Interracial marriage denied

CheskiChips said:
If he doesn't want to marry them...then why don't they go to a new judge? Is he the only one who can give licenses in the state? So they have to attempt to ruin his life over a disagreement? Let the man do what he wants. Pharmacists should be allowed to not carry contraception out of moral disagreement, and judges should be able to deny marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

If he wants to be a racist, he should work in a field where he is not put in that position.

He is breaking the law, it's not like he is saying that they should not have kids or get married until they sort out a drug problem or an abuse problem.

He is saying, simply, that they shouldn't get married because they are not the same color. That's it.

He is a dumbsh8t because he thinks that should fly but doesn't realize what he is doing is against the law.

If pharamacists don't want to provide contraception than they shouldn't be pharmacists, as that was part of the job description going in.

It's like going into the military and then saying you are not willing to shoot the enemy.
 
jpappl said:
It's like going into the military and then saying you are not willing to shoot the enemy.
Click to expand...

It's like going into the military as a doctor and saying you're not willing to shoot the enemy, yes.

Pharmacists and Judges have numerous responsibilities...they've opposed specific ones. Who would question a doctor if he refused to do a test because he thought it was ineffective in his experience?
 
Pharmacists and Judges have numerous responsibilities...they've opposed specific ones. Who would question a doctor if he refused to do a test because he thought it was ineffective in his experience?
Click to expand...

Totally different. The doctor not doing a test because it would be ineffective is not applying their own religious or personal beliefs to sway their decision. The decision is purely based on the job/task at hand.

The clerks job in this case is to provide a marriage license. He could have come with all sorts or reasons even if there are the real reason and they would have moved on to another clerk.

But the dumb8ass didn't do that, he broke the law and brought all of this attention on to himself.

He claimed race was the only issue.
 
so if a woman was standing there with a black eye and he thought the guy had given it to her, would he be within his rights to refuse to marry them?
 
Orleander said:
so if a woman was standing there with a black eye and he thought the guy had given it to her, would he be within his rights to refuse to marry them?
Click to expand...

Good question. I am not a lawyer, but I would think that most of us would certainly back him.

Years ago I worked with a couple that were always having difficulties. I never had a reason to not work with them although I had my assumptions.

One day they came in and she had a black eye, she wouldn't look at me and she didn't make an attempt to explain it away, I told him that I wouldn't offer any service to him. To find someone else.

He may have some leeway in his choices, but not to be a racist.
 
state adoption agencies won't place a child with an elderly couple or to an overweight couple, saying its in the best interest of the child.
So some bigotry is ok, but not others? :shrug:

anyone know if this idiot still has a job?
 
Orleander said:
state adoption agencies won't place a child with an elderly couple or to an overweight couple, saying its in the best interest of the child.
So some bigotry is ok, but not others? :shrug:

anyone know if this idiot still has a job?
Click to expand...

There are a few problems.

(1) That the judges and others using the best interests of the child standard are doing so on behalf of real, and not hypothetical children.

(2) Marriage has other elements to it than pro-creation. So whatever this guy's misgivings about children, he still should not deny them a marriage based on that.

(3) Children can be had out of wedlock, so this guy's denial does not prohibit these people from having children in any event. It's almost quaint that he thinks denying them a marriage license is a deterrent to their procreating.

(4) Judges in family law contexts are empowered by the state to make decisions based on the welfare of children involved. That is their job and they are expected to follow sizable bodies of law in administering their positions and power. JoPs are not part of the child welfare system. His making this call based on the effects of the marriage on hypothetical children, even if he had a strong point, is irrelevant. His opinion about their having kids has all the legal weight of a DMV's clerk's opinion about their having kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top