Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple
because they don’t mention God in their vows

Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they don’t mention God in their vows

For those who think religious objection to gay marriage is an excuse for a governmental official not to do their job, do they feel the above should be allowed as well?

__________________
“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

A judge who refuses to perform legal wedding ceremonies is violating the first amendment and should resign or be fired. In fact the reverse is true. Civil ceremonies should not be religious at all. Religious ceremonies belong in a place of worship.

This situation, however, has nothing to do with gay marriage. A different issue.

It is still religious objection, so yes. The judge is being consistent with his values.
I hope it doesn't bother you that this atheist respects the religious choices of others.

short answer is, Technically Yes.
the judge can claim a "personal" or "religious" objection.
The same as an atheist judge might claim one if, for instance, he thought the man was violent and didn't want to be a part of it.

But here's my issue with this judges "religious" objection.
I don't know what Christian Biblical criteria this guy is using for this it.
As far as i can tell it's just a personal preference.
To my knowledge there's NO scripture that says marriage vows must have God in them. Not even one passage that HINTS at the idea.
And there is No scripture that says atheist can't marry or
BE married ,by the state, by clergy, or whoever atheist want to be married by.
So he's got a home brew religion going as far as i can tell.

But Found, If you want to look up Judges that will not marrying people for religious reasons then look up refusals to marry 'Christians with Atheists' or 'Christians with other faiths'.
There's a clear scriptural prohibition against Christians getting married to unbelievers. So by default performing a ceremony for them, or baking a cake or giving flowers, is wrong.... at least if you're aware of the parties faith.

I'm sure there are cases of Christians Judges Not doing it or doing it anyway. certainly Christian pastors refusing to do it , i know at least one.
Either way you'll get cases that you might feel justifies your idea that the Gov't MUST FORCE Religious people to be involved in ALL weddings they are requested to. Even when there's TONS of other options for couples to "marry". And NO harm is done by the minority of refusals. So accommodation of religion is not a burden.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Perhaps "The Friendly Atheist" could help find a friendly official who will cheerfully do the ceremony and sign the papers. A friendly baker or caterer can provide the goodies.

I don't believe either should be allowed. A privately-owned business should be allowed to deny business based on religious beliefs; however, a government official should not be allowed to use religion as a reason to not perform his or her public duties.

__________________
If you're not allowed to question it, it's not science. It's propoganda.

"Wokeness gives people a shield to be mean and cruel, armored in false virtue." - Elon Musk

"What you want to do is appropriate women, you want to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that could be worn!" - Matt Walsh to trans activist

Excatly.

Why should they have to? They are legal tax paying citizens engaged in a legal activity.

__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.

Once again, this leads us into the current quagmire mess that is religion, the state, and officiants. If we allow religious ministers to not officiate a wedding they disapprove of, why not a judge as well? Who are we to decide what is religious or not here? When the state lets religious ministers serve as officiants, but yet allows them to discriminate, why shouldn't a judge get to do the same? This is all yet more evidence of how having the state and religion mingled on the issue of marriage is a mess. Get the state out of marriage altogether.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

A Judge is a public servant a minister is not.

__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.