Jailed for Contempt (Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis)

[Guest Godless]

I think that's not strictly true in the sense I understand you to be saying. Privately owned businesses which provide products and services have legal obligations where there are federal, or state, or local laws prohibiting discrimination.

To the best of my knowledge, those laws only apply where employment and housing are concerned. They do not apply to, say, bakeries. However, the right to refuse service doesn't stop discrimination lawsuits any more than fire-at-will laws prevents wrongful termination lawsuits.

For the record, I fully support the religious liberty of business owners to discriminate against certain customers. I also support the free market system that will very likely put such companies out of business.

[Guest]

To the best of my knowledge, those laws only apply where employment and housing are concerned. They do not apply to, say, bakeries. ...

I was under the understanding that longstanding Colorado State law for example prohibits public accommodations (such as a private business like the Masterpiece Cakeshop) from refusing service based upon sexual orientation. Isn’t it true that the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that the owner illegally discriminated, and Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirmed the finding?

[Guest]

 ... For the record, I fully support the religious liberty of business owners to discriminate against certain customers. ...

I respect that you feel that way. But I do not believe that discriminating against certain customers is a religious liberty. At least I don't personally feel justified in discriminating against my own customers and claiming that it's because of my religious beliefs.

Edited September 11, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest Godless]

Is that why a judge in Oregon is now facing an ethics investigation that was launched due to his refusal to solemnize marriages?

Well, that and the picture of Hitler hanging on the courthouse wall. The way I see it, if a judge has moral qualms about performing gay marriages, his/her best course of action is to stop performing marriages altogether (and at least one other judge in Oregon has done exactly that). I'm not saying that judges who are selective are breaking the law, but they're leaving themselves wide open to accusations of discrimination. And as we've established, lawsuits and accusations aren't prevented by things like "legal basis".

Is that why gay rights activists in Utah squealed like pigs at the slaughter when the legislature proposed a bill last session that specifically allowed judges to opt out of performing wedding ceremonies?

They can cry all they want. Judges are not legally obligated to perform weddings.

[Guest Godless]

I was under the understanding that longstanding Colorado State law for example prohibits public accommodations (such as a private business like the Masterpiece Cakeshop) from refusing service based upon sexual orientation. Isn’t it true that the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that the owner illegally discriminated, and Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirmed the finding?

That's why I said "to the best of my knowledge". I believe the laws differ by state, and probably by city as well. I don't personally agree with those laws where private businesses are concerned, but I can't honestly say that they're unconstitutional. I think there's justification for both sides of the argument.

I mentioned fire-at-will laws in an earlier post. One instance where that law is nullified is in cases of discrimination. The same could be considered true with the right of a business to refuse service.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, that and the picture of Hitler hanging on the courthouse wall.

 

This picture? 

 

 

The above is a collage of World War 2 memorabilia given to Judge Vance Day by an acquaintance whose father had served as an army doctor in the European theater.  The Hitler portrait itself, I believe, was looted by the doctor from a German government building.  To suggest that the display was intended to honor Hitler in any way is just plain slanderous.

 

The way I see it, if a judge has moral qualms about performing gay marriages, his/her best course of action is to stop performing marriages altogether (and at least one other judge in Oregon has done exactly that). I'm not saying that judges who are selective are breaking the law, but they're leaving themselves wide open to accusations of discrimination. And as we've established, lawsuits and accusations aren't prevented by things like "legal basis".

They can cry all they want. Judges are not legally obligated to perform weddings.

What is the name of that other judge?  I can't seem to find it online.  As for Judge Day:  He did ultimately stop solemnizing all weddings, but that hasn't taken the heat off of him. 

 

And again, you fail to address why--if judges are supposed to have so much discretion--the gay rights lobby in Utah torpedoed a statutory provision that would have given judges exactly the sort of discretion you claim they ought to have.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

This picture?

The above is a collage of World War 2 memorabilia given to Judge Vance Day by an acquaintance whose father had served as an army doctor in the European theater. The Hitler portrait itself, I believe, was looted by the doctor from a German government building. To suggest that the display was intended to honor Hitler in any way is just plain slanderous.

I'm aware of the source of the portrait. I believe the investigation is aimed to determine whether or not the portrait, regardless of its history, is appropriate to display in a government building. Unless Day intends to put up a sign explaining the origin of the portrait, I would argue no.

What is the name of that other judge? I can't seem to find it online.

Kohl.

As for Judge Day: He did ultimately stop solemnizing all weddings, but that hasn't taken the heat off of him.

I read that as well. That being the case, I would concede that the law should be on his side. Hopefully the investigation will reach that conclusion.

And again, you fail to address why--if judges are supposed to have so much discretion--the gay rights lobby in Utah torpedoed a statutory provision that would have given judges exactly the sort of discretion you claim they ought to have.

For the same reason why some activists want to force clergy members to perform same-sex marriages: they don't know when to stop. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I agree with everything liberal America does. The fact that Utah judges didn't receive that legal protection is very unfortunate to say the least. I'll be interested to see if cases like one in Oregon could potentially change the legal precedent in favor of judges.