Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Alpha1]

 

Ok, if you cant seem to understand why is it discrimination, answer me this question -

 

From the article:

 

"I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies."

 

That is not what this judge is doing.

So, no, not applicable.

 

*Sagely nod of sageliness*

[KageSora]

You're failing to understand that this is context-sensitive.

 

There is a difference between protesting (especially in a way that doesn't actually hurt anybody) and being discriminatory.

 

Being discriminatory indicates that you have negative intentions. In your examples, the implication is that one group of people (homosexuals or non-whites) is somehow inferior to another (heterosexuals or whites). The judge here, however, is saying that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equal and should thus be treated equally. She does not believe in giving one group something that another is being denied by law.

 

 

If she were to say "I refuse to do this because heterosexuals don't deserve to get married when homosexuals can't" or something like that, then I would have a huge problem with it--because that would be discriminatory.

[hazeh]

What do you mean out of spite ?

Is he not allowed to oppose homosexual marriages if that's dictated by his moral compass ?

Equality for all people is not something everybody believes in and it doesnt make them wrong or you right

Saying "I will not do these marriages because homosexuals are allowed to get married" is not the same as "I will not preform any marriages until homosexuals are allowed to get married." That judge is doing what he's doing- which is in his right to do so- but in a way that will cause inequality in the end. This judge is going for complete equality by not preforming that section of her ability (although still encouraging couples to visit other judges that will) UNTIL there is equality. The examples you gave were protesting until there was INEQUALITY.

Which, is discrimination.

 

People are allowed to oppose homosexual marriage if they want. That doesn't mean it's not discrimination when they try to bar the way. This judge doesn't oppose heterosexual marriage, she's simply taking a stand as a way to fight a law in which she, as a judge, feels does not serve its people properly. It has nothing to do with the fact that the people are heterosexual and everything to do with the fact that one sect of people is granted a right in which other people, including herself, are not. She's fighting a discriminatory law and in her ability, putting everyone at an equal basis until the law can declare them all equal in terms of eligibility to be married.

 

Inequality is almost always hand in hand with discrimination. Which, yes, is wrong. People who don't believe in equality for all don't really make sense to me and I can't make heads or tails of how they could be "right".

 

[Obscure_Trash]

Ok, if you cant seem to understand why is it discrimination, answer me this question -

 

A judge in California says on TV "I will not marry people as long as homosexuals are allowed to get married in California" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

 

A judge In Idaho says on TV "I will not marry people as long as colored people are allowed to get married in Idaho" equal treatment for all, is it still cool with you guys ?

"I will not marry anybody because x group also has the right to be married" =/= "I will not marry anybody until x group also has the right to be married"

 

Your situations are not analogous to what the Texas judge is doing.

[KageSora]

Is he not allowed to oppose homosexual marriages if that's dictated by his moral compass ?

I get that, and I don't think it's right to force somebody to go against their moral compass when it comes to an OPTIONAL part of their job.

 

However, there is a difference between saying "I refuse to do this because I don't approve of you and think that you're inferior" (which is what your examples essentially say) and saying "Due to my personal beliefs, I do not feel comfortable doing this, so I suggest that you go to X, as they will be more than happy to do this for you." (which is what this judge is essentially saying)

Edited February 27, 2012 by KageSora

[TikindiDragon]

Had no idea it was already posted, anyhow, I'll open it up then.

 

I think it sucks that she cant get married in her own state and I hope it changes one day soon, but with that being said what she's doing is simply unacceptable, a couple makes an appointment, trying to get married, its probably one of the biggest decisions they've made in their lives and a judge rains on their parade, a judge of all people ??

She is a part of the broken system, she should know how to fight it, taking it out on regular people who just want to get married is not the way, its called being a bully, what exactly is she saying here ? If I cant get married nobody cant ?

I find it to be unprofessional and rude, judges get to choose which laws to follow these days ? That's absurd, if it were a hetrosexual judge doing the same thing to a gay couple (in a state that allows gay marriages) he would be fired for something like that, and it would be justified IMO...

 

Hearing about a barber, well, he's a barber and we're talking about a haircut but a judge, I think judges should be held to higher standards 

Except it's not a requirement of the job. She's not refusing to do something she trained as a judge to do. Added to which she's sending the people on to a judge that *will*.

 

I don't see it as any different to a GP that won't perform abortions himself, but who would instead apologise and take the woman concerned to see the doctor in the office next door who will.

 

I also don't see it as any different to the teens refusing the say the pledge in school.

 

To my mind there nothing wrong with acting on the dictates of your conscience, as long as you are polite about it, and, if nescesary, take the person to someone that can help them.

 

Edited to add: Incidently, in the UK, judges don't perfom marriages anyway. That's done by registrars in local council offices. So it's really quite easy for me to look at it and say 'this is an additional thing, not what she was trained and took and oath for'.

Edited February 27, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[The Evil Doer]

You're failing to understand that this is context-sensitive.

 

There is a difference between protesting (especially in a way that doesn't actually hurt anybody) and being discriminatory.

 

Being discriminatory indicates that you have negative intentions.  In your examples, the implication is that one group of people (homosexuals or non-whites) is somehow inferior to another (heterosexuals or whites).  The judge here, however, is saying that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equal and should thus be treated equally.  She does not believe in giving one group something that another is being denied by law.

 

 

If she were to say "I refuse to do this because heterosexuals don't deserve to get married when homosexuals can't" or something like that, then I would have a huge problem with it--because that would be discriminatory.

There is no context-sensitive nor do you or her get to decide whats hurtful or not.

If I were trying get married and a judge tells me "Im not performing a ceremony for you coz Im a homosexual and I will not wed people untill I get the same right" I would get offended, I would feel as if I was rejected coz of my sexual orientation and I will tell her that I had nothing to do with the dumb law so why is she taking it out on me, why do people who have nothing to do with the situation have to be used to deliver her message across are there not enough ways to protest without involving innocent people in the process ?

 

Who decides whats a negative intention ? Does it matter whether my intention was good or bad if you got hurt in the process ?

If the said judge is a christain who believes that homosexuals getting married will secure them a place in hell and by denying them that right he might actually think he's saving their soul, isnt that considered the most noble of intentions he might have even though it seems stupid to me or you ? Furthermore he's sacrificing one of the things he enjoys the most which is marrying other christians just so he can "save" one soul, yet when the tables are turned you fail to acknowledge the existance of the so called other coin and instead choose to see it as some superiority complex...

 

@Shiny

 

Saying "I will not do these marriages because homosexuals are allowed to get married" is not the same as "I will not preform any marriages until homosexuals are allowed to get married." That judge is doing what he's doing- which is in his right to do so- but in a way that will cause inequality in the end. This judge is going for complete equality by not preforming that section of her ability (although still encouraging couples to visit other judges that will) UNTIL there is equality. The examples you gave were protesting until there was INEQUALITY.

Which, is discrimination.

 

People are allowed to oppose homosexual marriage if they want. That doesn't mean it's not discrimination when they try to bar the way. This judge doesn't oppose heterosexual marriage, she's simply taking a stand as a way to fight a law in which she, as a judge, feels does not serve its people properly. It has nothing to do with the fact that the people are heterosexual and everything to do with the fact that one sect of people is granted a right in which other people, including herself, are not. She's fighting a discriminatory law and in her ability, putting everyone at an equal basis until the law can declare them all equal in terms of eligibility to be married.

 

Inequality is almost always hand in hand with discrimination. Which, yes, is wrong. People who don't believe in equality for all don't really make sense to me and I can't make heads or tails of how they could be "right".

 

Read what I've written above, the fact you see things in one way doesnt change the fact that others see the same things in a completely different manner, on one hand you preach tolerance and equality yet you choose to completely dismiss any other point of view that doesnt agree with yours, cultures all across the globe and within USA have different points of views on various subjects, including equality and inequality and the fact that you think you're right doesnt necessary mean your POV is the ultimate truth as there is no such thing at all, if you want to claim objectivity then you will examine every case based on actions only and not on the so called "just" reasons behind it, when a homosexual judge does A and a hetrosexual judge does A thats what happened and their reasons/intentions are irrelevant coz those are subjective anyhow.

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[Obscure_Trash]

There is no context-sensitive nor do you or her get to decide whats hurtful or not.

If I were trying get married and a judge tells me "Im not performing a ceremony for you coz Im a homosexual and I will not wed people untill I get the same right" I would get offended, I would feel as if I was rejected coz of my sexual orientation and I will tell her that I had nothing to do with the dumb law so why is she taking it out on me, why do people who have nothing to do with the situation have to be used to deliver her message across are there not enough ways to protest without involving innocent people in the process ?

Except you still have the right to marry. She'll even point you towards another judge within the vicinity.

 

She doesn't have the right to marry and neither does anyone in a same-sex relationship. This is discrimination.

 

I really have no idea why her being discriminated against and fighting for her rights would offend you if you support same-sex marriage equality. She's not calling heterosexuals names nor condemning their marriages. owo

 

Tikindi had good examples of other similar things; perhaps take another look at them? I'm curious as to your opinions on them, actually.

[hazeh]

 

 

Read what I've written above, the fact you see things in one way doesnt change the fact that others see the same things in a completely different manner, on one hand you preach tolerance and equality yet you choose to completely dismiss any other point of view that doesnt agree with yours, cultures all across the globe and within USA have different points of views on various subjects, including equality and inequality and the fact that you think you're right doesnt necessary mean your POV is the ultimate truth as there is no such thing at all, if you want to claim objectivity then you will examine every case based on actions only and not on the so called "just" reasons behind it, when a homosexual judge does A and a hetrosexual judge does A thats what happened and their reasons/intentions are irrelevant coz those are subjective anyhow.

Except the fact that I've been looking at the points made across this entire time and you still aren't making the right arguments for your point. Of course I know others see things one way and that I see them another. I have always taken both points of view into consideration and chose based on what my heart tells me is the best. That being said, what is "right" or "wrong" is not always an individual basis like you're trying to make it.

 

A judge's sexuality has nothing to do with it, by the way. Had she been heterosexual, would you still be having a fit?

 

This is based on the judge's perception of the law she was chosen to represent. She believes it is unfit as a law and is taking her stand- as she is legally allowed to do so- against that law. Again, not against a group of people. When you do something specifically against a group of people because of who those people are, then discrimination comes into play. Yes, I understand that's what it seems like to you. But you must understand that something else is at play here. This judge encourages marriages- she's a proponent of marriage, but of ALL types. Whether or not she was a lesbian or a straight woman has nothing to do with it, her argument and basis for her actions is still the same.

 

She is saying "I will [peacefully] decline to preform ANY marriages at this time because I will not favor one group over another. Until ALL marriages can be preformed, I will not partake in this OPTIONAL ability of mine to marry couples until I am satisfied that I can use my powers as a judge for ALL people."

THAT is not discrimination. Heterosexual couples, unfortunately, just happen to be part of it. The judge made it VERY clear that this was nothing against them. She's not taking anything out on anybody because she's simply not preforming that optional aspect of a job for ANYONE. The fact that she's more than willing to show them to another judge completely negates any smidgen of discrimination you're trying to find.

 

 

[KageSora]

There is no context-sensitive nor do you or her get to decide whats hurtful or not.

If I were trying get married and a judge tells me "Im not performing a ceremony for you coz Im a homosexual and I will not wed people untill I get the same right" I would get offended, I would feel as if I was rejected coz of my sexual orientation and I will tell her that I had nothing to do with the dumb law so why is she taking it out on me, why do people who have nothing to do with the situation have to be used to deliver her message across are there not enough ways to protest without involving innocent people in the process ?

 

Who decides whats a negative intention ? Does it matter whether my intention was good or bad if you got hurt in the process ?

If the said judge is a christain who believes that homosexuals getting married will secure them a place in hell and by denying them that right he might actually think he's saving their soul, isnt that considered the most noble of intentions he might have even though it seems stupid to me or you ? Furthermore he's sacrificing one of the things he enjoys the most which is marrying other christians just so he can "save" one soul, yet when the tables are turned you fail to acknowledge the existance of the so called other coin and instead choose to see it as some superiority complex...[

I fail to see how this is "taking it out on" people who are straight.

 

They are not being prevented from getting married. They are NOT being denied their right to be married. NOTHING is preventing them from taking advantage of that right to be married. They are MORE than capable of going right to another judge, or for that matter ANY OTHER PERSON who is able to perform that ceremony for them--it's not like judges are the ONLY people who are able to do so, after all.

 

 

Also, actually, yes--intent does matter even if you were hurt. Maybe you're the kind of person who says " YOU! YOU HURT ME!" to people no matter what. But for me, if somebody hurt me but wasn't intending to hurt me it feels a lot different than somebody who hurt me while intending to hurt me. And, on top of that, how the treated the situation upon being informed that they hurt me will further alter how I feel.

 

Again, there IS a difference between "I don't support your lifestyle and therefore I'm going to force my beliefs down your throat in addition to refusing you this status of being married" and "Because of my beliefs, I don't feel comfortable doing this, you will need to find another judge."

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be really offended by the first and I'd totally understand the second--it would be a bit frustrating, yeah, but it's not like I'm being prevented from getting married. I'd just need to find another person who could help me out.

Edited February 27, 2012 by KageSora

[Alpha1]

I get that, and I don't think it's right to force somebody to go against their moral compass when it comes to an OPTIONAL part of their job.

 

What do you think of this then?

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-03/us/loui...ustice?_s=PM:US

 

Louisiana justice who refused interracial marriage resigns

 

A justice of the peace in Louisiana isn't required to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

But... he's a state official, and there was a SC ruling on this:

 

"The U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially-based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 ruling in the case Loving v. Virginia. In the unanimous decision, the court said that under the Constitution, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

Read what I've written above, the fact you see things in one way doesnt change the fact that others see the same things in a completely different manner, on one hand you preach tolerance and equality yet you choose to completely dismiss any other point of view that doesnt agree with yours, cultures all across the globe and within USA have different points of views on various subjects, including equality and inequality and the fact that you think you're right doesnt necessary mean your POV is the ultimate truth as there is no such thing at all, if you want to claim objectivity then you will examine every case based on actions only and not on the so called "just" reasons behind it, when a homosexual judge does A and a hetrosexual judge does A thats what happened and their reasons/intentions are irrelevant coz those are subjective anyhow.

 

You're making no sense. You might as well argue robbery, rape, segregation, honor killings etc. is subjective and no one is right or wrong.

[The Evil Doer]

Except you still have the right to marry. She'll even point you towards another judge within the vicinity.

 

She doesn't have the right to marry and neither does anyone in a same-sex relationship. This is discrimination.

 

I really have no idea why her being discriminated against and fighting for her rights would offend you if you support same-sex marriage equality. She's not calling heterosexuals names nor condemning their marriages. owo

 

Tikindi had good examples of other similar things; perhaps take another look at them? I'm curious as to your opinions on them, actually.

Hetrosexual christian judge will also show you to someone who is willing to marry homosexuals so why is that so wrong ?

 

Coz I dont believe that one should fight for his/her rights over my back, I have nothing to do with it, protest in a manner which will not mess my day up, I would never fight for my rights in a manner which will cause someone else "inconvenience".

 

I have a doctor who refuses to give me the drugs I need coz of her bloody ideology, once per two years my wisdom teeth gets infected, I cant open up my jaw, concentrate on antyhing nor eat. The cure is simple, antibiotics, however she doesnt believe in that, she thinks I should remove it, I explained to her that its too close to some nerve and that a small mistake can leave half of my face paralyzed which is something I dont wanna have as long as Im still young, so I just take antibiotics once per two years.

Every time I get infected I must look for another doctor coz she wont give me the drugs, unlike with her I have to make an appointment with another doctor which might take a week, and why is all this happening at all ? simply coz some dumb doctor has an ideology, well its the same thing, the judge is fighting for her rights and that is all cool but why does she have to do it over my back ? Why do I have to chase down another judge and spend who knows how much time coz she cant protest in million of other ways available to her ? You dont fight for your rights by trumping other man's rights, as simple as that, the only thing you'll accomplish by doing so is to create antagonizam for your cause and that is kinda killing the whole purpose, if you think Im the only one who will feel this way, you are dead wrong.

 

Tikini... let me read that

 

No, I am against GP's playing ping pong with girls who are about to have an abortion, it is a traumatic procedure and traumatized scared to death girls shouldnt be passed around from one GP to another coz of their beliefs, if you are a doctor do your bloody job instead of taking it out on poor girls..

 

Teenage kid refusing a pledge, I would slap him across his face, the whole "Im trying so hard to be unique and rebel coz Im so cool" is annoying and fake as hell to me.

[The Evil Doer]

I fail to see how this is "taking it out on" people who are straight.

 

They are not being prevented from getting married. They are NOT being denied their right to be married. NOTHING is preventing them from taking advantage of that right to be married. They are MORE than capable of going right to another judge, or for that matter ANY OTHER PERSON who is able to perform that ceremony for them--it's not like judges are the ONLY people who are able to do so, after all.

 

 

Also, actually, yes--intent does matter even if you were hurt. Maybe you're the kind of person who says " YOU! YOU HURT ME!" to people no matter what. But for me, if somebody hurt me but wasn't intending to hurt me it feels a lot different than somebody who hurt me while intending to hurt me. And, on top of that, how the treated the situation upon being informed that they hurt me will further alter how I feel.

 

Again, there IS a difference between "I don't support your lifestyle and therefore I'm going to force my beliefs down your throat in addition to refusing you this status of being married" and "Because of my beliefs, I don't feel comfortable doing this, you will need to find another judge."

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be really offended by the first and I'd totally understand the second--it would be a bit frustrating, yeah, but it's not like I'm being prevented from getting married. I'd just need to find another person who could help me out.

Nor is the christian judge preventing homosexuals from marrying, plenty of other judges yet you still claimed its to do with superirity and discrimination.

 

I believe that intent matters far less than the result, Im the type of person who will take full responsibility for his actions, so if my action has caused you harm its all on me, I wont shrug off my responsibilty by saying well my intentions were good so its not my fault, you got harmed cause of something I did, whether I intended to do so or not is less important, I messed up, its on me to fix it..

 

How you figure anything was forced, the man said exactly that "Because of my beliefs, I don't feel comfortable doing this, you will need to find another judge" its just that he hopes all homosexuals will understand that they are wrong and will find Jesus, while she hopes the state of Texas will understand how hypocritical the laws are and will change them....

 

Both of them wouldnt prevent you from being married, just anohter side of the coin...

[KageSora]

-snip-

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to decline entering into a discussion with you on the grounds that I have seen your posts in the past, and do not trust myself to remain able to respond properly within the rules for being civil set forth on this forum. I do not, however, wish for you to feel that I am intentionally ignoring your post.

 

So I will say this, however I will likely not respond if you choose to pursue a further discussion from me.

 

 

I am all for equality. However, I am also in support of an individual's right to not be forced to perform something that is against their moral inclinations--especially if it is an optional duty, and not a requirement set out by their job. Additionally, in such cases I feel that the individual should be polite about the matter, and should do what they can to help those they feel they must decline locate another individual who would be happy to help them.

 

I base this off of my own feelings on the matter, of course, and understand that others will feel differently. I myself would not be terribly offended if I were told "I do not feel comfortable doing this due to my beliefs, however X will be more than happy to and capable of helping you."

 

 

 

@Evil: I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion for the time being, because quite frankly I don't trust myself to continue to respond to you without getting warned for being very rude.

[The Evil Doer]

You're making no sense. You might as well argue robbery, rape, segregation, honor killings etc. is subjective and no one is right or wrong.

That's exactly what Im saying. Who are you to claim some universal morality ?

 

2000 years ago, homosexuals were a normal phenomena, 500 years ago a taboo, today both taboo and normal, so what is right and what is wrong ?

 

2000 years ago pedophilia was completely normal, 500 years ago as well, today IMO disgusting, in Mexico 11 yo girls are considerd adults and its legal to have sex with them, I am disgusted by it however to them its a norm, in 500 years from now can you know what will be the norm ? So what gives you the right to claim universal morality, thats what Im asking ?

 

I think that honor killings are primitive and plain horrid however in many countries around the globe they say look at your culture, celebrity obsessed culture that worships athlets and singers who have well below average IQ, culture which calls girls **, culture of plastic dreams and cheap people, culture where teenage pregnancies are a normal phenomena, in the eyes of many countries worldwide we have no sense of modesty, we are cheap so who is to say what is the right lifestyle ?? What makes outr culture any better than that of India, Japan or any other other country for that matter ? All those countries have a very different view on morality from us, thats what Im saying, the fact that you believe something to be right doesnt make it right nor wrong

[Alpha1]

I am all for equality. However, I am also in support of an individual's right to not be forced to perform something that is against their moral inclinations--especially if it is an optional duty, and not a requirement set out by their job. Additionally, in such cases I feel that the individual should be polite about the matter, and should do what they can to help those they feel they must decline locate another individual who would be happy to help them.

 

I base this off of my own feelings on the matter, of course, and understand that others will feel differently. I myself would not be terribly offended if I were told "I do not feel comfortable doing this due to my beliefs, however X will be more than happy to and capable of helping you."

 

Why should a state official be able to discriminate if he decides to exercise the option?

 

That's exactly what Im saying. Who are you to claim some universal morality ?

 

You can measure the damage and unhappiness that was caused.

[skinst]

I find it interesting there is so much nay say about the judge.

 

What if she had simply said, "sorry, I don't perform marriages. Next door on the left there's a judge who will however, feel free to book an appointment with them." No excuses or reasoning behind it.

 

I have to wonder if those of you who think its wrong would still feel threatened, offended or think the judge is being discriminatory if she had never stated her moral reasoning behind her choice. In fact, I doubt it would have even made the news.

 

Yet you're getting up in arms for an optional part of her job that she chooses not to perform based on her moral reasoning. Yeah.... just no.

Edited February 27, 2012 by skinst

[TikindiDragon]

I have a doctor who refuses to give me the drugs I need coz of her bloody ideology, once per two years my wisdom teeth gets infected, I cant open up my jaw, concentrate on antyhing nor eat. The cure is simple, antibiotics, however she doesnt believe in that, she thinks I should remove it, I explained to her that its too close to some nerve and that a small mistake can leave half of my face paralyzed which is something I dont wanna have as long as Im still young, so I just take antibiotics once per two years.

Every time I get infected I must look for another doctor coz she wont give me the drugs, unlike with her I have to make an appointment with another doctor which might take a week, and why is all this happening at all ? simply coz some dumb doctor has an ideology, well its the same thing, the judge is fighting for her rights and that is all cool but why does she have to do it over my back ? Why do I have to chase down another judge and spend who knows how much time coz she cant protest in million of other ways available to her ? You dont fight for your rights by trumping other man's rights, as simple as that, the only thing you'll accomplish by doing so is to create antagonizam for your cause and that is kinda killing the whole purpose, if you think Im the only one who will feel this way, you are dead wrong.

Telling you to get the tooth removed isn't ideology. It's common sense. If you're too bloody stupid not to listen to a medical professional that isn't actualy their problem, it's yours. Giving a diagnosis and suggesting treatment that you don't like is in no way an ideology. Doctors do not exist to do what you tell them to, they exist to help make you better. Incidently - if you have so much trouble with that one doctor why do you still see them?

 

All the issues you've mentioned could quite easily be solved by you not being quite so much of an idiot about it. Either take her advice, or permanently find another doctor. Quite simple, and not half the problem you're making it out to be.

 

No, I am against GP's playing ping pong with girls who are about to have an abortion, it is a traumatic procedure and traumatized scared to death girls shouldnt be passed around from one GP to another coz of their beliefs, if you are a doctor do your bloody job instead of taking it out on poor girls..

 

Teenage kid refusing a pledge, I would slap him across his face, the whole "Im trying so hard to be unique and rebel coz Im so cool" is annoying and fake as hell to me.

 

Then it seems we can only flat out disagree. I believe an individual should be allowed to follow thier conscience even if it inconviniences me, because I would expected to be given the same courtesy. Clearly you only believe an individual is free to make their own choices if it doesn't do anything to even faintly impact upon you. Somehow I doubt you really do think theorugh wether or not your every action has no impact on others, but there you have it.

 

I do not feel I will continue discussing this with you, as I do not feel a non-self-absorbed opinion on your part is possible.

Edited February 27, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[elderberrysyrup]

I'mma break this into points here, if thoust allow me to.

 

Hetrosexual christian judge will also show you to someone who is willing to marry homosexuals so why is that so wrong ?

Is there a non-discriminatory reason behind it? If so, sure. Such as 'Well I can't do that, it's not allowed by law' is totally fine. However, if it's 'no, you're gay, go away' that's discrimination.

 

Coz I dont believe that one should fight for his/her rights over my back, I have nothing to do with it, protest in a manner which will not mess my day up, I would never fight for my rights in a manner which will cause someone else "inconvenience".

Dude, protesting in of itself inconveniences people. OWS? People were trying to have a nice day at the park! Vietnam protests? People are trying to study and be good citizens! Women's rights protests? People are just trying to go about their day as normal! The point of protest is to bring to light issues that people try to sweep under the rug. This is exactly what the judge is doing. 'Hey guys, this is a problem, and I'm not gonna go about this privilege until everyone can have it.'

 

I have a doctor who refuses to give me the drugs I need coz of her bloody ideology, once per two years my wisdom teeth gets infected, I cant open up my jaw, concentrate on antyhing nor eat. The cure is simple, antibiotics, however she doesnt believe in that, she thinks I should remove it, I explained to her that its too close to some nerve and that a small mistake can leave half of my face paralyzed which is something I dont wanna have as long as Im still young, so I just take antibiotics once per two years.

Every time I get infected I must look for another doctor coz she wont give me the drugs, unlike with her I have to make an appointment with another doctor which might take a week, and why is all this happening at all ? simply coz some dumb doctor has an ideology, well its the same thing, the judge is fighting for her rights and that is all cool but why does she have to do it over my back ? Why do I have to chase down another judge and spend who knows how much time coz she cant protest in million of other ways available to her ? You dont fight for your rights by trumping other man's rights, as simple as that, the only thing you'll accomplish by doing so is to create antagonizam for your cause and that is kinda killing the whole purpose, if you think Im the only one who will feel this way, you are dead wrong.

Okay. I don't mean to be insulting, but now you're coming off as selfish and rude. Let me summarize this. 'MY DOCTOR REFERS ME TO ANOTHER DOCTOR FOR MY ANTIBIOTICS, WAH. SOME JUDGE IS REFERRING ME TO ANOTHER JUDGE TO GET MARRIED. WAH. THIS IS TRAMPLING ON MY RIGHT TO MARRY/GET HEALTHCARE.' Except no, it's not trampling on your rights at all. You're still able to get antibiotics. You're still able to get married. The problem is that it's just more of an inconvenience than usual, well, really? You're complaining about inconvenience? No one's stopping you from going to another judge to get married, therefore what rights are being trampled? Your right to get married with ANY judge you want RIGHT THIS SECOND? I don't think so.

 

No, I am against GP's playing ping pong with girls who are about to have an abortion, it is a traumatic procedure and traumatized scared to death girls shouldnt be passed around from one GP to another coz of their beliefs, if you are a doctor do your bloody job instead of taking it out on poor girls..

It's not a ping pong, it's a referral. Do you understand what a referral is? This isn't just a GP passing some poor chick through 5 other GPs, it's just one guy going 'well, the guy right beside me will do abortions, you should talk to him'. This makes about as much sense as going to a blacksmith in Skyrim and expecting him to buy your potions. (They only buy armor and weapons, because, y'know, blacksmith?)

 

Teenage kid refusing a pledge, I would slap him across his face, the whole "Im trying so hard to be unique and rebel coz Im so cool" is annoying and fake as hell to me.

Don't make judgements. Maybe a person isn't religious, or isn't that tied to America. What's your problem in assuming they're trying to be a rebel or trying to be cool? I don't want to participate in a mindless mantra that has no meaning to me, so I'm not going to. Why is that something that makes you wanna smack a guy? Don't just jump to conclusions about people, it's kinda not cool.

[agirl3003]

There is no context-sensitive nor do you or her get to decide whats hurtful or not.

If I were trying get married and a judge tells me "Im not performing a ceremony for you coz Im a homosexual and I will not wed people untill I get the same right" I would get offended, I would feel as if I was rejected coz of my sexual orientation and I will tell her that I had nothing to do with the dumb law so why is she taking it out on me, why do people who have nothing to do with the situation have to be used to deliver her message across are there not enough ways to protest without involving innocent people in the process ?

No you should not feel hurt. Because you could just as easily go somewhere else to get married. HOWEVER, a judge turning away a gay couple can't point them 'somewhere else' because there IS no 'somewhere else'. They cant get married period. She is doing what is right and saying it is not fair for everyone BUT this group to get married. In some states underage TEENS may be wed if they have their parent's consent. Yet two consenting adults cannot?

[-platinum-draco-]

I think any judge has the right to not marry people they do not wish to marry. It doesn't matter if they're refusing to marry a gay couple. That is, of course, bigoted, but within their rights. This judge, however, is not saying that heterosexual people shouldn't be married, she is saying that she doesn't wish to perform the ceremony until she has equal rights. She is protesting in a non-violent way, which is most certainly allowed by law. The anti-homosexual judge has the same right, even if I don't support his views. The state, however, doesn't have the same right.

[prairiecrow]

I think any judge has the right to not marry people they do not wish to marry. It doesn't matter if they're refusing to marry a gay couple. That is, of course, bigoted, but within their rights. This judge, however, is not saying that heterosexual people shouldn't be married, she is saying that she doesn't wish to perform the ceremony until she has equal rights. She is protesting in a non-violent way, which is most certainly allowed by law. The anti-homosexual judge has the same right, even if I don't support his views. The state, however, doesn't have the same right.

It's a bit different up here in Canada, at least for our equivalents of Justices of the Peace. A marriage commissioner (in Manitoba, anyway) must be prepared to marry gay couples, because gay marriage is legal in Canada and we are licensed representatives of the government.

 

Yet strangely enough, nobody is bawwing about their "rights" being trampled and there are plenty of marriage commissioners to choose from.

[Fuzzbucket]

I think any judge has the right to not marry people they do not wish to marry. It doesn't matter if they're refusing to marry a gay couple. That is, of course, bigoted, but within their rights. This judge, however, is not saying that heterosexual people shouldn't be married, she is saying that she doesn't wish to perform the ceremony until she has equal rights. She is protesting in a non-violent way, which is most certainly allowed by law. The anti-homosexual judge has the same right, even if I don't support his views. The state, however, doesn't have the same right.

Only if he refuses to marry ANYONE - that's what she is doing. If he discriminates - marries some and not others - then it is NOT OK at all.

 

That said - if your job means you have to do things you don't want to do on conscientious grounds - you have to find a new job. The ONLY tricky bit is if the law changes AFTER you are employed - that CAN legally be construed as a change in your contract over which you had no control, and I THINK in most countries they have to find a way to accommodate you.

 

Otherwise - you can't bring yourself to do all that is part of the job - don't take the job.

[The Evil Doer]

Telling you to get the tooth removed isn't ideology. It's common sense. If you're too bloody stupid not to listen to a medical professional that isn't actualy their problem, it's yours. Giving a diagnosis and suggesting treatment that you don't like is in no way an ideology. Doctors do not exist to do what you tell them to, they exist to help make you better. Incidently - if you have so much trouble with that one doctor why do you still see them?

 

All the issues you've mentioned could quite easily be solved by you not being quite so much of an idiot about it. Either take her advice, or permanently find another doctor. Quite simple, and not half the problem you're making it out to be.

 

 

 

Then it seems we can only flat out disagree. I believe an individual should be allowed to follow thier conscience even if it inconviniences me, because I would expected to be given the same courtesy. Clearly you only believe an individual is free to make their own choices if it doesn't do anything to even faintly impact upon you. Somehow I doubt you really do think theorugh wether or not your every action has no impact on others, but there you have it.

 

I do not feel I will continue discussing this with you, as I do not feel a non-self-absorbed opinion on your part is possible.

What a hell are you talking about ? A family doctor who has never in her life performed any sort of surgery has a valid opinion while the actual chirurgist who has been preforming those surgeries ever since she's finished med school has no idea what she's talking about ? When your doctor tells you I dont believe in a temp solution but only in a permenant one while ignoring the facts as presented by an expert then yes its a bloody ideology and not a common sense.

 

Of course all the issues can be easily solved, by me finding a doctor in a another town, yeah in a same manner Texas homosexuals can solve their problems by relocating to California, do yourself a favor and never become a problem solver of any sort.

 

Indeed we will agree to disagree, you're completely right, after all GP's passing a pregnant girl around is all about me coz I have just became the first man alive capable of having a baby and Im about to have an abortion as well, kudos to me.

 

Sounds cool to me, Im not a fan of "we should all perform our tasks based on our individual moral compass regardless of who gets hurt in the process" ideas either so its all good, have a nice one.

 

I find it interesting there is so much nay say about the judge.

 

What if she had simply said, "sorry, I don't perform marriages. Next door on the left there's a judge who will however, feel free to book an appointment with them." No excuses or reasoning behind it.

 

I have to wonder if those of you who think its wrong would still feel threatened, offended or think the judge is being discriminatory if she had never stated her moral reasoning behind her choice. In fact, I doubt it would have even made the news.

 

Yet you're getting up in arms for an optional part of her job that she chooses not to perform based on her moral reasoning. Yeah.... just no.

Had she said I dont perform marriages I would be cool with it, if that christian judge said I dont perform marriages I would be cool with that as well but if he says he's not doing so coz homosexuals are allowed to get married in that state, then no Im not cool with it, nor with what she's doing.

 

Yes Im getting up in arms over an optional part of her job and if Im not mistaken you are from Australia and one of the same people who got up in arms when that religious pharmacist chose to exercise rights based on his moral reasoning by not giving an afterpill to a girl so which one is it ? Follow your moral reasoning or follow your moral reasoning only when Skinst agrees with you ?

 

Please stop double posting.

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[WereJace]

It's a bit different up here in Canada, at least for our equivalents of Justices of the Peace. A marriage commissioner (in Manitoba, anyway) must be prepared to marry gay couples, because gay marriage is legal in Canada and we are licensed representatives of the government.

 

Yet strangely enough, nobody is bawwing about their "rights" being trampled and there are plenty of marriage commissioners to choose from.

Well, not in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan, yes, we have had issues with marriage commissioners refusing to marry gay couples, culminating in a legal case (which ruled that the marriage commissioners had to marry gay couples). I agreed with the Saskatchewan ruling because marriage commissioners are civil servants appointed by the government to officiate secular marriages. I sort of wish our provincial government had taken a hint from British Columbia and sent all marriage commissioners a letter clearly instructing them to perform same-sex marriages...