JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@mm25075,

Quote:

I think this is the biggest difference between him and the boy who wouldn't say the pledge. JP is an employee of the people and should be treating them all the same the way the law says he should. The boy is not yet that I know of employed by the government.

My point exactly... employees have rights-- including the right to reasonable accommodations of religious or cultural practices. Having another Justice of the Peace available fulfills everyone's rights-- the couple gets married and this man doesn't have to be a part of it.

4 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
I think this is the biggest difference between him and the boy who wouldn't say the pledge. JP is an employee of the people and should be treating them all the same the way the law says he should. The boy is not yet that I know of employed by the government.

My point exactly... employees have rights-- including the right to reasonable accommodations of religious or cultural practices. Having another Justice of the Peace available fulfills everyone's rights-- the couple gets married and this man doesn't have to be a part of it.

That's just bull, ebrown. Suppose every JP in the county or state feels the same way. The JP has personal rights, but only his professional rights are in question here. One has nothing to do with the other.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

The JP of LA is entitled to his own beliefs and religous practices, yes. However, continuing to work as a governement employee he has certain obligation to fullfil his duties which includes following the law as set by the people. He can always quit his job if it does not meet his personal beliefs.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

And if a local teacher doesn't think that he should teach black children, that is ok because he can be moved to a different room with only students who agree with him and were there voluntarily?

Would you answer this question differently for a teacher who doesn't think he should say the pledge? I will admit this is a difficult line to draw... you need to weigh the needs of society against the right of the employee. In this latest case it is easy to see there is a real damage to the institution of education.

2 Replies

We should also look at political consideration.

Same-sex marriage is slowly becoming legal-- part of this process will be the compromise position that no one be forced to perform these marriage if it violates their conscience.

If this man is forced to go against his conscience, but other officials aren't... wouldn't that cause a problem with the agreement to advance same sex marriage?

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

My point exactly... employees have rights-- including the right to reasonable accommodations of religious or cultural practices. Having another Justice of the Peace available fulfills everyone's rights-- the couple gets married and this man doesn't have to be a part of it.

This isn't an employee's rights case. It's not as if the JP wants to wear a yarmulke to work or anything. He's not asking for an accommodation of his religious or cultural practices, he's asking for a different set of laws to pertain solely to him. That's not a reasonable accommodation, and nobody has a right to expect that sort of accommodation. The laws, after all, are supposed to be the same for everybody.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

We should also look at political consideration.

Same-sex marriage is slowly becoming legal-- part of this process will be the compromise position that no one be forced to perform these marriage if it violates their conscience.

Who told you that?

Quote:

If this man is forced to go against his conscience, but other officials aren't... wouldn't that cause a problem with the agreement to advance same sex marriage?

No, because the first part of your contention isn't true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
And if a local teacher doesn't think that he should teach black children, that is ok because he can be moved to a different room with only students who agree with him and were there voluntarily?

Would you answer this question differently for a teacher who doesn't think he should say the pledge? I will admit this is a difficult line to draw... you need to weigh the needs of society against the right of the employee. In this latest case it is easy to see there is a real damage to the institution of education.

Sure. I would say the teacher could stay in his class and not say the pledge. Never said otherwise. But if my example of a teacher refusing to teach black children would cause real damage to the institution of education, why wouldn't the justice's actions also be seen as causing real damage to the reputation of the parish government for equal treatment under the law? I would go so far as to say that the parish and state are being skewered nation wide right now because this person is a representative of government.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

We should also look at political consideration.

Same-sex marriage is slowly becoming legal-- part of this process will be the compromise position that no one be forced to perform these marriage if it violates their conscience.

Since when is that part of the process? If a marriage is legal and you are a government employee tasked to perform it, then perform it or change jobs. (Note: if you came to me as supervisor and said I can't do this for personal reasons, I would help you get another position in the organization, but if you were in the job, knew the requirements and turned away a citizen asking for their legal rights, I would write you up in a heart beat.) This is completely different than asking a pastor to perform the ceremony. The government official is required to provide equal access or the role of the government is compromised. Another analogy: Homosexuals are slowly gaining acceptance in the military. Should part of this process be that you don't have to serve in a unit with a homosexual if it violates your conscience? Replace homosexual with black or white or asian. Should we accommodate such requests?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

But his actions still support the casual racism that infects much of the American south.

I disagree with that. I think this action - this out and out, not able to be denied recognition of the problems that he sees to the extent that he refuses to wed interracial couples is EXACTLY the sort of thing that is needed to open peoples' eyes and pull the rug out from under the casual racism that still infects much of the south.

Whether he himself is racist or not - whether this action is based in his own racist attitude or concern for interracial children - he's done something that has opened peoples' eyes to it.

Because like ebrownp said - these people are still going to get married. But now everyone sees what they're still up against in northern Louisiana in 2009 - even to the point where a white man who some view as racist is concerned about interracial children and their lack of a niche in black or white society.

It's people who do nothing and say nothing or hide their true feelings who are perpetuating the status quo.

Anytime anyone brings something like this out into the open, it can't help but bring about some sort of change. Maybe it won't be the change he wants - but something will change.

1 Reply

@aidan,

So it's a good thing when people act in a racist way, because it opens up our eyes to the fact that racism still exists?

I heavily question the logic behind your contention. I believe you have it exactly backwards. People who actually live in the South don't need anything to remind them that racism exists, because they see it all the time...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, unlike you apparently, I haven't met or spoken to the man. All I know is what he said, so I can't be sure of what his motives are - I can only go on what he says.

You can question my logic - which has never changed. I said - 'Maybe he really means what he says.'
I also said, 'If he can't do his job equitably he should find another job.'
And I also said, 'The fact that he's brought this issue out into the open will effect some sort of acknowledgement of the situation - if not actual change.'

Not everyone lives in the south or has ever lived in the south. I had no idea what went on in the south until I moved there. I was pretty shocked - to put it mildly.

I think it's good for the rest of the world to be informed.
And maybe someone who is outraged will do something to help some of these children.

Yep - I think some good can come of this. But then I'm one of those glass half full sort of people.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

So it's a good thing when people act in a racist way, because it opens up our eyes to the fact that racism still exists?

Yes! Absolutely! This is exactly right! And, it is a core of the principle of freedom of expression.

It is far better when people act overtly racist where it is out in the open and can be challenged. This is why it is bad when governments clamp down on the freedom of unpopular groups-- not only is there an issue of fairness and liberty, but racism is far more damaging when it is forced to fester under the surface.

Instead of suppressing people we disagree with, it is far better to have the discussion in the open where truly bad ideas will be defeated in public.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Should part of this process be that you don't have to serve in a unit with a homosexual if it violates your conscience? Replace homosexual with black or white or asian. Should we accommodate such requests?

The term reasonable accommodation implies that you should accommodate such a request when it doesn't cause clear damage in other ways. This standard is often applied as part of employment law involving religious practices; and you can't make up damages just because you don't like a belief.

If this JP was preventing people from being married-- I would be against it. If this JP is simply asking to not be part of the process (in a way that doesn't stop them from getting married anyway)... no one is being damaged.

1 Reply

I thought this was a joke when I first heard about it. What a sad, sad, man.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

I live in LA. I see the confederate flags and dumbass stares pretty regularly (the stares happen mostly when I'm out and about with my other-race wife). I copied this article about the bass ackwards Loos-ee-ya-na JP and handed it out to people at work....

What line of business are you in, again? Any rules concerning distribution of political tracts being handed out to "people at work"?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Should part of this process be that you don't have to serve in a unit with a homosexual if it violates your conscience? Replace homosexual with black or white or asian. Should we accommodate such requests?

The term reasonable accommodation implies that you should accommodate such a request when it doesn't cause clear damage in other ways. This standard is often applied as part of employment law involving religious practices; and you can't make up damages just because you don't like a belief.

If this JP was preventing people from being married-- I would be against it. If this JP is simply asking to not be part of the process (in a way that doesn't stop them from getting married anyway)... no one is being damaged.

OK and no one is being damaged if the Army sets up a few platoons for people who don't like black people and a few platoons for people who don't like white people, right? That's not stopping anyone from serving their country is it? No harm done?

I disagree with your statement that no damage is being done when a government official of Tangipahoa Parish refuses to grant a couple their legal right to marry as defined by Louisiana law. I think significant damage is being done by telling people "I, an official of the parish, will not honor your rights. Go elsewhere." That is the same as saying "you can't drink from this public water fountain because you are black, but that is ok because there is one over there." You acknowledged that having a white only class would be harmful to the interest of public education; isn't this the same? If you had a white only class, there would still be other classes, even in the same school where a student could go, right? Why would you accommodate this justice, but not a school teacher?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Funny you should say this. My wife and I have an interracial marriage. So yes, I would defend a refusal to perform my own marriage.

So is mine. And, I don't believe you.

Cycl - about you and Mrs Cycl the matter is clear from photographs. I do wonder what "interracial" combination exists in Mr and Mrs Brown-Munoz's marriage - wouldn't go as far as to call him flat-out a liar until he gives details.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe - but if the rules are so restrictive, why have JPs at all? Automate the process and issue licenses to any 2 or however many qualified parties of any sex, gender, description, genus, color etc.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I disagree with your statement that no damage is being done when a government official of Tangipahoa Parish refuses to grant a couple their legal right to marry as defined by Louisiana law. ....

Of course all we have by way of background info here so far may be legally totally erroneous - eg JPs may have some discretion if there's reason to believe any issue of such a marriage would be diseased because of illness of one of the parties or whatever other hereditary health problem may exist. I know in many states the parties have to get tested for syphilis, for instance, and that's perfectly legal.

0 Replies

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know