She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A judge who cannot separate their religious bias of what is right and wrong from their role as a judge (the impartial arbiter of law as set forth through the political process), isn’t just saying the separation of church and state shouldn’t apply to marriage. They’re also saying they cannot legitimately sit as a judge because they cannot keep personal bias separate from their role as a fair and neutral arbiter. She’s telling on herself.
What a B. Well just boycott working at straight weddings and then nobody will have one. Well we will cause we’ll host our own and they will be marvelous while theirs will look right out of a dollar tree and ugly bridal dresses
For some reason my eyes jumped from
What a B. Well
straight to
Well we will cause we’ll
and I thought I was losing it for a moment, lol
Ah yes Texas true believers in state’s rights
Didn’t the Supreme Court literally just decline to hear Kim Davis’ case?
These fucking people will not give up.
It was a stunt so the next time they can say yes, just like with Roe v Wade.
yeah, they don’t want clerks to have rights that they reserve for judges alone
“Conservatives” are mentally ill, mind your own fucking business you Isis wannabes
Let’s just do away with all marriage unless it’s an old man and a child. Repubs will stop complaining and then maybe we can focus on policy that actually helps people. I’m being sarcastic, of course. That wouldn’t change shit except for letting more old men molest little girls. Which is happening anyway. I hate it all.
old *person
Am I a bad person for kinda wanting this to happen so I can go to my gay cousin Trump lover and say I told you so?
you need some hyphens in there because i can’t tell if you’re in west virginia or not
Yes but its understandable.
Bit choosy isn’t she. What about the subordinate to men part of Christianity? If she is a true believer, she needs to be a good little girl, quit her job and go home.
A judge. Someone who is meant to uphold law and the constitution, has a problem separating her religion from the state.
The sad thing is, this is not a new problem. Worse: she might get her way.
“As a xtian…the rules don’t apply to ME! Because I’m so very fucking special!”
I’m so sick of this line of “reasoning” from these people.
Honestly, laws like the bill of rights are needed to protect us from Christians.
Well, the founders definitely knew that. The Inquisition was still on in their lifetimes and many of them knew of the atrocities that xtians carried out on each other in the colonies.
Of course, lots of xtians will claim that there is no freedom FROM religion (just OF religion, LOL) and that the founders meant for this to be a xtian nation. Which is a nonsensical statement. What kind of “freedom” is it to only pick among various (Protestant) sects of xtianity? And why didn’t the founders make any mention of their precious Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution?
The first amendment requires freedom FROM religion, too. But warped mush brains like this so-called judge think the nation should not be secular, but instead should cater to special snowflakes like her, just because of her chosen lifestyle.
TIL the Spanish Inquisition only ended in 1834. Jfc.
Yeah, when today’s xtians act like the founders left their little book club out of the Constitution as some kind of “oversight” (if they even know or admit that fact at all) and that they all just assumed everyone was going to be some (Protestant) xtian as some kind of requirement to be a full citizen, they are skipping over quite a bit of context.
Of course the Inquisition was still a thing and certainly the horrible things xtians do to not only “unbelievers”, but to “heretics” (meaning xtians they disagree with over some bit of doctrine), was something the founders would have been keenly aware of.
You should be aware of what the inquisition actually was.
As a Christian, she chose the wrong job. She does not live in a theocracy.
Maybe not officially. Yet. But there’s definitely some handwriting beginning to appear on the wall.
We all knew this was next after Roe v. Wade. It will bring the evangelicals out to vote.
Well, the radical right wing, the “centrists”, and not a few so-called leftists were all declaring that anyone talking about Roe was just being hysterical, NBD, it will just “revert to the states” and it won’t happen anyway, etc.
And then 2022 rolled around. And during that ruling, it became very very clear that Trollito is an extremely angry activist judge who wants to roll back all of modernity.
How do you even become a State judge without knowing the US Constitution?
On the state level, a lot of judges are elected rather than appointed. So, sometimes a weesle gets far without having gone to law school. Texas is one of those states.
The same way you become president without knowing anything about civics
Corruption? Or faking it till they don’t need to like a lot of fascist now
Up until a decade ago the Constitution officially said nothing about gay marriage. Roe was precedent for half a century.
This individual is unqualified to be a judge. Perhaps a job in a church would suit her. You cannot belong to a cult and be unbiased. And christians are required by their religion, to be the most biased they can be, or burn in hell.
Christians and catholics are categorically unqualified to be judges. Their religion explicitly states that only God possesses the authority to judge the souls of others. It is outright heresy. Thankfully, we know what to do with heretics.
Bust out the pitchforks, gentlemen.
I’m gathering kindling for the pyre as we speak!
Abolish the abrahamic religions
Abolish the religions. Full stop. All of them. It’s time for mankind to pull its big being britches up and get to work bettering itself.
Completely agree. It’s disgusting.
Equality is disgusting?
It’s disgusting that she can’t separate her religion from her job. She shouldn’t be in that position then. I was agreeing with OP.
For what it’s worth, I read your reply like you meant it, but I see the ambiguity.
I see it now, but I didn’t when I posted it.
lol! What a zigzag in terms of up/downvotes. I read the original comment to mean that you sided with the piece of shit judge proposing this
Yeah, when I posted it, it was obvious to ME what I was talking about. I have since seen the ambiguity but it’s already there
deleted by creator
Love is disgusting?
