4mo ago

Syracuse judge refuses to perform marriage for same-sex couple: ‘It was real weird’

www.syracuse.com

Summary

Syracuse City Court Judge Felicia Pitts Davis refused to officiate a same-sex wedding, citing religious beliefs.

Another judge, Mary Anne Doherty, performed the ceremony.

Pitts Davis’ actions, considered discriminatory under New York judicial ethics and the Marriage Equality Act, are under review by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct

99 comments

If your “faith” prevents you from doing your public service job, get a different job.
- Separation of church and state!
- Also get a different faith.

It's so weird to see when I see members of one marginalized group further marginalizing another marginalized group rather than having solidarity.
2 women who marched for racial justice now will get to deliver it as Syracuse City Court judges
Shadia Tadros, 39, a first-generation Arab-American, and Felicia Pitts Davis, 52, a Black woman with parents from the Deep South, say they are arriving with a mandate: The status quo is over.
In the year of marches to address systemic racism in the justice system, they stand with the peaceful protesters. They marched, too.
Tadros and Davis — who point out they are different people with different backgrounds — share some goals on how they want to change the justice system.
- Absolutely.
  Is she doing it because she is Christian, because then she should also know the Bible endorses slavery.
  It's insane that people still hold any value to that old piece of shit book. Also remember to stone your neighbors if they are gathering wood on a Saturday.
  
  The Bible endorses abortion
  Let's not pretend most Christians have even read the Bible, let alone understand or follow it.
- It's less weird than you might imagine. Bigotry is interesting that way, especially when religion and worldview comes into play. Most religious folks that are anti-lgbt will decry other forms of bigotry.
  Humans are consistently inconsistent this way. 😏

It's so telling that these religious nut jobs never use their "deeply held beliefs" to feed, house, comfort, protect, and uplift those they are charged with governing.
- Food and house for me not thee

Now someone trace back which republican donor group is propping her up to use this as fodder to ride up to the corrupted Supreme Court?
- This play is so obvious. The judge wants to be sued or reprimanded or removed to get the matter to the SCOTUS just so they can rule that gay people can't get married if any official involved in the process objects on religious grounds.
  
  That's going to be tough even for this court. This doesn't have any real bearing on obergefell.

She’s a public servant. If she won’t serve the public, then she can GTFO.

So throw her off the bench for gross incompetence and failure to perform her sworn duties. Simple.

These religious nutjobs like to living and choose what parts of the Bible they'll follow when it's convenient. Apply their Christian principles to lending money.

Okay... My religion says I can't make my quota?.. I get fired. Public fucking servant?! That's tax dollars ffs!

And they’ll get a stern talking to.

Pretty weird for the judge to let their shitty religion decide how love works between two consenting adults.
- Its not weird at all, religious people often use their beliefs to avoid doing their fucking job, whist also judging you.

Welcome back 2010

That is a lot of Davises

Sounds like Felicia Pitts Davis needs to be removed from office.

Since when does anyone claim the right to have a specific judge do the officiating? The couple had someone else do it and no harm.
- Since when does anyone claim the right to have a specific cashier scan their groceries? The black man walked to another lane no harm.
  This is what you sound like.
  
  I can’t understand how it got to the point the couple found out. All the judge had to say was congratulations to them, but another judge was coming to allow her to do another duty then leave smiling.
  Nobody would have been any the wiser and she could have kept whatever belief system she had intact without bothering anybody. Sure she’s still a bigot, but nobody’s big day would have been ruined.
  Instead it looks like she felt the need to declare to the whole world that she objected to the union.
  Weirdo

Officiating a marriage is a "performance". A kind of art. It's not substantially different than giving a speech, acting on stage, or playing music. And forcing people to perform something they don't believe in, is wrong.
Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds? Would it be right to tell them they have to do it, because they chose to paint portraits for a living?
If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different. There is no art or creativity there. But telling somone they have to give a performance they aren't comfortable with, is wrong. You don't force actors to do love scenes against their will. This is substantially the same.
- Forcing someone? She's employed in a public service position and paid by the public means she serves people in all aspects codified by the job. If you can't, stop collecting your paycheck and go work in the private world, where you can deny anything you want because of your silly religious beliefs.
  
  Judges are allowed to perform weddings. They aren't required to. It's not their job. You need to pay one, unless they're willing to do it for free. But that's up to them.
- No. A priest, sure. They should only offer religious marriage to those who conform to the religion, whatever it is.
  State licensing of the relationship, if offered at all, needs to be offered without discrimination. That is separation of church and state. An official of the state must officiate according to the law, not their own personal beliefs.
  
  Agreed. But the performance of a ceremony shouldn't be needed at all by the state.
  And in this case it almost isn't. She could have simply been a silent witness to vows, and signed the form.
- She wasn't being commissioned. She's a judge. It's her job. If a Muslim wanted a job at a butcher shop, that Muslim would have to be willing to handle haram meat as part of their job. You don't commission a butcher shop and you don't commission a judge.
  Also, a marriage is a legal contract. This has nothing to do with art.
  
  Judges are allowed to perform weddings. It's not part of the job. Their job managing court proceedings. If you want one to show up to your wedding on the weekend you usually have to pay them.
- Per the NY bar, “you can get married by signing a written contract of marriage witnessed by two or more people. The contract must be acknowledged in front of a New York judge by the parties and witnesses.” Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
  If you’re not willing to do part of a job (officiating at all NY-legal marriages) then don’t take the job. Or quit when you realize you won’t do the job.
  
  Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
  Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn't just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.
  
  As I said if it was simply signing the next paper in the stack you'd be right. But she was asked to perform the wedding. That's something else entirely.
- Officiating a marriage is a “performance”.
  What kind of bullshit argument is this? Taking the job is agreeing to make those "performances", as they are part of the job.
  Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds?
  What nonsense is this? Obviously he shouldn't have taken that commission!! If he does, it's perfectly reasonable to sue him for not doing the job he accepted and was paid for.
  If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different.
  Nope, same thing. Part of the job.
  Part of American democracy is that religion and governance is kept separate. What she is doing is undermining the democracy she works for. To favor her religious beliefs instead.
  Unfortunately that is all to common for Christians, and they feel entitled to shit on everybody else.
  But would you also find it OK if she issued death penalties for working on a Saturday? Should we just accept that?
  Religion has no place in public service, and it's particularly despicable that a judge doesn't respect that. Her job is literally to uphold the law.
  
  Those performances are notpart of the job. The job allows judges to perform weddings. It doesn't require it. They have actual trials to run most of the time. That's their job. They do weddings on their off hours, their iwn time. If you want one to perform your wedding you have to ask, and usually pay them to show up. Even when doing them at the courthouse, they're donating their time. It might even be tax right off.
- Crushingly idiotic take. You can argue that almost anything done with professional competence is a form of art. It's her fucking job. She can live her life according to her backward, dark age mythology on her own time.
  
  Judges do perform weddings on their own time. They are allowed to do them. It's not part if their day to day 10 to 4 job.
- Nothin but a lil troll
  
  I wish I had realized that sooner. Also, I see they pulled the "some of my best friends are homos" card.
- Additional issue - how can I trust a judge not to be biased if they can’t get past their own bigotry and do part of the job they were hired to do?
  
  They aren't hired to perform weddings. They are hired to judge court proceedings. As a judge, they're granted the ability to perform weddings on their own time. But that's up to them.
- You either need to do more or less drugs. I'm not sure which.
- Wasted time reading this thread, you write with the arrogance of the uninformed convinced it's deep thinking.

99 comments