Judge who wouldn't marry same sex couples for religious reasons, suspended for 3 years without pay.

[Mimy]

“The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday took the unusual step of suspending a sitting state court judge – Vance Day of Salem – for three years.The high court found that Day…committed “willful misconduct” and made “willful misstatements” to investigators to cover up the truth.

Day acted with prejudice against same-sex couples by deciding he wouldn’t marry them and he instructed his staff to employ a scheme to avoid “public detection” of his plan, the Supreme Court said.

“We conclude that a lengthy suspension is required, to preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the court’s opinion said.

Day’s pattern of making “false statements” suggests that he “is not trustworthy,” the court said.

In a written statement through his attorney, Day said he was heartened that the Supreme Court didn’t terminate his judgeship but saddened about the suspension. Day and his legal team are contemplating an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision, however, drew praise from others.

“A judge is a public official, not a priest, and is required to perform the duties of the office without bias or prejudice,“ said Ethan Rice, an attorney for New York-based Lambda Legal. The nonprofit organization supports the rights of the LGBT community.

…a three-year suspension is a grave dishonor in the legal profession and he won’t be able to run for re-election during that time. He also won’t be paid for the remainder of his term.

Going forward, the Oregon State Bar could seek to have Day disbarred as a lawyer or otherwise disciplined. Day has been fighting accusations of judicial unfitness since as early as 2013.

The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability recommended Day’s removal from office in a scathing report in January 2016. The commission found that he had “engaged in a pattern of dishonesty” to hide a wide array of misdeeds.

The Supreme Court has the power to punish judges who it finds in violation of professional codes of conduct. The punishment in Day’s case could have been as light as a public reprimand or severe as removal from office.“

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/03/oregon_supreme_court_xxxx_judg.html

 

[Midnighter]

Isn't that just divine?

[kimi]

The judge forgets that no one is above the law. Lol. He needs to go get a job as an angel 😁🙄

[Mimy]

Or a priest lol. A public officer that doesn't know his job 😏

[MENA]

But three years with out pay? That's alot.

 

 

[Hawken]

Well, its a bit much. And i think getting punished for standing by your beliefs must suck. But I understand that he is expected to put his bias aside when practicing the law. If this were his personal business, it would be different.

Lord knows if I were a judge and a brother and sister came to me to be married, irrespective of what the law says, there shan't be any wedding. Not by me anyway.

[Mimy]

15 hours ago, Hawken said:

And i think getting punished for standing by your beliefs must suck

He wasn't punished for his beliefs but for violating the professional code of conduct. He'd had still be punish even if he practice in his own firm. 

As an accountant, and assuming I'm still a Muslim, I have no right to refuse auditing the account, prepare financial statements or tax assessment of a liquor company because of my beliefs regardless of whether I practice independently in my firm or with the civil service. Even if that state is predominantly Muslims, as long as the country isn't a theocratic one, my beliefs is inconsequential. Where Professional code of conduct comes in conflict with personal beliefs/prejudices, the code prevails. 

Religious people or rather people with extreme views/beliefs should stay away from professions that will require them to perform tasks that are contrary to their beliefs. 

[Mimy]

15 hours ago, Hawken said:

Lord knows if I were a judge and a brother and sister came to me to be married, irrespective of what the law says, there shan't be any wedding. Not by me anyway.

@Hawken, why will you refuse that? 

Will you also want us to respect/condones the belief that says homosexuals be thrown off from roof tops? 

[Hawken]

13 hours ago, Gimbiyya said:

@Hawken, why will you refuse that? 

Will you also want us to respect/condones the belief that says homosexuals be thrown off from roof tops? 

Come on, are you really comparing killing someone to refusing them services? Services they can get some place else. Another life? Not very likely.

14 hours ago, Gimbiyya said:

He wasn't punished for his beliefs but for violating the professional code of conduct. He'd had still be punish even if he practice in his own firm.

The law is a funny thing. But seeing as he is an embodiment of the law, he should have known better than to discriminate. You can't be a judge and then cherry pick. Tough luck.

However, as a business owner I reserve the right to refuse services to anyone. Yes, there are discriminatory laws that say I cannot refuse to offer services on some grounds. But its very easy for me to argue that offering them services goes against my belief or religion. I do have the right to practice my religion don't I? I could even argue that having them in my establishment made my other customers uncomfortable. And if the services denied are in no way life saving and could easily be gotten some place else, I have a good case in court.

Look, it doesn't feel good to be denied services because you are you. But how about the business owner?

[Mimy]

The laws were not meant to discriminate really. More like to ensure a unified basis where everyone can keep their beliefs aside and interact with everyone professionally. Without these laws, practicing some of these professions will be so problematic. Having lawyers who wouldn't wed homosexuals, An accountant who wouldn't audit liquor companies, A Doctor who won't perform an abortion (in the case where it's legal)... On bases of beliefs, is actually not good for business and the fact that, there are countless of these opposing beliefs. Allowing all to interfere will be chaotic.

There are lots of informal businesses that are free from such regulations. Where business owners are free to choose who to render their services to and who not to. People that love to protect their beliefs can simply identify with such businesses. Problem solved. 

On 5/10/2018 at 8:45 AM, Hawken said:

Look, it doesn't feel good to be denied services because you are you. But how about the business owner?

Really. I know how this feels. I encountered this recently. Business owners unlike customers have the choice to go for those less regulated services they can render and leave the secular ones, so they can protect thier beliefs. Hence, why the law is particularly about customers.

[Hawken]

Yep. Problem solved. But its not going to happen. A gifted doctor/lawyer/accountant etc is not going to choose another career path simply because he may or may not have to compromise his beliefs in the course of duty.

So long as the services isn't life saving (because life over everything), I see no logical reason why I can't deny services when I dim fit.

Meanwhile, why aren't clubs and some lounges been sued for only letting pretty women and rich men into their establishment? Isn't that discrimination against the ugly and poor?

Meanwhile what happens when you get bounced from club 1? You carry yourself to club 2. Its not even hard @Gimbiyya

[dequeen]

Gray areas....... *sighs*

[Mimy]

Lol