View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:30 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
But there's a problem with your analogy...
The Jewish person gets a job with an understanding that there will be no pork tasting whatsoever, and then, years later, pork tasting at the job becomes mandatory...
In other words, the religion exemption was never needed until AFTER the decision to take the job was established...
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but would understand if there was, at least, a grandfather law in place where PRESENT judges can be exempted...I pity the 30-year judge that spent his life as a benevolent judiciary only to be told to go f*ck himself based on his beliefs...
I have limited sympathy for him, but who the heck gets hired in this world with guarantees that the job won't change?

On this front, I think there could be some discretion of the "employer", but the employer is responsible for ensuring that the job gets done in an equal manner.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and there's an alternate judge that's doing the same job in another location in the same building? So be it.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and the couple has to wait until an alternate venue can be lined up, that's not acceptable.

Regardless, shouldn't judges be putting the state law above their religion?
Applying the law equally? Justice is blind?
They swore an oath to uphold the law. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it violates their religion. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it changes.

If a judge can't do a gay marriage, then isn't it also recognizable that they would conceivably bring their religion into play in other ways? For example, if they had a ruling on gays wouldn't that demonstrate a potential incapability to be impartial, with a possibility of putting their religion before the constitution?
There should be a recognition that there is a more fundamental issue at play. Any judge who from the start wants to put his religion first when it is in conflict with the state law, then that guy should never have been a judge in the first place.

Or, if we're fine with that, then if a Muslim judge wants to put his religion above the state law then I guess that's all fine and dandy too...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote