This stuff is still going on?

Remove all ads!

Quote:

The couple had every right and ample reason to call the ACLU. Yes, they didn't need to sue to get married but that's not the point. And it's not "poor me syndrome" either.

Yes, it was an inconvenience mainly. Thinking of it, it would have been an inconvenience for Rosa Parks to have left her seat and spend the rest of her bus ride standing as well. Why couldn't she just bring herself to suck it up? Why did she make such a ruckus? I'm not suggesting that anyone here makes such an argument but this is probably in essence why the people decided to call the ACLU: It was just not right for the JoP to send them on that humiliating extra run.

That JoP had it coming, and needed a reality check. At the very least he was defying the precedent set in Loving v. Virginia in spirit. His conduct is not acceptable. He might be for all practical purposes a reasonably nice good ol' boy and regular churchgoer and may have done a decent job for a long time - but this time he hasn't, and it is about him being a racist and it interfering with his work. As I said, States are not allowed to not marry interracial couples based on law, so much less is he, based on whim or personal tastes or preference.

 

I consider myself an American and a citizen of the United States, before anything else, like being a Texan.

 

We're talking about Louisiana here....

As I was doing a bit of research I found the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana is an elected official. In their list of responsibilities it includes "can perform wedding ceremonies." Nowhere does it state, "must perform wedding ceremonies to anyone who wants them." Loving v. Virginia would apply if he forbid such a marriage or impeded the couple's desires by prejudicing the other justices from performing the ceremony -- that was not the case.

As an elected official, he will ultimately be held accountable for this by his constituents. To be honest, there is a real possibility this won't damage his chances for re-election in the slightest. We may not agree with his decision, but at first glance he was within his right to make that decision.

 

http://www.deontologie-judiciaire.umontreal.ca/fr/codes enonces deonto/documents/CODE_LOUISIANE.pdf

 

That's great, Chandos, except for two things.

One, this is a Justice of the Peace, not a Judge. They're two different things.

Two, at least by his reasoning, he isn't doing anything based bias or prejudice, but rather based on practicality and consequences. He may similarly refuse to marry a man dieing of cancer to a healthy, young woman, or an 85-year-old to an 18-year-old. Now I'll agree with the rest of you that racism is probably behind his reasoning, but he's found a practical application.

And to Ragusa and Blades, again, he did not in any way interfere with them getting married. He simply refused to participate himself. Now, there may be a law on the books saying they're not allowed to do that, or it may be in the job description, but I doubt it. As far as I'm aware, for everyone else who can possibly marry people, it's a matter of choice. Retired judges can and do refuse particular couples, religious officials can and do (even though they're licensed and thus endorsed and to some degree representing the state), commissioned officers of the Salvation Army (can marry people in a couple of states) have a choice, etc.

 

Good. I'm glad you think it's "great." Here's some more information that you may find to be great as well:

This is the page for the JPs here in Houston:

http://www.jp.hctx.net/

They perform judgments and hold court hearings. Thusly, they are "judges" in the real sense of the word, at least here. I suggest you do some research to back up your claims this time. And if you wish to play your typical "word definition game," we can play that all you want as well.

Nevertheless, it is illegal to refuse the due process of law to individuals based upon race, religion or sex. As a representative of the state he is refusing a legal process based upon a person's race.

Oh, btw, this was at the end of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

 

I have no idea what 'canon's are -- but if they're regulations for the JP's then fine, hang him by his testicles until he stops squirming.

Although, if he hasn't been admonished by the state yet, perhaps they should get involved before we lynch him.

 

Really, T2? And you were on a battleship?

They are standards that are reviewed by a commission:

While I doubt it would be anything as bad as you suggest, T2, or even removing him, but still I have to believe that his "practice" of deciding to perform his official duties according to race will probably by at an end, as it should be. Is there anyone here who feels that it should continue?

There is a link for the Code of Conduct that I linked earlier at the bottom of the page:

http://www.lasc.org/la_judicial_entities/judiciary_commission.asp

Edit: Here's an update

The guy was going to retire anyway it seems....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33349991/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

 

I will concede that it probably is legal to put up "No Blacks" signs in your home. So yes, I'll try again.

How about you try avoiding misdirection, OK? I mean, it wasn't like this guy was doing this in his own home. He was acting in an official capacity at the courthouse. So it was very public. So your counter that it is OK to do that in your own home is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So, in this case, even if virtually everyone else thinks it's prejudiced, his opinion takes legal precedence over everyone elses?

Actually he can't from Chandos' post:

“A justice of the peace is legally obligated to serve the public, all of the public,” Quigley said. “Racial discrimination has been a violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow.”

And similarly, he couldn't say two people of vastly different ages cannot marry, or if one of them has a terminal disease. This guy is 100% in the wrong. In trying to justify his actions, you are attempting to defend that which is indefensible.

 

NOG,
don't think of him as a judge. For all practical purposes he is a service automaton as far as marriage is concerned. He is compelled, by law, under threat of sanction, to serve any customer who has a right to his services and to officially marry them.

And whether a citizen has the right to his services is determined by Aldeth's check list:

• At least 18? check
• Different sexes? (gay marriage not legal in Louisiana) check
• Not married to anyone else? check

Race isn't on the list, so it isn't up to him to refuse his services based on that or other criteria, like age or ailment, preservation of the purity or the Ayran race or other personal preferences. None of his business.

His job there is far more humble: He merely documents the matter and makes it official with the powers bestowed upon JoP under the law.