186
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
186 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2385 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"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.
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.
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.