The Energon Pub

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:35 pm

I'm shocked and stunned by this one...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_ ... ial_rebuff

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.
AP

By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer Mary Foster, Associated Press Writer – 30 mins ago

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."

"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

(This version corrects the spelling of Schwartzmann.))

Wow... and this next quote's the best part.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

WTF?! WHAT?!? He's not a racist, but he doesn't believe in mixing the races? Uh... does he realize that most of America is comprised of people FROM mixed races?

"piles" of Black friends? That's the terminology he uses? Are you kidding me?! They use his bathroom?! He thinks that's a positive?

HEY GENIUS, JOIN US IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

You're a moron.

by **homelessjunkeon** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:29 pm

He's not a racist, but he doesn't believe in mixing the races?

I fail to see the implied inconsistency.
Historically, when offspring result from a mix of largely homogenous racial groups, neither group wishes to identify with that offspring, because they represent a foreign genetic interest.

HEY GENIUS, JOIN US IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

You're a moron.

This new-tolerance you're spouting is actually a pretty good argument against joining anyone in the 21st century.
The idea that this guy shouldn't be tolerated [ie: called a moron and accused of being backwards] because his opinions, deriving from his subjective experience of the world, are divergent from what you consider acceptable, is rather intolerant in itself. He at least shows no animosity towards others, rather he seems to be acting in what he considers the best interests of others.

If indeed he is misguided, is it not better to post something constructive, rather than attacking his character/intelligence?

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:37 pm

homelessjunkeon wrote:
He's not a racist, but he doesn't believe in mixing the races?

I fail to see the implied inconsistency.
Historically, when offspring result from a mix of largely homogenous racial groups, neither group wishes to identify with that offspring, because they represent a foreign genetic interest.

Keyword: Historically. Aren't we supposed to change in the here and now, from the past, to better the future?

homelessjunkeon wrote:
HEY GENIUS, JOIN US IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

You're a moron.

This new-tolerance you're spouting is actually a pretty good argument against joining anyone in the 21st century.
The idea that this guy shouldn't be tolerated [ie: called a moron and accused of being backwards] because his opinions, deriving from his subjective experience of the world, are divergent from what you consider acceptable, is rather intolerant in itself. He at least shows no animosity towards others, rather he seems to be acting in what he considers the best interests of others.

If indeed he is misguided, is it not better to post something constructive, rather than attacking his character/intelligence?

His terminology wasn't offputting in the least, to you? It sure bothered me. My cousin married a Black man and their children have friends in both races, and the neighborhood and community accept them as is.

He's not misguided, he's a moron. And if you read the article, clearly I'm not the only one who thinks he's wrong.

by **Bun-Bun** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:33 am

Autobot032 wrote:
homelessjunkeon wrote:
He's not a racist, but he doesn't believe in mixing the races?

I fail to see the implied inconsistency.
Historically, when offspring result from a mix of largely homogenous racial groups, neither group wishes to identify with that offspring, because they represent a foreign genetic interest.

Keyword: Historically. Aren't we supposed to change in the here and now, from the past, to better the future?

First of all your comment makes you seem naive to believe that things will be sunshine and lollipops just because of 'hope and change'.
HJ has a point, interracial children are not always welcomed with open arms by people who see race as a big deal. Ideally it would not make a difference to anyone what race(s) anybody is but unfortunately race-identity is still very prevalent.

Autobot032 wrote:
homelessjunkeon wrote:
HEY GENIUS, JOIN US IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

You're a moron.

This new-tolerance you're spouting is actually a pretty good argument against joining anyone in the 21st century.
The idea that this guy shouldn't be tolerated [ie: called a moron and accused of being backwards] because his opinions, deriving from his subjective experience of the world, are divergent from what you consider acceptable, is rather intolerant in itself. He at least shows no animosity towards others, rather he seems to be acting in what he considers the best interests of others.

If indeed he is misguided, is it not better to post something constructive, rather than attacking his character/intelligence?

His terminology wasn't offputting in the least, to you? It sure bothered me. My cousin married a Black man and their children have friends in both races, and the neighborhood and community accept them as is.
He's not misguided, he's a moron. And if you read the article, clearly I'm not the only one who thinks he's wrong.

I'm happy for your cousin and their family, I wish all interracial families the same happiness and acceptance... But my wishes don't shape reality.

I agree with HJ's statements, just because the guy doesn't share your way of thinking doesn't make him a moron.
I'm not up to date on my Louisiana law but I don't know that he did anything illegal, as he said, he didn't tell them they couldn't get married, just that he wouldn't do it... I think he's within his rights there, right or wrong.
Again as HJ pointed out the guy doesn't seem to display any malice, he is basing his decision off of his experience, it's just that in this case race is involved which is a sore spot at the moment.

I think that the fact that the woman involved is planning on mastering in 'Minority Politics' is telling... That to me says that the woman herself already very much sees things in a race-biased way and thus made her even more likely to see this guy as an evil hood wearing racist.

Personally I think the guy has the right not to marry anyone for any reason he thinks is a good one... whether or not it is a good one is obviously debatable, but the fact is the couple involved probably did not have any problem getting someone else to marry them, thus no harm, no foul.

News Credits: 1 · by **cybercat** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:26 pm

Two things:

People of a certain age DO remember when biracial children were treated very VERY badly all over America, not just in the South (nothing is quite so tiresome to me, honestly, as this 'oh, it's them Southern Rednecks who're racist and the rest of us are just peachy' notion). When I was very young, I dated a biracial man, who insisted on being called 'mulatto'. He said he wasn't black--that the black community had rejected him for his light skin--and he wasn't white--the white community rejected him for his features like his nose and his hair. He said as a mulatto, he was himself. He was pretty disgusted by the racial idiocy *on both sides*.

Now, let's look at President Obama. I'm not getting political, but how many times have you heard 'oh gee how great we have a *black* man as president!'? Only one thing wrong with that--he's not, technically, black. He's biracial. And honestly, in this country it's a much HUGER step to elect a biracial man to the White House than a black one.

But still, turning Obama into a 'black' man is actually pretty racist. In the Old South, people were judged by the 'contamination' of their blood--mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, etc. Turning a half-black man into a 'black man' is doing exactly the same thing--saying he's black, and picking one race over the other and adhering him to ONE heritage and not BOTH.

Other thing: My sister is orthodox Jewish. She believes in the sanctity of life. She is an anesthesiologist. She refuses to do abortion cases. There are plenty of other anesthesiologists who do not have her issue--so it's not like some poor woman won't get her D&C just because my sister refuses to do it. But...by this thinking, are we supposed to force my 'moron' sister for holding to her principles even though they're not sufficiently liberal and au courant and hip? Are you really saying that you would want to cause my sister psychic pain by forcing her to do something against her principles? Are you really implying anyone who doesn't follow the lockstep left wing agenda is a 'moron'? Me, I am ardently pro-choice, but I respect my sister enough to trust her to do what she feels is right. I would no sooner think of forcing my beliefs on her than forcing them on a stranger.

Now, yes, marriage isn't the same as abortion. I get that. But if this man feels THAT strongly about it, but all he wants to do is NOT have to perform the ceremony, why not let him be the way he is? My sister doesn't think abortion should be illegal--she just doesn't want to do them herself. This guy isn't saying, hey let's go burn down the houses of biracial families. He's saying I don't want to do this ceremony. There are plenty of other people who will perform the ceremony.

Seriously, this kind of discussion scares me, because I keep hearing, very faintly 're-education camps'. Let's just take all the people who feel differently about race, women's rights, gay rights, etc, and force them into reeducation.

HK. no one's asking you to friend this dude on facebook.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:45 pm

hellkitty wrote:Two things:

People of a certain age DO remember when biracial children were treated very VERY badly all over America, not just in the South (nothing is quite so tiresome to me, honestly, as this 'oh, it's them Southern Rednecks who're racist and the rest of us are just peachy' notion). When I was very young, I dated a biracial man, who insisted on being called 'mulatto'. He said he wasn't black--that the black community had rejected him for his light skin--and he wasn't white--the white community rejected him for his features like his nose and his hair. He said as a mulatto, he was himself. He was pretty disgusted by the racial idiocy *on both sides*.

Now, let's look at President Obama. I'm not getting political, but how many times have you heard 'oh gee how great we have a *black* man as president!'? Only one thing wrong with that--he's not, technically, black. He's biracial. And honestly, in this country it's a much HUGER step to elect a biracial man to the White House than a black one.

But still, turning Obama into a 'black' man is actually pretty racist. In the Old South, people were judged by the 'contamination' of their blood--mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, etc. Turning a half-black man into a 'black man' is doing exactly the same thing--saying he's black, and picking one race over the other and adhering him to ONE heritage and not BOTH.

Other thing: My sister is orthodox Jewish. She believes in the sanctity of life. She is an anesthesiologist. She refuses to do abortion cases. There are plenty of other anesthesiologists who do not have her issue--so it's not like some poor woman won't get her D&C just because my sister refuses to do it. But...by this thinking, are we supposed to force my 'moron' sister for holding to her principles even though they're not sufficiently liberal and au courant and hip? Are you really saying that you would want to cause my sister psychic pain by forcing her to do something against her principles? Are you really implying anyone who doesn't follow the lockstep left wing agenda is a 'moron'? Me, I am ardently pro-choice, but I respect my sister enough to trust her to do what she feels is right. I would no sooner think of forcing my beliefs on her than forcing them on a stranger.

Now, yes, marriage isn't the same as abortion. I get that. But if this man feels THAT strongly about it, but all he wants to do is NOT have to perform the ceremony, why not let him be the way he is? My sister doesn't think abortion should be illegal--she just doesn't want to do them herself. This guy isn't saying, hey let's go burn down the houses of biracial families. He's saying I don't want to do this ceremony. There are plenty of other people who will perform the ceremony.

Seriously, this kind of discussion scares me, because I keep hearing, very faintly 're-education camps'. Let's just take all the people who feel differently about race, women's rights, gay rights, etc, and force them into reeducation.

HK. no one's asking you to friend this dude on facebook.

I'm not calling for a re-education camp. Not at all. But here's a question for you...

This guy pulls this off and causes a stir, and perhaps in time it'll be forgotten. But what about the next person who see that he got away with it and pulls the same thing? And then the next one, and so on...

All it takes is one person to get the ball rolling. Wanting that to change isn't re-educating, it's doing what's right.

My family's make up consists of: Irish, Scottish, French, Italian, German, and a very small amount of Czech. I'm sure your family, and other posters here, have the same situation, maybe not the same races, but the same melting pot.

Would you be here if someone stopped your Parents or Grandparents from marrying because they weren't of the same race? Possibly, but there would've been drastic changes, or maybe you wouldn't exist at all.

And yes, I realize it's one guy, and one guy only, and that they can be married in the presence of another, but what if this causes a wildfire of "I don't want to do it because..."? And it will spread like wildfire.

And it is obviously illegal. If he found legitimate cause for them not to be wed, that's one thing, but because he doesn't want to mix the races, and then using their children as an excuse? C'mon. That doesn't piss you off, a little?

I'm not saying that people can't feel the way they do. I'm not saying people should be forced into anything. The problem is, when he took that role, he made promises that go against his actions.

So today it's not letting them get married, what's next? Incarcerating an 18 year old for life because he stole a pack of cigarettes and needs to be made an example of? (Yes, I realize I'm reaching here, but my point does have some merit.)

And the controversy is just getting started: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_ ... ial_rebuff

by **Bun-Bun** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:34 am

This guy pulls this off and causes a stir, and perhaps in time it'll be forgotten. But what about the next person who see that he got away with it and pulls the same thing? And then the next one, and so on...

Personally if they all have their reasons and no malice, I have no problem with that.
Just like HK's example of her sister, she has her reasons not to want to participate in abortions and maybe that will give someone else who has the same objections the courage to stand up and say they don't want to do it either... so what. There's always going to be enough people willing to to do the job that it's not going to mater if some people don't.
You seem to assume that just because one person does something everyone else just going to follow suit because they can?

And it is obviously illegal. If he found legitimate cause for them not to be wed, that's one thing, but because he doesn't want to mix the races, and then using their children as an excuse? C'mon. That doesn't piss you off, a little?

No it doesn't.
The guy acted on his conscience. He didn't really do them any harm except for the inconvenience of having to find someone else to do the ceremony.

I'm not saying that people can't feel the way they do. I'm not saying people should be forced into anything. The problem is, when he took that role, he made promises that go against his actions.

It sounds like you are saying he should be forced. Either that or leave his job.

So today it's not letting them get married, what's next? Incarcerating an 18 year old for life because he stole a pack of cigarettes and needs to be made an example of? (Yes, I realize I'm reaching here, but my point does have some merit.)

I'm not sure it does.
The two cases are not the same at all.
The guy who refused to marry the couple did not prevent them from getting married... in your example the judge is the only one that can effect this 18 year olds sentence unless it's appealed (and it most likely would be)

And the controversy is just getting started: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_ ... ial_rebuff

Your link didn't work for me, but I have no doubt that it is.
Before the end you will probably get your way. Jackson and Sharpton will be there soon with their bus load of outraged followers and the guy will be run out of town, labeled a racist, and have his life ruined.
Hope that makes you feel better.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:54 pm

Bun-Bun wrote:*snip*

I finally paid attention and read your signature. It fully explains why I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, and I have no patience for that.

You people keep mentioning Abortion, but here's the problem with your logic, while Abortions are legal, not every Doctor can do them. That's why we have Abortion Doctors and clinics. And while it's legal, it doesn't have to be performed by any and all doctors.

The difference here is, Interracial marriages ARE legal, and discrimination is not. His train of thought goes right in line with discrimination.

There's a big difference between discrimination and abortion. It's legal to get married, it's legal to get an abortion, but the J.P. doesn't have the right to back out, especially when the couple hasn't broken any laws. The doctor has the right to back out because of their oath. They promised to do no harm.

This J.P. did harm. He hurt these people for no good reason, disrupted their lives (albeit temporarily), and he DID break the law. It IS discrimination.

What I find absolutely disgusting here, is that if this J.P. was Black and turned down the same couple because one of them is White...people would be up in arms, screaming and yelling, and so on and so forth. I know it.

I smell a bit of hypocrisy in these responses here.

I'm done beating my head against the wall. Have at it, thread's all your's.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:27 pm

Autobot032 wrote:
Bun-Bun wrote:*snip*

I finally paid attention and read your signature. It fully explains why I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, and I have no patience for that.

This comment was un-necessary, I suggest you have a read of point 1 and accept that some people have an opinion that differes from yours.

You people keep mentioning Abortion, but here's the problem with your logic, while Abortions are legal, not every Doctor can do them. That's why we have Abortion Doctors and clinics. And while it's legal, it doesn't have to be performed by any and all doctors.

The difference here is, Interracial marriages ARE legal, and discrimination is not. His train of thought goes right in line with discrimination.

There's a big difference between discrimination and abortion. It's legal to get married, it's legal to get an abortion, but the J.P. doesn't have the right to back out, especially when the couple hasn't broken any laws. The doctor has the right to back out because of their oath. They promised to do no harm.

This J.P. did harm. He hurt these people for no good reason, disrupted their lives (albeit temporarily), and he DID break the law. It IS discrimination.

Right, i'm not sure of the exact rules in the U.S. but my father is a Justice of the Peace and I just checked with him on things. Under Australian law they don't do marriages, they are also under law, entitled to opt to perform their requests of their services.

Where this guy went wrong is he explained WHY he didn't want to perform the marriage. Someone can correct me on this but i'm under the assumption that he, like a Doctor (hence the drawn paralell) has the right to choose NOT to perform something they believe goes against their personal beliefs.

In a way it is discrimination, but in a way it's not. He said he didn't want to perform the marriage because he didn't believe in inter-racial marriage, that's a personal discriminatory belief. He did NOT say he is legally against inter-racial marriages, and that is NOT discriminatory.

His biggest mistake was explaining things, and by doing so all he achieved was to make himself look like an idiot.

What I find absolutely disgusting here, is that if this J.P. was Black and turned down the same couple because one of them is White...people would be up in arms, screaming and yelling, and so on and so forth. I know it.

I smell a bit of hypocrisy in these responses here.

There is no hypocrisy in an opinion differing from yours. You're stretching beyond your limit here and you're sounding like this is the first step on the road to racial war.

I'm done beating my head against the wall. Have at it, thread's all your's.

Again I sugguest you read point 1 and learn to respect that opinions will differ from yours.

by **homelessjunkeon** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:42 pm

Autobot032 wrote:The difference here is, Interracial marriages ARE legal, and discrimination is not. His train of thought goes right in line with discrimination.

I'm interested to see your definition of discrimination as it pertains to this case, as I believe you're applying it in too general a sense.

If we force this man to perform the ceremony then we're discriminating against him, by abridging his freedom.
If it were the case that nobody else could perform the ceremony, then the organisation for which he works would certainly want to review their employment criteria, but I believe such measures should be a last resort, not the first.

I'm reminded of a similar case where a woman was refused the morning-after pill by a muslim chemist here in Britain. He declined to serve her, stating that it conflicted with his beliefs.
He referred to her GP who provided her with the contraceptive, similar to the outcome of this case:

news.yahoo.com wrote:Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

There's a big difference between discrimination and abortion. It's legal to get married, it's legal to get an abortion, but the J.P. doesn't have the right to back out, especially when the couple hasn't broken any laws. The doctor has the right to back out because of their oath. They promised to do no harm.

The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, it's merely a formality, and a statement of intention on the part of the doctor. Similar to a religion or more pertinently personal moral convictions.
People's freedom to refuse service [where a reasonable alternative exists] should not be limited by arbitrary measures based on subjective opinions.

This J.P. did harm. He hurt these people for no good reason, disrupted their lives (albeit temporarily), and he DID break the law. It IS discrimination.

You're conflating a minor inconvenience with doing people harm.
The government installs traffic lights that hold people [collectively] up for thousands of hours a year. They cost them money [most leave the engine running while waiting for the lights] and time, and they arbitrarily discriminate against traffic coming from different directions, but we don't say they've harmed anyone because it isn't harm in any meaningful sense.

Likewise Bardwell has not harmed this couple, he advised them that he would not perform the ceremony himself and referred them to someone else who would.

In the same way the government installs traffic lights to prevent harm coming to people from traffic accidents, Bardwell believes that he is removing himself from the process of [potentially] harming children by denying them a collective identity, by not marrying their parents.

If that is illegal, then I believe the law is wrong and should be changed. Negative freedom is the basis of all modern liberal democracies.

What I find absolutely disgusting here, is that if this J.P. was Black and turned down the same couple because one of them is White...people would be up in arms, screaming and yelling, and so on and so forth. I know it.

I smell a bit of hypocrisy in these responses here.

What makes you think that?
I would still disagree with the decision not to marry the couple, but I would still respect the right of an individual to self-determination and the expression of their religion and/or principles.

The assumption of hypocrisy on the basis of the ethnicity of those involved in the article, and therefore of racism, is itself racist.
I don't know whether that's what you actually believe or not, but the implication that we would necessarily see things differently if the ethnicities of those involved were different is not only an unfair assumption about our characters, but also our ethnicities.

I'll come out and say I'm a white european man, but I'll wager you didn't know that before you made the previous comment.
If I were more sensitive I'd almost think it was a smear to discredit the opinions of those who disagree with you, but, as in any civilised conversation, I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. A courtesy I would be most appreciative of receiving in return.

I'm done beating my head against the wall. Have at it, thread's all your's.

People will disagree with you about a lot of things, that's life. The hallmark of tolerance is an acceptance of differences, especially of opinion. You can't convert everyone to your way of thinking, for a plethora of reasons. If you're not taking part in this type of conversation for your own benefit then you're likely to become frustrated. Believe me, I've been there.

News Credits: 104 · by **Cyber Bishop** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:53 am

Autobot032 Burn is correct, others have opinions and they differ from yours. This doe snot mean that theirs is wrong.
This does not mean that yours are right either as it is a matter of opinion

I suggest that you read the board rules again
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14626

1. No flaming, trolling, harassing, or baiting other guests.
Flaming should be self evident, trolling means to make posts or threads for the intended purpose of starting an argument, while baiting is any post intended to make another user resort to flaming. Harassment means following a user or group of users around through multiple threads to flame them, bait them, or otherwise cause them to want to avoid the boards because of a user's actions towards them. If there is a discussion and there ends up some sort of disagreement on someones personal opinion, simply try and respect each others opinions without forcing them on others.

Example of a disagreement with opinions

Your reason for supporting your political view is not good because... is an ok statement.
If you believe that you suck and are stupid... is not an ok statement.

by **Just Negare** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:31 am

What a strange fellow indeed.

Firstly, even if there was some proof to the BS he's spouting about child concerns, he has no right to tell other people what to do - I mean, you Americans seem to be big on that one!

Secondly, that's partially racist as. I did have a giggle over how letting his black friends use his toilet made him a not-racist.

However, freedom must extend to all, not just the bi-racial couple, it must also extend to this chap who refuses to marry them, but he'd probably be under obligiation to "refer" them to someone who will marry them.

On a lighter note, I saw an amusing movie with Samuel L. Jackson about how a mixed couple moved in next door and he started tormenting them.

by **Just Negare** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:46 am

Autobot032 wrote:
You people keep mentioning Abortion, but here's the problem with your logic, while Abortions are legal, not every Doctor can do them. That's why we have Abortion Doctors and clinics. And while it's legal, it doesn't have to be performed by any and all doctors.

There's a joke, "what do you call the guy who finishes last in medical school? - an Abortionist".

Any idiot with an MD can do abortions, any moron can open a clinic.

And there's generally a rule that if a woman is in immediate, life threatening danger an abortion "must" be preformed. Essentially, they're not a difficult procedure to do, and there's talk in some countries of letting nurses do them - so, it is legal to override a doctor's conscience if the woman's life is immediate danger, and its gotta be like immediate and real, not some pathetic excuse to ram scissors in a foetus' skull.

There's a big difference between discrimination and abortion. It's legal to get married, it's legal to get an abortion, but the J.P. doesn't have the right to back out, especially when the couple hasn't broken any laws. The doctor has the right to back out because of their oath. They promised to do no harm.

Sadly, it has nothing to do with that. Doctors can back of out of abortions because of their personal beleifs, the "oath" has nothing to do with it, if it did, NO doctor would do abortions as all, generally all medical schools, have their doctors taking the oath at graduation as part of the ceremony.

As for the JP, it depends, mostly on his job description. Also, a lot has to do with personal and professional responsibility. If he had issue with interacial marriage, he has to understand that its his job to marry people, and chances are, in this day and age, in America, people might want to marry someone with a different skin colour. I mean, in New ZEaland we have "gay marriage" aka civil union and JPs can register to preside over this, the registration isn't because of any special requirement, but based on the JP's conscience - which, honestly, I find odd, as generally a JP will be someone of a civil and not religious mindset, as why else get a job where you perside over civil services and not religious ones?

This J.P. did harm. He hurt these people for no good reason, disrupted their lives (albeit temporarily), and he DID break the law. It IS discrimination.

I do agree with you, at the very least he could have given them some non-offensive excuse and gone and gotten another JP who would be more then happy. But sometimes, I have to wonder if he's just out for his 15 minutes for pulling this kind of stunt.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:35 am

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

"I'm not racist, I just don't think whites and blacks should marry each other. It's totally cool, though, because I have a bunch of black friends."

That's pretty much all I'm hearing. "Their kids would not be accepted" is about as valid an excuse as "their kids would be fifty-foot-tall lizard monsters."

by **Transfaner** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:09 pm

We live in a time were mixed children are looked upon much differently. Their black heritage accepts them more. Most whites still feels the same way though. Mostly because most mixed children show most of their skin color as predominantly black. I mean actual physical skin color, not attitude.