JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@Eorl,

Quote:

"Sorry, we don't serve your type in here, try the next pub, or another bus company."

That's ok? Not racist? Yeah right.

"I am not going to do that paperwork today, but if you'll go over there my partner will do it for you" The JP directed the couple to a person whom he knew would do it, thus your example is critically flawed. The thing I am unsure of is did they have to drive to another town to get it done? The JP's conduct was more out of line if they did.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

No it isn't. If a bus driver told me plenty of other bus drivers will let me on despite my skin colour, I'd have every right to feel I'd been racially descriminated against, no matter how many other bus drivers were available.

Even if this JP had said, I'll marry you on Monday, I only do same-colour couples on Sundays, it would still be racial descrimination.

What the hell is wrong with you that it isn't as plain as day?

That any decision was made by a government representative based solely on skin colour in 2009 beggars belief.

2 Replies

@Eorl,

Quote:

No it isn't. If a bus driver told me plenty of other bus drivers will let me on despite my skin colour, I'd have every right to feel I'd been racially descriminated against, no matter how many other bus drivers were available.

If one bus driver will not take you then you need to wait for another bus, this is a significant cost to you. I am not sure that we know what the JP not doing the paperwork cost the couple. And it does matter, a sight inconvenience might piss them off, but that does not mean that the one who caused the turmoil should be legally culpable. Especially if he was following the state law as he claims that he was, and the legal authority (the state supreme court ethics committee) has not as of yet ruled on his claim.

I think that the JP was wrong, but I don't know enough about the law that he was working under to know that he should be removed from his job or face any legal jackpot. The correct recourse to stupid elected officials is to remove them at the next vote. I suspect that this JP knows that he would be removed, which is why he has already said that he will not attempt to get reelected.

Absent clear determination that he acted illegally, him finishing out his term, being told that never again can he refuse to do the paperwork, and then leaving at the end of his term seems to me to be a fitting resolution of this bad act.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Making a legal "civil rights" distinction among people when no scientific distinction exists surely renders any laws based on "race" unenforceable.

You are quite wrong.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe - you know I'm trained in mathematics and science, not the law, but it beggars belief that ANY race-based law can be enforced AGAINST all known scientific evidence and based solely on a seat-of-the-pants, eyeball-test of skin color. However as Justice Marshall notes (quoted earlier on this thread) the law doesn't have to be logical, so if you tell me I'm wrong on the law then I must defer to your legal judgement.

Please answer me this, though: if the JP, instead of stating his views, had just plain said "sorry guys, I'm sick today / I suddenly got busy with an emergency / so I'm gonna call another JP down the street, see if he's available" would he be in any way criticized?

3 Replies

@Eorl,

Buses may be different because, by their use of the public streets and byways, they necessarily involve some contract with the city or other public entity, but bars? Is private property dead? Far as I know any bar proprietor or manager can refuse service to anyone, and must legally refuse service if the person appears drunk, plus any person can be asked to leave, even if not drunk, rowdy etc.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Please answer me this, though: if the JP, instead of stating his views, had just plain said "sorry guys, I'm sick today / I suddenly got busy with an emergency / so I'm gonna call another JP down the street, see if he's available" would he be in any way criticized?

If he had said "Is this a bi-racial couple? Oh sorry, feeling sick today" then yes, he would have been criticized.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

You really believe a bar or restaurant can decline service based on race/skin color? Before 1964, maybe.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

You really believe a bar or restaurant can decline service based on race/skin color? Before 1964, maybe.

yeah, they can post any signs they want but they can't refuse service as Roger said.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I've been fighting this was a few resturants/stores in my home town.

I'm really getting involved in this barefoot movement where really you just refuse to put shoes on when you go places, like the grocery store, out to eat, etc. And I've had to deal with people trying to kick me out of their resturant because of it. I don't often leave w/o a fight.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

They can enforce standards of dress and behavior.

3 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

They can enforce standards of dress and behavior.

Absolutely. Else what are bouncers for?

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Please answer me this, though: if the JP, instead of stating his views, had just plain said "sorry guys, I'm sick today / I suddenly got busy with an emergency / so I'm gonna call another JP down the street, see if he's available" would he be in any way criticized?

If he was using it as a pretext to disguise his intent to deny marriage licenses to biracial couples, then he would be in violation of the constitution and of his oath of office. If he was really sick or busy that day, then he might be OK.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

They can enforce standards of dress and behavior.

So long as they're not using that as a pretext to discriminate against minorities.

1 Reply

@roger,

I don't argue that point, and I've left the 2-3 times I've been asked.

I argue that their standards need to be adjusted and are discrimintory.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

There is a reason people wear shoes. There are good reasons for restaurants to ask patron to obey certain standards. The human body has a remarkable ability to transmit disease. We don't allow people to spit in restaurants either.
There are also liability reasons for asking people to wear shoes. Heat and sharp things to name a few....
I doubt the shoe issue is in any way discriminatory. Especially if one can afford a computer.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

I have to politely disagree.

My feet are no more likely to transmit disease than my breath, sneezing, hands touching, etc. My feet would be no dirtier than my shoes would be.

The resturant owner doesn't know I own a computer? That's like saying it's ok to be racist to blacks if you think you're talking to a white guy.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe - I read your link and the follow-on discussion in the Chicago Tribune. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Brad Grayson, a lawyer representing the bar, said [...] the bar does not believe it discriminated against the students as it enforced its dress code policy. "There was no intention to admit white kids with baggy jeans and exclude black kids with baggy jeans," he said.

Now "baggy jeans" can mean one thing if shown by a designer in the pages of Vogue, and quite another in the streets. The ACLU was opposed to passing a city ordinance in Atlanta forbidding this particular fashion on grounds it's racial discrimination. But how can you prove INTENT?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/abc_gma_baggy_edit_070824_mn.jpg

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The resturant owner doesn't know I own a computer?

Yeah, but the rest of us do... and it's seems a bit silly.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Right. Bare feet don't stink.

3 Replies

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know