Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings
Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings
She was reprimanded for only officiating straight people's marriages. Now she says the Supreme Court supports her...
"She was told she violated state rules about judicial impartiality because her refusal to treat LGBTQ+ people equally cast “doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.” "
That's the other major issue here. By refusing to officiate same-sex weddings she is saying that she cannot be impartial on an actual court cases brought before her if they involve an LGBTQ person.
She shouldn't be a judge at all. Of course, Texas is one of only a few states where judges are elected, so you'll get crazy QAnon judges if enough psychos show up to the polls.
I didn't even read that far but that sums up my thoughts. If she takes issues with LGBTQ+ people as an officiant, then what's to say it doesn't when she presides over a court case?
Like I don't think any self-respecting couple would want to force an unwilling officiant to wed them, for such an occasion you'd want someone there that wants to do it, right? But her unwillingness to wed people really isn't the problem here.
I think if someone is getting a judge to officiate a wedding, they're not doing it in a ceremony, but in a perfunctory way, at the courthouse. They literally just want to make the union legal. Which it is, even in Texas, so this judge has no standing to refuse.
I thought this already came up when that woman in Kentucky refused to sign marriage licenses for gay people, and it was ruled that while she didn't have to personally sign it, if she refused it was up to her to find someone to do it instead of her.
Texas is also the only state where you can pick your judge. Don't like the judge in your district? Just take half a day's drive to the Panhandle for a more conservative judge.
Pretty sure that would apply to personal business and not you know, elected officials.
Resign.
The court also said the decision only applied to a narrow selection of businesses that were related to creative expression… you’d think a judge would have noticed that.
They are well aware of this, but they don’t care about hypocrisy or reasonableness. They’re doing this to see how far they can go.
I tend to suspect she is trying to get up to the SC on the back of 303, to then offer the Psycho Six the opportunity to either extend 303, or, in the alternative, certify an even juicier basis for discrimination, in the form of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Yeah, officiating a wedding is acting on behalf of the state to certify a marriage, it’s not expressive content and forcing an official to do isn’t compelled speech. Creative LLC doesn’t apply here, at all.
You'd think a Judge would know the text of the 14th amendment, but this is Texas, after all.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably stand by her bigotry and refuse to enforce the constitution that they've turned into birdcage liner in the name of Republican Jesus.
The latest Supreme Court ruling on whether you had to serve customers whose message you disagreed with even if it is a message related to a protected class, was actually relatively narrow in scope. Unfortunately, the media did a bad job of reporting the actual opinion rather than the multiple procedural problems related to the case that should have stopped it dead in the water.
I do agree with the slippery slope reporting that likely future rulings may actually allow for refusal of service even if the customer is from a protected class unfortunately.
The right wing media didn't do a bad job reporting it, they used it to push a wider narrative deliberately
At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tribunal of Six figured out some mental gymnastics that let them declare the 14th amendment unconstitutional.
They’re doing something worse: They will bend it to exclusively service the rights of the white Christian community. Look at how much of their Harvard/UNC decision was couched as the logical outcome of black civil rights.
Agreed. And I don't get how Bostock vs Clayton County doesn't trump all this bullshit? It says that protection for sex also covers gender identity and sexual orientation because those 2 things are in-part defined by sex already.
Wouldn't that case mean all these anti-gay, anti-trans laws are already unconstitutional?
Your stare decisis and precedent have no power here.
This court has thrown out standing, precedent, and even basic honesty about relevant core facts and history. The Psycho Six are effectively now our House of Lords, and they will rule over us for decades, effectively without restraint.
They can arrogate power at their leisure, abrogate the expressed will of the people on a whim, and alternately cripple and turbocharge the executive branch, based solely on who is president.
So stupid. The idea that a public servant could refuse service to someone due to their personal views should immediately trigger their firing.
By the same token, can a black police officer refuse to arrest someone of their own race? Can a tax auditor refuse to investigate a pedo if they have those same beliefs? Can a permit office refuse to let a Catholic Church add on a wing?
I was thinking a judge in another state could just stop officiating weddings from straight couples if they so desired. I bet that would make headlines and prompt some reactionary legislation.
Lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes
Zombies. I seen it before in rats, now I seen it in men...
She thinks she's performing a religious ceremony in marrying people at the courthouse. I wonder what other duties of hers she pulls her religion into.
She's free to step down at anytime, then she'll never have to worry about any marriages.
…I hate that I can’t leave this backwards-ass state…
Lots of jobs in Colorado, but it is most expensive to live here. Texas sucks but everything is super cheap for obvious reasons.
Super cheap?! My apartment complex just raised my rent by $200 for the third year in a row. Groceries are more expensive. I can’t afford new clothes!
Cheap he says. Get a load of this guy…
Would this mean that any case she has presided over in the past that involved an lgbtq+ person could be thrown out now for prejudice?
If I were gay and had been in her court for as much as a traffic ticket, I'd be petitioning to get it thrown out.
She has nothing to worry about. Why would anyone WANT her to officiate in any capacity, anyway?
huh