"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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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
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.