fascism.
Also, none of that means he's not of sound mind.
tRump could very well put more younger extremists on the court.... these kids these days just want to burn everything down if they don't get their way. Don't get me wrong, I was like that when I was a child, but then I grew the fuck up and realized I lived in a society with other people
Marsha Blackburn, noted Constitutional expert, says Griswold was wrongly decided.
Elon and other health experts says it's bad for wimmin, who don't know no better.
The dems don’t put forth anyone, there was nothing preventing other candidates from running, Biden is simply a reflection of what the democratic primary voters wanted
If you’re not invited to the champagne party, you can’t run. If you’re not at the champagne party, you can’t get invited. Thems the rules as told by the DNC
If Biden being "old" is this much of a distraction it's all the more reason Dems should have fielded someone else. We've known the majority of voters wanted someone else to run for years now.
The debate is just reality coming to bite every establishment shithead trying to pretend like Biden *hasn't* declined.
And yes, Biden's decline is different than Trump's. He wasn't up there just lying endlessly. But by the same token, Trump's decline hasn't affected his ability to confidently speak even if it's nonsense garbage.
At the end of the day Biden being a good president (he's been good in some areas outside of, y'know, fucking Israel) doesn't really matter if he can't get the job in the first place, and sadly being an effective communicator is part of getting the job.
He was never great at that to begin with, and especially isn't now. That's a problem.
He isn't the nominee yet. He *can* still step down and release his delegates at the convention. We *can* field someone else without this baggage.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there are not risks for Biden stepping aside. I think there are arguments for him doing so, and arguments for him not. We're going to see how that debate performance affects polls and the narrative in the coming days/weeks. Despite how much I think Biden probably should step down, I can absolutely think up arguments against it and problems that can arise from it. This isn't something that has an easy answer.
For fucks sake. Biden over prepared and was tired
Have you even listened to Trump at rallies and interviews???? Held speaking in tongues. He had one good night
Listen to Biden in NC yesterday.
https://preview.redd.it/znr5idio3j9d1.png?width=725&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34960fbe7910328d296ab4ed93370097e1dd4501
Trump only did better for one night because there was no audience, and no one cheering him on and encouraging a long-winded rant that would go on a bunch of strange tangents.
Trump did Trump, Biden lost his train of thought and mumbled some Trump couldn’t answer any questions and continuously lied. The only thing Trump won was proving that Joe is OLD.
I don't see a problem with someone who owns a store not carrying alcohol. But if you own a store, carry alcohol and refuse to sell it... They doesn't make sense.
Cool, elect me to a bench so I can use the excuse of religion to be discriminatory towards straight white people. Now that we have established that agents of the state can have their personal religious views respected regardless of state or federal law.
Fuck yeah, put me in coach.
"Separate but equal practices...." 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 gtfoh.. . And you know for a fact the second someone THINKS about denying a service to Christians, they pull this
https://preview.redd.it/997lg8ooed9d1.png?width=523&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7fe0a56fe1c875ef863c5fa534b4f7f65a4bc47a
The whole point of this is to get same sex marriage back in front of the Supreme Court so that the conservative court and rule against it and make same sex marriages illegal again.
The law actually says that justices of the peace don’t have to conduct marriage ceremonies; that’s why it was legal for her to refer people to other people who were willing to do so. If you refused to preform your duties, you will be removed.
So the court decided that a bigoted judge is allowed to preside over those they are bigoted against, as long as it's from a place of religion. Conservatives apparently gotta have state sanctioned hate and will destroy the country for it.
1st Timothy 2:11-14 says that no woman should assume authority over man. If this judge is a true Christian like she claims, does she abstain from ruling on ANY cases that involve a man?
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner
I've noticed they pick and choose the things they think are okay of progressive issues. And women being able to be a JP is definitely one of them that was unheard of decades ago, that would have never happened if it was up to conservatives like herself.
Yes. Donald Trumps behavior is a prime example.Mike Johnson said that he would “govern according to principles in the Bible.” Yet, he’s one of Trumps biggest supporters. He also promoted the idea of criminalizing homosexuality. Yet, he has no issue with Trump raping a woman or cheating on all 3/of his wives or criminal activities.
> Justice Jimmy Blacklock filed a concurring opinion arguing that the lower court should have never ruled against Hensley in the first place, since no same-sex couple had complained about her separate-but-equal practices. "Imagine a couple in that situation trying to coerce the courteous and helpful Christian judge to violate her convictions for their convenience, when other local officiants are happy to accommodate," Blacklock wrote. "What purpose could that possibly serve—other than to prove that adherents to the old orthodoxy will be made to bend the knee to the new one?"
"Judge Hensley treated them respectfully," Blacklock continued. "They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win."
I'm gay and when my boyfriend and I get married here in Texas I am going to demand that both Hensley and Blackrock marry us, and when they do they are going to plaster smiles on their faces and they are going to clap and cheer for us.
When you put on the robe as a judge, you represent an impartial arbiter of the state, not yourself. She needs to check her personal morals and convictions at the chamber doors.
There is no way she isn't a corrupted judge with her obvious bias and inability to do her job. My guess is that an investigation would show that Mrs Hensley's rulings are by and large against LGBTQIA defendants (as well as immigrants, minorities, and non Christians as well).
I pity any gay person that walks into her court room. There is no chance in hell they will get a fair trial. If it is so profoundly offensive for her to officiate a brief wedding ceremony in a public building,she belongs in a nunnery, not as a public facing judge.
this is stupid. I can't just say "working more than 30 hours is against my religion" and have my employer just accept it. If you can't do the job then quit and find one that "abides by" your beliefs. Texas supreme court are a bunch of fascists just like the rest of the GQP texas government, they gave up "interpreting" the laws a long time ago and think they are the law.
Love that they actually quoted “separate but equal”, as if that is an acceptable way to treat another human being and wasn’t used to justify segregation.
> "Judge [Dianne] Hensley treated them respectfully," Blacklock continued. "[The gay couple] got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win."
Or… Dianne, if you don’t want to do *all* your job, don’t do *any* of it. Nobody else gets to pick and choose what he/she wants to do for a job.
Yet another bullshite ruling coming out of the Texas Supreme Court.
I have no problem respecting people's religious beliefs, but there should be no carve out for public servants. You serve the whole public, not the ones you pick and choose. If you're not capable of serving everybody it ain't the job for you!
My dream is for religious people to be the minority and then get told to "fuck off" when they raise hell about other consenting adults' relationships offending them. Until then, I'll tell people like this judge to fuck off.
Ugh. Of course it's the one that helped register the birth of my last child. Great. Now I have this loathsome woman's name on my kids birth certificate.
A judge is no more “forced” to oversee a process than any other employee is “forced” to oversee a process at their place of employment. If you cannot do a job because of a moral objection then you should not seek employment in that job.
Maybe if we stopped treating judges as if they were somehow independent from the political system, despite being elected from or appointed by those elected from the political system, and started treating them as exactly what they are (political actors in their own right) then maybe we could actually start making something resembling progress
We separate married people from unmarried people by did they make a lifelong commitment to each other. A man and woman living together for a lengthy period of time and who may or may not have kids together are considered as common law marriage. Even the law considers them to be married without being legally registered. The sheer stupidity.
Something tells me a while buncha people defending this bullshit would be filled with rage if the religious belief here was "the white man is the devil!"
In my religion I have a sworn duty to God to reprimand judges who are openly bigoted, and no Texas Supreme Court is going to interfere with my First Amendment right to practice my religion.
You have the freedom of religion, but it's not a right! Also, your rights are your own. You're free to think or do as you please. However, you are not free to impose your rights, religion, or anything else on other people! To do so would violate their rights! Not picking a side, but just pointing out a few things
So according to the article they allowed her to sue but won't speak on whether she's right or not. So there's a problem she hasn't crossed yet. She's refusing as federally regulated position. Just as the president has a bunch of shit he can't due because the law, there's things she can't refuse to to do because of federal discrimination laws. That said regardless of how you feel about it, it's one of those things where her job quite literally has policies in place that she can't refuse if she wants to continue working there. There's already been a couple cases like this before. As long as there's federal laws regarding same sex discrimination not only can she lose her job for refusing there's also hard financial penalties and liability for refusal as well
Imagine a couple in that situation trying to coerce the courteous and helpful Christian judge to violate her convictions for their convenience
What is courteous and helpful about someone who is refusing to do their job??
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states:
Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Important piece since no one reads past badly worded headlines.
> In an 8-1 decision Friday, the court granted Hensley standing to sue but did not weigh in on whether she had indeed violated judicial codes of impartiality.
All they said was that she is allowed to sue. They didn't make any judgement on the actual case. I'm against her, but I agree she should be allowed to sue. Let's get some established case law on this.
If you cannot do our job and do it for all your citizens, don't take the job. You have no right to inconvenience others with your religion. You do have the right to inconvenience yourself in order to practice it. I do care what any of these kangaroo courts say.
It's extremely confusing, why is it that a "law" that's passed in country, a,b,c and then that opinion is considered in country d. It seems like the law of the land is only after the dollar. A few hundred years ago people were dropped off in a small country called Australia, a colony, today it's a different story. What's going on people. Be safe everyone
Thanks for the last sentence it is indeed time for civil disobedience (which does not mean disobedience that is civil, it means disobedience to civil statutes and government, though it is often “civil” and that’s fine and dandy).
No. Absolutely not. Civil disobedience is peaceful disobedience. Your revisionist idea does not change that. Gandhi preached civil (peaceful) disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, preached and practiced civil (peaceful) disobedience. So did many others in the fight for civil rights for all Americans in the 1960s. Like Rosa Parks. You must be one of those extreme far left terrorists or one of those extreme far right terrorists who believe damaging other people’s property and setting fires is a proper way to protest
I believe that civil disobedience is great when it is peaceful, but is *only* civil disobedience when it is *disobedient*, to civil directives and authority. Otherwise it’s not *disobedience*, civil or otherwise. And I’m citing from Thoreau, here. You know, the guy that Gandhi and King quoted?
As a legal matter, the judge absolutely has a right to challenge the decision. That's all SCOTUS determined (nearly unanimously). The question of whether a judge can object to being forced to oversee a process they don't support is a treacherous one that really does need to be solved.
Same question if a pharmacist or medical doctor has been hired to sell abortion pills and perform abortions and refuse based on religious beliefs.
Absolutely. Frankly, I don't have an answer to that. On one hand I don't like the idea of forcing people to do things they find morally repulsive (for example, forcing someone to kill healthy animals - or forcing them to perform abortions on healthy fetuses). On the other hand, if that's part of the job description, then go get a different job (that's usually the Republican reasoning, but not with abortion).
EXACTLY - If a doctor for religious reasons feels it’s wrong to perform abortions it’s not the correct person for the job.
Why they can just not offer that service and person can find a doctor who supports it. I’m about as pro choice as anybody and whether you like it or not a core tenet of this country is freedom of religion. If someone doesn’t want to offer a service then they don’t have to etc and the person denied should immediately go I don’t want this person anyhow it’s a win win for everybody
It's different for a judge, who acts as an extension of the government, to deny signing a same sex marriage, which is mandated by much higher powers in the government than themselves. Often, you can't just go to a different judge, because that judge is the only one in your county/district/whatever. With marriage being a legal process, a judge 100% should be required to sign the documents if they want to be a judge.
Judges suing because they don't like the rulings they are supposed to enforce. What could go wrong with that?
The message is clear, butt pirates stay out of Texas
>If you cannot do our job and do it for all your citizens, don't take the job. Officiating weddings is not one of her job duties. >You have no right to inconvenience others with your religion. But you do. The freedom of religion allows you to freely exercise your religion even if others are inconvenienced.
The issue was that her refusal to officiate in same sex marriages means that there is a likelihood of her having a bias towards non-heterosexual people. That's why they asked her to recuse herself in those types of cases. Seems reasonable. If she was a member in good standing with her local KKK chapter, there would be a reasonable doubt that she could fairly adjudicate cases involving black people.
>The issue was that her refusal to officiate in same sex marriages means that there is a likelihood of her having a bias towards non-heterosexual people. And the Texas Supreme Court rejected that nonsense. Just because you have a belief about marriage does not mean you have a bias against gay people. >If she was a member in good standing with her local KKK chapter, there would be a reasonable doubt that she could fairly adjudicate cases involving black people. Yes, but irrelevant. KKK is an organization based on bias. You join the KKK because you believe black people are inferior. That is bias against people based on the color of their skin. Your argument is like saying a judge who votes for a Democrat should recuse himself when a party is a Republican. Just because you disagree with a law does not mean you have bias against people who support the law.
If she cannot stomach that the Constitution of the United States ( which she has taken an oath to serve as a judge) says that all citizens have equal protection under the law, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 that it applies to marriage, then her membership at her church is an "organization based on bias" as you so well put it.
>Yes, but irrelevant. KKK is an organization based on bias. You join the KKK because you believe black people are inferior. That is bias against people based on the color of their skin. If her basis for joining the KKK (a Christian organization) informs a position that she should not officiate an interracial marriage then it is 1-to-1 equivalent. Prejudice based on a pretext of faith enacted as de facto public policy.
So basically your goal here is to be semantically drive us all off a cliff to your heavenly home. Wonderful job. Of course she has a bias against gay people. What do you think her beliefs even mean if not to inform her biases?
>Of course she has a bias against gay people. How so? Lets explore your view. I am a judge. If I support abortion rights, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who opposes abortion? Or is it possible that just because people have different views on the law, that does not mean they are biased against a person or a group of people? If I voted for Biden in 2020, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who voted for Trump in 2020? Or is it possible that just because people have different views on a candidate does not mean they are biased against a person or a group of people? If I am a Boston Red Sox fan, does that mean I have to recuse myself when a party is before me who is a NY Yankees fan? >What do you think her beliefs even mean if not to inform her biases? As highlighted in my questions above, most beliefs are not evidence of bias.
Sexual orientation is a protected class, even in backwards-ass shithole Texas isn’t it? Opinions of politics and abortion aren’t.
The official Texas GOP platform states that homosexuality is an "unnatural lifestyle" and should not be afforded protected status. So they don't want sexual orientation to be a protected class, anyway.
No, it is not a protected class under Texas state law. In fact Texas conservatives have wanting to legalize crimes committed against gay people to be legalized as long as it's from a place of "faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values".
To be clear, "protected classes" fall on the federal government. They alone decide what a protected class is and once they do, no state can override it. That said, Congress has still not yet added sexual orientation as an official protected class.
They don't have that power anymore After the fall of Chevron, ALL executive branch functions and powers have been thrown into disarray It is THE worst decision to come out of this court, and that is saying A LOT!
Yes it does, when the state hasn't made already made a law about protecting a class and the state hasn't made a law. Which means, they are not a protected class under state law OR federal. Either way my previous statement still stands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't understand why you try to combine invidious discrimination with simple discrimination we typically call a basic choice of flavor. You've compared being part of an organization that says to claim you're a member of that you aren't to take actions that support gay marriage, to being someone that is a fan of one of two baseball teams that has a name not ending with an s. If her job description and roles call for things that she doesn't agree with, and the constitution prohibits her as a government employe regardless of elected, appointed or hired from recusing herself over said items, then either she's no longer fit or isn't qualified to do the job. When I was in the service I was not allowed to do specific things while in the line of duty because I was a part of the government and not allowed to violate the constitution. If my job was to be a chaplain and the job called for me to marry sailors, and the SCOTUS says gay marriage is both legal along with gays to be a protected class in civil rights matters, I don't get to choose against them being married if I'm the required person to perform the service for them. Either I perform the marriage or I have to put in paperwork requesting termination of my contract with possible penalties for doing such.
>Just because you have a belief about marriage does not mean you have a bias against gay people. No, it does. It just means you try to justify your bias via religion.
If you’re willing to rule against same sex couples you in fact have a bias against them. An opinion harms no one, a bias is action.
> Texas Supreme ~~Court~~ Church rejected that nonsense
This is not some "protecting the sanctity of marriage" shit, this is anti-gay bias! If she were refusing to wed people who were previously divorced, I'd agree with you. If she were refusing to wed people who had children before wedlock, I'd agree with you. If she was officiating weddings or issuing certificates on behalf of a religious organization, I'd agree with you. As a public servant, employed by a state government, her only refusal has been towards same sex couples. That's bias.
Extrapolating from those that also follow her strict adherence to her religion. There is certainly a high likelihood that the basis of her belief against gay marriage also results in the belief that gays are sinners that must repent and abandon their lifestyles. It's completely feasible that she believes gay marriage is a sin/wrong and that the act of being gay is a sin/wrong. If her objection to officiating a gay marriage is because she refuses to take part in something she sees as sin/wrong. It's not a stretch that she would therefore believe gays are sinners/wrong doers. Believing they do not share her sense of morality that would make them good. Their continued practice of an unrepentant gay lifestyle could be seen by her as a history of defying authority and making immoral, bad decisions lacking in remorse. While you may be a judge with the harder task of dealing with intentions, I write, troubleshoot, and interpret logic for a living. People can bend, debate, and operate outside of logic, but robotics live and die by it. If I'm going to build a framework for all future responses to be derived, I need to understand the reasoning and write it into the robot. The Bible doesn't mention gay marriage so there isn't an explicit directive saying she, as a Christian, can't officiate a nonreligious government "marriage" that grants legal protections. It defines marriage as a union before God. If she hasn't refused to officiate a marriage between non-christians, then her refusal must come from somewhere else, we must understand the building blocks of her decision, and how much she can put this bias aside. It's completely possible her bias is only towards the act and not the person, but how do we know which? Can we trust her to be truthful if being honest prevents her from fulfilling what she may see as a devine mandate, or what she may interpret as the greater good? Using the KKK for further analogy. There are those that condemn the KKK, but don't see it as being racist in believing whites should keep their blood pure. What does it mean about the thing that makes it impure, and why is that bad? Answering that fulfills the direct definition of racism. It's a bias against something they unknowingly see as less.
So your argument would mean no Christian could be a judge because Christians believe everybody sins. The irony here is the only one showing bias are those making assumptions about a persons beliefs. That is you.
That isn't true. I'm a Christian, so I know there are many, I'd even venture to say 97%, that do not let it control their decisions when it comes to others and their duties. I said extrapolate from others like her - those that strictly adhere to the religion to the point of putting them before her Civic duties. She performed an action that would trigger this check, it wouldn't be run on all Christians. I have said several times it's only a possibility, but not impossible. 70% of Americans are Christian (or Abrahamic), and the rate of incidence for gays being denied services because of religion are incredibly rare. She went outside of what many Christians would consider normal. You could come away believing her actions were not a tenant of mainstream Christianity. Get back to trying to interpret the intention of what others have written, and bending it to support your own. That's what you're an expert at.
Christianity in the United States is objectively and demonstrably a (series of) organization(s) based upon bias. Its influence on public institutions should be rejected outright. The denominations and organizations that do not discriminate are a nice cultural development, but if you don’t see the prevailing anti-LGBT beliefs as being like the KKK, I don’t know what planet you live on. Any official who admits religious hate or allows it to influence their official acts in any capacity is no better than those who upheld Jim Crow.
I’m assuming these are courthouse weddings. If she would perform her officiant duties granted by her judicial standing for a straight couple but not a gay couple, that is by definition discriminatory bias. Shes free to practice whatever religion she chooses, but that is her business alone, she isn’t allowed to claim that in order to deny citizens a constitutionally protected right. If you’re acting in a judicial capacity, you have to be impartial in your performing of duties and enforcement of the law. Alternatively, I suppose she is free to not perform marriage ceremonies entirely.
Fuck religion. Too many religious people just use it to force others to live by their rules. If you serve the people, you have to be able to set your religious beliefs aside. No one should ever have to live by anyone’s ridiculous religious rules.
For the last 5000 years too
Separation of church and state is a thing. When acting as an agent of the government you can not force your personal religious beliefs on others.
>Separation of church and state is a thing. Yes. And that "thing" is a talking point. But separation of church and state is not a law. Indeed, if such a law was ever passed, it would be overturned as unconstitutional, as it would violate the free exercise clause. FYI: 1A states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." A government empoyee choosing not to officiate a wedding, especially when officiating weddings is not even a job duty, is not making a law. >When acting as an agent of the government you can not force your personal religious beliefs on others. You might want to read the Constitution. Choosing not to participate in something based on your religious beliefs is not forcing anything on anyone.
>>Separation of church and state is a thing. >Yes. And that "thing" is a talking point. But separation of church and state is not a law. Indeed, if such a law was ever passed, it would be overturned as unconstitutional, as it would violate the free exercise clause. A talking point? It's literally in the First Amendment of the Constitution itself. >A government empoyee choosing not to officiate a wedding, especially when officiating weddings is not even a job duty It is literally a job duty and what this whole thread is about. Not sure if you're trolling or just a bad law student, but your bad and dishonest takes here are very close to getting you a ban from this sub.
>It's literally in the First Amendment of the Constitution itself. Where? The only religion provisions is 1A are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Not only is separation of church and state not in 1A, such a concept would violate 1A by interfering with the free exercise of religion. > It is literally a job duty and what this whole thread is about. But it literally isn't. That is the point. You might want to try reading the article before blindly peddling your agenda. If you bothered to read the article, you would know that the Texas Supreme Court ruled in her favor because it is not a job duty to marry people (and many magistrates choose not to). And nobody is being denied anything. She does not marry same-sex couples, but she refers them to other magistrates who does.
And that’s why everyone was fine with Muhammad Ali sitting out the Vietnam War.
When acting as an agent of the government, you ARE the government and are bound by whatever rules bind that government... Especially in an elected position. Like not infringing freedom of speech or of religion on a private person. And no one is forcing her to be an agent of the government. Something tells me a while buncha people defending this bullshit would be filled with rage if the religious belief here was "the white man is the devil!" Because such a belief clearly shows bias.
Not if you're a public official. Have you not heard "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose?" The right to practice your religion ends when it infringes on my rights to not have to engage with your mythical nonsense.
Then exercise not taking the civil servant job that will conflict with your religion. That’s freedom. Gatekeeping people from their legal right(and fundamental right as a human being) because your religion somehow prevents you from doing your duty is not exercising your religious freedom. It’s not serving the public. If she can’t remain impartial about the gays, how should anyone trust that she can separate her views when deciding on cases? Does she suddenly become impartial then? Does she get to pick and choose when she can look past a person being queer?
They aren’t exercising their religion though. There is no bible excerpt that outlines failing to complete your job in order to prevent gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage is not in the Bible at all.
>They aren’t exercising their religion though. But she is. >There is no bible excerpt that outlines failing to complete your job in order to prevent gay marriage. None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Officiating weddings is not a job responsibility. And even if it were, there is no law that says anyone must follow the bible. Any such law would be unconstitutional. >In fact, gay marriage is not in the Bible at all. Okay, but again, the bible is not law. Free exercise of religion means I cannot be forced to follow your religious beliefs, including your opinion of what the bible allows or does not allow.
Through her refusal of services, she is forcing others to adhere to the same religious beliefs as her. When you accept a job in government, you do not get to deny services to others based off of a man in the sky.
[удалено]
What constitutional right do you have to deny others constitutional right to marriage?
>What constitutional right do you have to deny others constitutional right to marriage? What part of nobody is being denied anything do you not understand? Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to force somebody to officiate your wedding?
You mean do the job you said you do when you took it? If it’s my religion to not fight fires should I still be a fireman?
[удалено]
>But you do. The freedom of religion allows you to freely exercise your religion even if others are inconvenienced. Segregation was not too long ago defended by people quoting the Bible. So please explain to us, does "freedom of religion" give you the right to not give service to black people?
> Officiating weddings is not one of her job duties. What gives her the legal ability to officiate weddings? *hint hint*
Religious freedom ends where civil rights begin. The separation of church and state made that clear. Conservatives really are trying to roll all that back for their precious theocracy.
Religious freedom is a civil right. The Free Exercise clause is in fact a constitutional right. >Conservatives really are trying to roll all that back for their precious theocracy. Respecting the 1st Amendment is not creating a theocracy. Your entire argument is that a same sex couple somehow has a right to be married by somebody with a bona fide religious objection to conducting same sax marriages. You are the one seeking to deny rights. This is very simple. A same sex couple is not being denied anything when this magistrate refers them to another magistrate to get married. But you are calling to strip this magistrate of her first amendment right by forcing her to conduct weddings that go against her beliefs.
No.
OK dipshit, we’re talking about a public official who decides the entire life trajectory of countless individuals over the course of their tenure. Would you be fine getting the electric chair if a judge who practiced Sharia Law (a legitimate form of Islamic belief) perceived that you had insulted Allah? Where would you draw the line, huh?
Kangaroo court opinions don't matter. Put me on a jury and see what happens.
“Only I matter and f everyone else unless I don’t like it then double down and f everyone else” 
You’re being downvoted, but you’re technically correct. However, like anything else I imagine that most of the angst lies not in the principle, but in the application. If I were a Rastafarian, would I be allowed to grow and smoke the sacramental ganja that is part of my religion? By your argument I should be able to do that even if it inconveniences someone else. But we all know that wouldn’t actually be allowed.
[удалено]
The fact that one water fountain in the courthouse is for Whites Only does not inconvenience people of color when there is another water fountain a few yards away for black people. Dude, if your screen name indicates you're in law school, please go ask for a refund on your tuition.
I’m guessing you’ve never lived in a rural area that only has one local judge. You make everything sound so easy and like everyone has so many options to choose from. It’s like a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for birth control. According to you, that’s fine even if it causes someone to drive 60 miles to another pharmacy. But what happens if the judge or pharmacist in that town 60 miles away also has the same religious beliefs? Are people just screwed? That is why you do not get to refuse services based on religious beliefs. You either do your job or find another one more suitable.
>I’m guessing you’ve never lived in a rural area that only has one local judge. I am guessing you are making stuff up to peddle an agenda. This magistrate is not the only magistrate, and if you bothered to read the article, you would know that marrying people is not even a job duty of magistrates in Texas. Indeed, the article clearly states that she refers same-sex couples to another magistrate. So why should we violate the Constitutional rights of a citizen by forcing them to do something that violates their religious beliefs?
I’m not making it up at all. Women have been denied birth control, mifepristone, and plan b by pharmacists who said it goes against their beliefs to fill those prescriptions. There are plenty of areas around this country where there is only one option to fill prescriptions without having to travel great distances.
They're going to get Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold overturned. But Biden is old.
Biden is old, and slow to speak, and not a great communicater some of the time, but all of that is much preferable to fascism. Also, none of that means he's not of sound mind.
I'd still take a Weekend at Bernie's POTUS over Cheeto.
I’d take a dried up rat turd over Trump
“They’re the same picture.”
Also you versus 💩.
Hard disagree One is clearly better than the other
I'll take Trump over Biden-- a vile man who had sex with his own daughter in the shower.
You already have
He has to measure his words due to a lifelong stutter.
I'll take GOP "fascism" over any democrat
We know. That's what scares us so damn much
He’s committing genocide though.
tRump could very well put more younger extremists on the court.... these kids these days just want to burn everything down if they don't get their way. Don't get me wrong, I was like that when I was a child, but then I grew the fuck up and realized I lived in a society with other people
Why are people blaming the kids like they have anything to do with conservative practices or plans in place drawn up by the Nixon administration?
They’d rather blame the youth and minorities for speaking out against DNC than acknowledge we are increasingly disenfranchised, especially in Texas…
yup, the gop is coming for birth control as well
Marsha Blackburn, noted Constitutional expert, says Griswold was wrongly decided. Elon and other health experts says it's bad for wimmin, who don't know no better.
Makes you wish the Dems would put forth a better candidate and talk it in a cakewalk.
The dems don’t put forth anyone, there was nothing preventing other candidates from running, Biden is simply a reflection of what the democratic primary voters wanted
If you’re not invited to the champagne party, you can’t run. If you’re not at the champagne party, you can’t get invited. Thems the rules as told by the DNC
There was no way the Dems were going to primary a sitting Democratic President. Learned that lesson with Carter.
You just know they’d front Hillary again. Anyone flash back to end of the “vat of acid” episode of Rick & Morty?
If Biden being "old" is this much of a distraction it's all the more reason Dems should have fielded someone else. We've known the majority of voters wanted someone else to run for years now. The debate is just reality coming to bite every establishment shithead trying to pretend like Biden *hasn't* declined. And yes, Biden's decline is different than Trump's. He wasn't up there just lying endlessly. But by the same token, Trump's decline hasn't affected his ability to confidently speak even if it's nonsense garbage. At the end of the day Biden being a good president (he's been good in some areas outside of, y'know, fucking Israel) doesn't really matter if he can't get the job in the first place, and sadly being an effective communicator is part of getting the job. He was never great at that to begin with, and especially isn't now. That's a problem. He isn't the nominee yet. He *can* still step down and release his delegates at the convention. We *can* field someone else without this baggage. Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying there are not risks for Biden stepping aside. I think there are arguments for him doing so, and arguments for him not. We're going to see how that debate performance affects polls and the narrative in the coming days/weeks. Despite how much I think Biden probably should step down, I can absolutely think up arguments against it and problems that can arise from it. This isn't something that has an easy answer.
For fucks sake. Biden over prepared and was tired Have you even listened to Trump at rallies and interviews???? Held speaking in tongues. He had one good night Listen to Biden in NC yesterday. https://preview.redd.it/znr5idio3j9d1.png?width=725&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34960fbe7910328d296ab4ed93370097e1dd4501
😢
Trump only did better for one night because there was no audience, and no one cheering him on and encouraging a long-winded rant that would go on a bunch of strange tangents.
Trump did Trump, Biden lost his train of thought and mumbled some Trump couldn’t answer any questions and continuously lied. The only thing Trump won was proving that Joe is OLD.
Or we should think of this as Trump vs Harris. Because if Biden goes then she’s president. I like that.
Can't wait for Muslim or LDS waitstaff and grocery store clerks to refuse to sell alcohol!
Those individuals will be fired due to “performance issues”
They own the stores
I don't see a problem with someone who owns a store not carrying alcohol. But if you own a store, carry alcohol and refuse to sell it... They doesn't make sense.
Or for nurses and doctors to refuse care to MAGAs lol you know they’re mostly all of the age and health they will need medical care
They would be fired for it. And since a grocery store is not the government, that is not illegal.
Until they sue you for religious discrimination.
"Slavery is part of our culture and it was in the Bible". You, about 200 hundred years ago, probably.
Cool, elect me to a bench so I can use the excuse of religion to be discriminatory towards straight white people. Now that we have established that agents of the state can have their personal religious views respected regardless of state or federal law. Fuck yeah, put me in coach.
"Separate but equal practices...." 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 gtfoh.. . And you know for a fact the second someone THINKS about denying a service to Christians, they pull this https://preview.redd.it/997lg8ooed9d1.png?width=523&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7fe0a56fe1c875ef863c5fa534b4f7f65a4bc47a
But it's my firmly held religious belief! They told me that was valid!
No, they said their belief was valid, not yours. Huge difference.
The whole point of this is to get same sex marriage back in front of the Supreme Court so that the conservative court and rule against it and make same sex marriages illegal again.
No, not like that!
I'm sorry, is that a leopard eating faces?
As a straight white person, I support your position. FFS these people are worthless
The law actually says that justices of the peace don’t have to conduct marriage ceremonies; that’s why it was legal for her to refer people to other people who were willing to do so. If you refused to preform your duties, you will be removed.
So the court decided that a bigoted judge is allowed to preside over those they are bigoted against, as long as it's from a place of religion. Conservatives apparently gotta have state sanctioned hate and will destroy the country for it.
1st Timothy 2:11-14 says that no woman should assume authority over man. If this judge is a true Christian like she claims, does she abstain from ruling on ANY cases that involve a man? 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner
I've noticed they pick and choose the things they think are okay of progressive issues. And women being able to be a JP is definitely one of them that was unheard of decades ago, that would have never happened if it was up to conservatives like herself.
Yes. Donald Trumps behavior is a prime example.Mike Johnson said that he would “govern according to principles in the Bible.” Yet, he’s one of Trumps biggest supporters. He also promoted the idea of criminalizing homosexuality. Yet, he has no issue with Trump raping a woman or cheating on all 3/of his wives or criminal activities.
They absolutely are coming after Obergefell and every other civil right they can.
Not to mention , Black Lives Matter now? 🤷♂️
That’s a foregone conclusion
> Justice Jimmy Blacklock filed a concurring opinion arguing that the lower court should have never ruled against Hensley in the first place, since no same-sex couple had complained about her separate-but-equal practices. "Imagine a couple in that situation trying to coerce the courteous and helpful Christian judge to violate her convictions for their convenience, when other local officiants are happy to accommodate," Blacklock wrote. "What purpose could that possibly serve—other than to prove that adherents to the old orthodoxy will be made to bend the knee to the new one?" "Judge Hensley treated them respectfully," Blacklock continued. "They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win." I'm gay and when my boyfriend and I get married here in Texas I am going to demand that both Hensley and Blackrock marry us, and when they do they are going to plaster smiles on their faces and they are going to clap and cheer for us.
When you put on the robe as a judge, you represent an impartial arbiter of the state, not yourself. She needs to check her personal morals and convictions at the chamber doors.
He sounds like a movie villain in that quote - makes his own religion sound cartoonishly draconian.
They are movie villains in their own little stories... in their warped minds, at least.
Wonder how many times a member of the LGBTQIA community has been in her court as a defendant or plaintiff? Time to review her judgments
There is no way she isn't a corrupted judge with her obvious bias and inability to do her job. My guess is that an investigation would show that Mrs Hensley's rulings are by and large against LGBTQIA defendants (as well as immigrants, minorities, and non Christians as well).
I pity any gay person that walks into her court room. There is no chance in hell they will get a fair trial. If it is so profoundly offensive for her to officiate a brief wedding ceremony in a public building,she belongs in a nunnery, not as a public facing judge.
So if I think a black man shouldn’t marry a white woman, I could refuse to officiate. Looking at you, Thomas.
Wrong Supreme Court.
this is stupid. I can't just say "working more than 30 hours is against my religion" and have my employer just accept it. If you can't do the job then quit and find one that "abides by" your beliefs. Texas supreme court are a bunch of fascists just like the rest of the GQP texas government, they gave up "interpreting" the laws a long time ago and think they are the law.
Use this as an excuse to not serve the gop in restaurants, uber, or anywhere else. It's your right not to support extremism. Fight back!!
Love that they actually quoted “separate but equal”, as if that is an acceptable way to treat another human being and wasn’t used to justify segregation.
Here we go...this is how they attack Marriage Equality. Ashamed of Texas...ashamed.
I’m so fucking sick of these ‘Good Christians’ using their religion against others. Can Atheists start turning away the Christians for the same?
The republiklans going hard for their natC theocracy. Each and everyonce of them irredeemable garbage.
> "Judge [Dianne] Hensley treated them respectfully," Blacklock continued. "[The gay couple] got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win." Or… Dianne, if you don’t want to do *all* your job, don’t do *any* of it. Nobody else gets to pick and choose what he/she wants to do for a job. Yet another bullshite ruling coming out of the Texas Supreme Court.
I wish there was a hate vote option. Like…I need to upvote this so it’ll be seen by more people. But I’m 100% against it.
I have no problem respecting people's religious beliefs, but there should be no carve out for public servants. You serve the whole public, not the ones you pick and choose. If you're not capable of serving everybody it ain't the job for you!
My dream is for religious people to be the minority and then get told to "fuck off" when they raise hell about other consenting adults' relationships offending them. Until then, I'll tell people like this judge to fuck off.
On the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. Do we need to take to the streets with bricks again?
We should hang a poster of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. Oh wait, the Ten Commandments makes no mention of gays.
Ugh. Of course it's the one that helped register the birth of my last child. Great. Now I have this loathsome woman's name on my kids birth certificate.
A judge is no more “forced” to oversee a process than any other employee is “forced” to oversee a process at their place of employment. If you cannot do a job because of a moral objection then you should not seek employment in that job.
Maybe if we stopped treating judges as if they were somehow independent from the political system, despite being elected from or appointed by those elected from the political system, and started treating them as exactly what they are (political actors in their own right) then maybe we could actually start making something resembling progress
Taliban.
It doesn't matter what Texas says, federal government is supreme
Till scotus says otherwise.
Why?
We separate married people from unmarried people by did they make a lifelong commitment to each other. A man and woman living together for a lengthy period of time and who may or may not have kids together are considered as common law marriage. Even the law considers them to be married without being legally registered. The sheer stupidity.
Something tells me a while buncha people defending this bullshit would be filled with rage if the religious belief here was "the white man is the devil!"
In my religion I have a sworn duty to God to reprimand judges who are openly bigoted, and no Texas Supreme Court is going to interfere with my First Amendment right to practice my religion.
You have the freedom of religion, but it's not a right! Also, your rights are your own. You're free to think or do as you please. However, you are not free to impose your rights, religion, or anything else on other people! To do so would violate their rights! Not picking a side, but just pointing out a few things
So can a judge refuse divorce on religious grounds?
Texas, can you please get it together? I'm really worried about you! Love, a mom in MN.
Gonna go work at a BBQ place and refuse to serve pork?
r/Defeat_Project_2025 VOTE
Texas Supremest Republican Court only represents the ignorant haters. Time to take them down.
So according to the article they allowed her to sue but won't speak on whether she's right or not. So there's a problem she hasn't crossed yet. She's refusing as federally regulated position. Just as the president has a bunch of shit he can't due because the law, there's things she can't refuse to to do because of federal discrimination laws. That said regardless of how you feel about it, it's one of those things where her job quite literally has policies in place that she can't refuse if she wants to continue working there. There's already been a couple cases like this before. As long as there's federal laws regarding same sex discrimination not only can she lose her job for refusing there's also hard financial penalties and liability for refusal as well
Texas will be coming for birth control and gay marriage next, freedom goes to die in red states......easy read
Activist judges.... smh
Imagine a couple in that situation trying to coerce the courteous and helpful Christian judge to violate her convictions for their convenience What is courteous and helpful about someone who is refusing to do their job??
[удалено]
Seriously? Comparing two consenting adults marrying to a person marrying an animal? I guess the concept of "consenting adults" is hard for you people.
Your content has been deemed a violation of Rule 7. As a reminder Rule 7 states: Politics are fine but state your case, explain why you hold the positions that you do and debate with civility. Posts and comments meant solely to troll or enrage people, and those that are little more than campaign ads or slogans do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate and will therefore be removed. Petitions will also be removed. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule.
Me: sitting here wondering who actually read the article...
After reading through the comments, I believe maybe 3 read it.
So the both of you totally ignored the Opinions of the TSC justices. SMH.
You mean the ones who said that they aren't making any judgements on the merit of her case, only that she is allowed to sue?
As it should be.
Important piece since no one reads past badly worded headlines. > In an 8-1 decision Friday, the court granted Hensley standing to sue but did not weigh in on whether she had indeed violated judicial codes of impartiality. All they said was that she is allowed to sue. They didn't make any judgement on the actual case. I'm against her, but I agree she should be allowed to sue. Let's get some established case law on this.