Summary
Syracuse City Court Judge Felicia Pitts Davis refused to officiate a same-sex wedding, citing religious beliefs.
Another judge, Mary Anne Doherty, performed the ceremony.
Pitts Davis’ actions, considered discriminatory under New York judicial ethics and the Marriage Equality Act, are under review by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
She’s a public servant. If she won’t serve the public, then she can GTFO.
These religious nutjobs like to living and choose what parts of the Bible they’ll follow when it’s convenient. Apply their Christian principles to lending money.
Pretty weird for the judge to let their shitty religion decide how love works between two consenting adults.
Its not weird at all, religious people often use their beliefs to avoid doing their fucking job, whist also judging you.
Okay… My religion says I can’t make my quota?.. I get fired. Public fucking servant?! That’s tax dollars ffs!
under review by the state commission on judicial conduct.
I’m sure the finger wagging they’ll give her will be very firm.
That is a lot of Davises
Sounds like Felicia Pitts Davis needs to be removed from office.
deleted by creator
If your “faith” prevents you from doing your public service job, get a different job.
Separation of church and state!
Also get a different faith.
It’s so weird to see when I see members of one marginalized group further marginalizing another marginalized group rather than having solidarity.
2 women who marched for racial justice now will get to deliver it as Syracuse City Court judges
Shadia Tadros, 39, a first-generation Arab-American, and Felicia Pitts Davis, 52, a Black woman with parents from the Deep South, say they are arriving with a mandate: The status quo is over.
In the year of marches to address systemic racism in the justice system, they stand with the peaceful protesters. They marched, too.
Tadros and Davis — who point out they are different people with different backgrounds — share some goals on how they want to change the justice system.
Absolutely.
Is she doing it because she is Christian, because then she should also know the Bible endorses slavery.
It’s insane that people still hold any value to that old piece of shit book. Also remember to stone your neighbors if they are gathering wood on a Saturday.The Bible endorses abortion
Let’s not pretend most Christians have even read the Bible, let alone understand or follow it.
Yes absolutely, that’s the most crazy part. A method of abortion where the woman is at high risk of dying!
But that only “proves” she was guilty of adultery!Christians are insane IMO.
As a pro-choice guy, where in the Bible is this little gold nugget?
It’s true on a technicality. The idea was if a woman is accused of adultery, they had her drink magical abortion water, and it would only work if she had actually cheated.
I’m not sure what you mean “on a technicality” instead of merely “It is true”.
I’d say “technically” because there’s no such thing as magical water and because this is only a ceremony to give an appearance of leaving it up to divinity, not a way for people to actually have an abortion. This doesn’t look to me like it helps pro-choice arguments at all since anyone arguing the other side is going to be able to say, “See, it’s in God’s hands.”
Wow, so a biblical description to specifically cause an abortion in case of adultery, is not an argument for pro choice among Christians?
Just wow???
Numbers 5 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
It’s in response to a woman being unfaithful to her husband.
Of course, in reality the concoction does nothing, but the point of the Bible passage is literally an abortion.
Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
shit book
Deuteronomy 23:13
It’s less weird than you might imagine. Bigotry is interesting that way, especially when religion and worldview comes into play. Most religious folks that are anti-lgbt will decry other forms of bigotry.
Humans are consistently inconsistent this way. 😏
It’s so telling that these religious nut jobs never use their “deeply held beliefs” to feed, house, comfort, protect, and uplift those they are charged with governing.
Food and house for me not thee
deleted by creator
Now someone trace back which republican donor group is propping her up to use this as fodder to ride up to the corrupted Supreme Court?
This play is so obvious. The judge wants to be sued or reprimanded or removed to get the matter to the SCOTUS just so they can rule that gay people can’t get married if any official involved in the process objects on religious grounds.
That’s going to be tough even for this court. This doesn’t have any real bearing on obergefell.
You see, there’s you’re problem, you’re operating as if society hasn’t already fucking collapsed. It’s a common coping tactic - keep pretending it’s just another Tuesday while the walls collapse around you.
looks at roe
looks at Thomas’ opinions used by Cannon
Yea, I think it’ll be pretty easy for them.
Overturning it with a case where it’s relevant would be easy, this isn’t that case. This is about a state judge being expected to follow state laws. They would have to rule gay marriage is outright unconstitutional, which they didn’t even do for abortion.
And they’ll get a stern talking to.
Welcome back 2010
Officiating a marriage is a “performance”. A kind of art. It’s not substantially different than giving a speech, acting on stage, or playing music. And forcing people to perform something they don’t believe in, is wrong.
Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds? Would it be right to tell them they have to do it, because they chose to paint portraits for a living?
If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different. There is no art or creativity there. But telling somone they have to give a performance they aren’t comfortable with, is wrong. You don’t force actors to do love scenes against their will. This is substantially the same.
Nothin but a lil troll
I wish I had realized that sooner. Also, I see they pulled the “some of my best friends are homos” card.
Wasted time reading this thread, you write with the arrogance of the uninformed convinced it’s deep thinking.
Forcing someone? She’s employed in a public service position and paid by the public means she serves people in all aspects codified by the job. If you can’t, stop collecting your paycheck and go work in the private world, where you can deny anything you want because of your silly religious beliefs.
Judges are allowed to perform weddings. They aren’t required to. It’s not their job. You need to pay one, unless they’re willing to do it for free. But that’s up to them.
That is not true. It is literally their job. Where are you getting this idea that judges aren’t required to officiate weddings in New York? The article even says she’s violating discrimination laws.
I didn’t realize that was New York law.
I guess I disagree with it and suggest it’s a bad law.She could choose not to perform any weddings I guess.
Your disagreement is noted.
The rest of us think that judges should not be able to say no to a law just because they’re bigots.
And I have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing if the judge refused to marry an interracial heterosexual couple.
Thank you for registering my complaint.
I don’t think a judge should be able to say no to a law for any reason.
And I would absolutely say the same. Even for a hetrosexual homoracial couple. (Is homoracial a word?) I’d say the same if the judge didn’t like that the couple wore sneakers into the court. It doesn’t matter the reason. Nobody should be required to create any kind of art, they disagree with.
Which is why the Judge should stop performing weddings at all. That may be her only legal option.
Yeah, well maybe she should have thought about that when she married the heterosexual couple first and then refused to do it for the queer couple, showing it was basic discrimination.
This isn’t rocket science.
deleted by creator
Just wanted to let you know that your argument is about as pedantic and nebulous as it gets. Surgeons perform surgery. As in, a surgeons job is to operate on a patient. Is that art? Come on now. The judge is not putting on a fucking act, she is doing a job. Her religion should play no part in her role as a public servant. She can go eat a bag of dicks.
By the sound of it, she was the on-duty judge at city hall. It was a public service because it’s the most basic kind of legal marriage, a courthouse marriage. There is barely any ceremony or performance, and lots of people do it prior to the real ceremony because it is considered a formality.
Why shouldn’t a public servant who is assigned that duty be required to follow through? I understand not wanting to do it if it’s a whole ordeal, but if this is the bare minimum required to formalize a marriage, should that not always be available to all people regardless of their race, sex, etc?
It should be available to everyone. It shouldn’t even be a ceremony. Just file the paperwork. It’s only a contract after all.
If it was her assignment that day, and part of her job, signing the paperwork is all that she should be expected or required to do. Performing a ceremony would be too much to require I think.
For fuck’s sake… performing the ceremony is literally her job.
The tiniest bit of searching would have told you this before you started acting like a legal authority.
The ceremony aspect of marriage is not just a ceremony, it’s a requirement. Asking the basic questions is part of the court procedure, it’s what makes an officiant different than a notary.
She refused to sign the paper, essentially.
No. A priest, sure. They should only offer religious marriage to those who conform to the religion, whatever it is.
State licensing of the relationship, if offered at all, needs to be offered without discrimination. That is separation of church and state. An official of the state must officiate according to the law, not their own personal beliefs.
Agreed. But the performance of a ceremony shouldn’t be needed at all by the state.
And in this case it almost isn’t. She could have simply been a silent witness to vows, and signed the form.
She wasn’t being commissioned. She’s a judge. It’s her job. If a Muslim wanted a job at a butcher shop, that Muslim would have to be willing to handle haram meat as part of their job. You don’t commission a butcher shop and you don’t commission a judge.
Also, a marriage is a legal contract. This has nothing to do with art.
Judges are allowed to perform weddings. It’s not part of the job. Their job managing court proceedings. If you want one to show up to your wedding on the weekend you usually have to pay them.
That is simply not true in New York and I have no idea why you are talking about this like you’re some authority.
I was a wedding photographer in New York, 13 years ago. So yah. Respect my authoritay!
How does that in any way make you a legal expert? I did a voice-over for a video for the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency about nuclear power plant regulations. Do you know what I know about nuclear power plants or regulations? Not a fucking thing. And I would never claim to have some insight into the law just because my job involved being in proximity to legal language.
You weren’t even a wedding photographer there when it was legal for gay people to be married. That happened in 2015.
This is not a good look for you.
How does staying at a Holiday Inn Express make somone a surgeon?
Got it. You’re a troll. Sorry I wasted my time.
This was a court proceeding, look at the actual article. The marriage happened in court.
Not everything happening in a court is a court proceding. It’s just a building where the judge happens to work, making it easy for them.
The point is that it’s part of standard process and procedure, and she made an off-duty judge come in on her day off to do it instead.
It’s an asshole move. She should not be a public servant if she intends to hold up proceedings based on her beliefs. Especially one with authority like a judges.
Per the NY bar, “you can get married by signing a written contract of marriage witnessed by two or more people. The contract must be acknowledged in front of a New York judge by the parties and witnesses.” Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
If you’re not willing to do part of a job (officiating at all NY-legal marriages) then don’t take the job. Or quit when you realize you won’t do the job.
Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?
Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn’t just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.
Yes, because in order for the marriage to happen, you need an officiant to ask some questions of both parties and confirm that they know what they signed and that it was all above board. That is not a performance, that is standard court procedure and the minimum requirement to get married.
As I said if it was simply signing the next paper in the stack you’d be right. But she was asked to perform the wedding. That’s something else entirely.
Officiating a marriage is a “performance”.
What kind of bullshit argument is this? Taking the job is agreeing to make those “performances”, as they are part of the job.
Would it be right to commission a Muslim painter to paint Mohammed, then sue them when they refuse on religious grounds?
What nonsense is this? Obviously he shouldn’t have taken that commission!! If he does, it’s perfectly reasonable to sue him for not doing the job he accepted and was paid for.
If it was simply signing another document on a stack with a dozen others, that would be different.
Nope, same thing. Part of the job.
Part of American democracy is that religion and governance is kept separate. What she is doing is undermining the democracy she works for. To favor her religious beliefs instead.
Unfortunately that is all to common for Christians, and they feel entitled to shit on everybody else.
But would you also find it OK if she issued death penalties for working on a Saturday? Should we just accept that?
Religion has no place in public service, and it’s particularly despicable that a judge doesn’t respect that. Her job is literally to uphold the law.Those performances are notpart of the job. The job allows judges to perform weddings. It doesn’t require it. They have actual trials to run most of the time. That’s their job. They do weddings on their off hours, their iwn time. If you want one to perform your wedding you have to ask, and usually pay them to show up. Even when doing them at the courthouse, they’re donating their time. It might even be tax right off.
So hilariously wrong it hurts.
Crushingly idiotic take. You can argue that almost anything done with professional competence is a form of art. It’s her fucking job. She can live her life according to her backward, dark age mythology on her own time.
Judges do perform weddings on their own time. They are allowed to do them. It’s not part if their day to day 10 to 4 job.
You are partially correct. Judges are allowed to perform marriages in their off hours as they are ordained to do so.
Big HOWEVER here…
Courthouse weddings are an offered service of the state. These judges are officially on the clock to perform these services which are booked through government infrastructure meaning that when they are performing this service they do so as government employees operating on Government funding. This is provided by the Government as a means to make marriage accessible to all protected legally marriagable couples. When a judge is engaged this way this is specifically what they are being paid by the government to employ their time. They cannot spend their time on other matters.
Judges do perform weddings on their own time.
No, they perform them during business hours.
They are allowed to do them. It’s not part if their day to day 10 to 4 job
Yes, it actually is.
Additional issue - how can I trust a judge not to be biased if they can’t get past their own bigotry and do part of the job they were hired to do?
They aren’t hired to perform weddings. They are hired to judge court proceedings. As a judge, they’re granted the ability to perform weddings on their own time. But that’s up to them.
Ok, so you don’t know ny state law at all. Cool!
Edit: for anyone else who doesn’t know ny state law and didn’t want to read the article to read how she violated it: “Judges are authorized, but not obligated, to perform marriages. Judges who choose to perform marriages may not unlawfully discriminate when deciding which couples they will marry.” As she married a hetero couple right before them and then walked out in the middle of her shift when it was this couple’s turn, there’s going to need to be clearly documented extenuating circumstances for this to have been anything but a violation of her duty.
You either need to do more or less drugs. I’m not sure which.
