182

Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 1 year ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Motavader@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago

"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.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's fair, but even in such a scenario I wouldn't want to deal with someone so openly hostile towards me, just because I'm a connoisseur of dick.

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I'm not gay, nor have I ever been discriminated against for something inherent to who I am as a person, so maybe I lack the perspective to even work it out hypothetically.

Either way, I agree with everyone pointing out that her inability to do her job without bias in this aspect definitely calls into question her ability to do it in the aspect of judging cases. And "calls into question" isn't really harsh enough-- it's proof positive that she can't be unbiased in a job that requires it.

[-] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think any self-respecting couple would want to force an unwilling officiant to wed them

If the only people who can perform weddings are clergy and elected officials, they can make it so there isn't anyone to perform same-sex weddings

[-] hotdaniel@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is what republican terrorists are hoping for when they pass these bills. They want to "activate" conservative christian extremists so that they deny services as a group.

Edit: pass bills, interpret laws

[-] joyjoy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that would apply to personal business and not you know, elected officials.

Resign.

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Granite@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] doricub@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

The right wing media didn't do a bad job reporting it, they used it to push a wider narrative deliberately

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Teh@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] Neato@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FellowEarthling@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes

[-] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Zombies. I seen it before in rats, now I seen it in men...

[-] ech@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

…I hate that I can’t leave this backwards-ass state…

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Lots of jobs in Colorado, but it is most expensive to live here. Texas sucks but everything is super cheap for obvious reasons.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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…

[-] Thepinyaroma@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

She's free to step down at anytime, then she'll never have to worry about any marriages.

[-] ThatGirlKylie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] buddhabound@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

huh

load more comments

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023

182 points (96.4% liked)

politics

18933 readers

3269 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News