But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.

Scalia was talking about gay marriage from a legal perspective, specifically constitutional. That's fine.

Officiating a gay wedding is sanctifying the marriage from an emotional perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Having a position is not grounds for recusal. Scalia has made numerous statements in past opinions that show he's obviously in opposition to gay marriage. That is also not grounds for recusal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Now you're just making shit up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.

Scalia was talking about gay marriage from a legal perspective, specifically constitutional. That's fine.

Officiating a gay wedding is sanctifying the marriage from an emotional perspective.

You realize how silly you sound, I hope. "From an emotional perspective". Ah yes, we learned about that in law school. If you read Scalia's writing it's very clear he's VERY emotional about his homophobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Yes. I've moved for recusal before. No court anywhere would find this to be grounds for recusal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.

Scalia was talking about gay marriage from a legal perspective, specifically constitutional. That's fine.

Officiating a gay wedding is sanctifying the marriage from an emotional perspective.

You realize how silly you sound, I hope. "From an emotional perspective". Ah yes, we learned about that in law school. If you read Scalia's writing it's very clear he's VERY emotional about his homophobia.

And the agenda is out there. Thank you. I'll let you out of the web now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

And herein lies the crux of one of one of the major problems. There are two types of marriages that are being discussed. You have religious marriages which are institutions ordained by God. And you have civil marriages which are licensed and recognized by the government. When laws and documents were originally drafted, the two were pretty closely parallel and our forefathers did not see the need to distinguish them. Unfortunately, in the hundred plus years, they have diverged so that there are now many legal rights and privileges invested in the latter that are required by law to be extended to all citizens regardless of the gender of either partner. However, staunch Christians are trying to impose restrictions of religious marriage on civil marriages and thereby creating a two-tier system of those who have access to the thousands of legal rights granted to married couples and those who do not have those rights. It's unfortunate that we can't differentiate the two legally, but the cost to change the laws, the documentation of the laws, the forms and the procedures to account for the separation of the religious and civil marriages in government documents would be huge and frankly the federal, state and local governments really can't afford that much paperwork. So, we're stuck with one word and the need to ensure that all citizens are granted equal protection under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference.

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.

Scalia was talking about gay marriage from a legal perspective, specifically constitutional. That's fine.

Officiating a gay wedding is sanctifying the marriage from an emotional perspective.

You realize how silly you sound, I hope. "From an emotional perspective". Ah yes, we learned about that in law school. If you read Scalia's writing it's very clear he's VERY emotional about his homophobia.

And the agenda is out there. Thank you. I'll let you out of the web now.

Ah, I see, just like with judges, anyone who disagrees with you must be biased. But you aren't. Please stop opining about legal matters when you have no understanding of how our legal system works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Yes. I've moved for recusal before. No court anywhere would find this to be grounds for recusal.

But, but, but, Bill O'Reilly told us they should recuse themselves! That makes it, like, the law, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

And herein lies the crux of one of one of the major problems. There are two types of marriages that are being discussed. You have religious marriages which are institutions ordained by God. And you have civil marriages which are licensed and recognized by the government. When laws and documents were originally drafted, the two were pretty closely parallel and our forefathers did not see the need to distinguish them. Unfortunately, in the hundred plus years, they have diverged so that there are now many legal rights and privileges invested in the latter that are required by law to be extended to all citizens regardless of the gender of either partner. However, staunch Christians are trying to impose restrictions of religious marriage on civil marriages and thereby creating a two-tier system of those who have access to the thousands of legal rights granted to married couples and those who do not have those rights. It's unfortunate that we can't differentiate the two legally, but the cost to change the laws, the documentation of the laws, the forms and the procedures to account for the separation of the religious and civil marriages in government documents would be huge and frankly the federal, state and local governments really can't afford that much paperwork. So, we're stuck with one word and the need to ensure that all citizens are granted equal protection under the law.

And even if you want to argue in favor of "separate but equal" (we know how well that goes), Kim Davis is not a religious officiant refusing to marry a gay couple in her church -- something I think sucks, but is perfectly within the rights of a church.

She is a government official refusing to give a civil marriage license to a gay couple. Not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I do not support Kim Davis, and yes I do support marriage equality.

That being said, I am interested in a discussion of the law of religious accommodation. I *think* that the deal is that changes must be made to the way an employee has to perform the duties of the job to accommodate religion, but all of the duties of the job must be performed. Is that right? For example, uniform requirements can be modified for religious reasons. I know that working hours can be changed to accommodate things like the sabbath (but the same number of hours must still be worked). But are there any circumstances under which an employee can be entirely excused from performing any functions of the job in order to accommodate religious beliefs?

There is no accommodation issue here. She could have asked any of her deputy clerks to issue the licenses, but refused to do so. She not only refused to do the job on religious grounds, she refused to allow anyone to do the job on the basis of her own religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She follows gods law. Good enough for me

That's nice. The United States doesn't follows "gods law" though. Our constitution forbids the establishment of an official state religion. Our laws are not based on religion. It's the only way we can govern a country as religiously diverse as this one.

She is violating the Constitution of the United States. She either needs to step down to avoid violating her religious beliefs or have her deputy clerks sign the licenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Under the case law, this doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable question. A judge who is Catholic and never had a divorce and believes it to me a mortal sin doesn't have to recuse himself from a divorce case. Judges need a much more personal stake or bigger bias than that.

Quit whining. Nobody likes a loser who whines.