"Does the judge have the right to pick and choose who he marries? If he does, then he can't be denied his rights, as lame as his reasoning is.
As a pastor, I should be able to choose if I will marry a couple. Of course, I could get sued in civil court if I refuse, but it's still my choice. I wonder if it's different for the judge because he's a civil servant, though."
I think there's a difference. As a pastor, your authority comes from the church, and you are obligated to follow the church's rules. Thus, if a couple outside of your church's rules wants to marry, then you may choose to deny them the spiritual blessing of the church.
A judge, however, gains his authority from the nation state, and is obligated to follow the nation state's rules. He cannot choose to enforce only the rules he likes, or to break the rules of the state. Imagine if a pastor decided that he would no longer pray with people who had a criminal record. Such discrimination surely goes against the ideal of forgiveness that the church espouses. If a pastor refused to follow the church's ideals on such an issue, surely someone would tell him so. In the same way, if a judge refuses to enforce the laws of the nation state, he should be censured.
My understanding is that it is a completely false that a pastor, acting as a pastor and not an official of the state, may be sued and lose for refusing to marry anyone.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense, but if they can sue McDonalds for making coffee too hot, common sense may not win the day.
ReplyDelete#1) This is about the federal constitution's freedom of religion clause. There has been, to date, no single case in which a religious official was sued over refusing to marry someone (in our 200+ years as a country). Furthermore, this line of thinking is exactly the type of exaggerated claims people tend to make when denying same-sex marriage benefits.
ReplyDelete#2) The McDonalds case was about how the woman, upon spilling her coffee, received nearly instantaneous 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, lesser burns over 16%. She was in the hospital for the next 8 days undergoing skin grafting, as well as another two years of further medical treatment afterwards. They managed to show that McDonalds kept the coffee at this temperature knowing that it was 1) undrinkable at this temperature, and 2) that it was dangerous at this temperature (causing 3rd degree burns in as little as 12 seconds of contact), and 3) that their own research showed people would drink the coffee at this temperature. Furthermore, they showed that McDonalds had had over 700 previous incidents in which people had been burned by the coffee at this temperature, including one case in which they settled for over $500,000 (none of this prompted them to lower the temperature at all until they were sued in a public manner). It's not a frivolous case.
I agree with your number 1. Largely because... wouldn't you ask a clergy member you already know to marry you? One that would want you to be married?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the coffee case is legitimate yet. I got to sit in at a barista training at Peet's coffee in Oakland. Peet's gives customers the option of ordering coffee extra hot. Extra hot means, unsurprisingly, heating up the coffee to extremely hot temperatures, so that by the time the person's commute is done, it has cooled to a drinkable temperature. If you know you're carrying very hot coffee, be careful with it. Don't put it between your legs and drive.
The US is the most litigious country in the world. That's too litigious.
Or you could agree with me on the grounds that religious officials, when marrying people, are doing nothing other than talking in the eyes of the law. As in, them marrying people is the same as them giving sermons or just in general espousing their religious beliefs. And that the discussion of religious officials getting sued for not marrying people was invented by people who were for miscegenation laws, and now same-sex benefit laws. Statements that purport that religious officials can be sued for not marrying a couple (not marriage licenses, which are state sanctioned) to anyone should be summarily denounced as lies that serve only to limit civil rights of certain groups.
ReplyDeleteAnd on McDonalds, how is it too litigious? McDonalds willfully neglected the damage done by proper use of their product. It was a long-stasnding complaint they failed to address over 700 times. She didn't win the lawsuit because she put the coffee in her lap (jury said it was 20% her fault, anyway), she won the lawsuit because McDonalds knew it was a problem and did nothing about it. McDonalds made a cold calculation that it was less expensive to pay people off than to write on their cups: don't drink right away. Or to tell their cashiers: we made the coffee extra hot, don't drink it right away. It wouldn't have been a successful lawsuit if after the 30th complaint/lawsuit, McDonalds decided to enact those differences.Instead of the 700th. Are you really defending McDonalds here?
Also, what are you basing our country being too litigious on? I could agree in areas of intellectual property (something I've seen first hand). But to just off-hand say that America is too litigious seems unfounded, in the least. The consumer protections in this country are much worse than Europe, maybe we sue more because our companies put their consumers at much higher risk? And do you really think consumers sue corporations too much? Really? Consumers can only sue corporations when they find a legal practice willing to assume all the costs of litigation in what could amount to a multi-year legal process, in which no money is made until the end of the process. Lawyers will only take the cases they think they can win, and if they win, they might not even come close to recovering the costs of litigation. Meaning you might have been obviously fucked over by a company, but if either the company doesn't have deep pockets, or the case will take too long to prosecute, no one will take the case. How, exactly, does our current legal practice promote an environment in which consumers are too litigious?
i hesitate to respond because these comments keep getting longer an longer and longer. i'm not trying to limit anyone's civil rights. or defend large corporations. or blame consumers for the things the corporations do.
ReplyDeletemy bad for responding to your first comment. it was a failed joke.