Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings - eviltoast
  • effingjoe@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.