I somehow read this as disbarment and teleportation.
Hey there! Just re-asking, in case nobody saw the question what with the slap fight that I posted in between.
On re-read my example was poor. I just can’t see criminal charges in this case. Should this buffoon be removed from office? Sure. But criminal charges seem absurd.
What is so difficult to understand about how it’s illegal for a government official to deny people their civil rights? If he were the minister of a church who wouldn’t marry them, it wouldn’t be illegal nor should it be. This is different. He is a government employee.
Because none of the civil rights laws that he would be charged with violating deal with a right of interracial marriage. That was decided by the Supreme Court and is not part of the legislative structure. When the 1870s and the 1950s and 60s civil rights laws were passed, these anti-miscegenation laws were still being enforced.
Plus, he didn’t “deny” anyone their rights. This couple is free to go to the next JP and get married. It’s a far cry from the 1945 Sheriff in rural Alabama arresting blacks trying to vote.
Well, technically, you’re right–none of those laws specifically refer to marriage. On the other hand, all of them refer to state action that is discriminating on the basis of race. That is exactly what the JP is doing.
Furthermore, loving v. virginia wasn’t actually interpreting a civil rights law. Something a little stronger. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Loving didn’t CREATE a right to interracial marriage. It recognized one. The Court concluded that the proper interpretation of the fourteenth amendment protected being discriminated against based on race–specifically in the context of marriage. So what’s really being violated here, at core, is the fourteenth amendment.
Their right is not to have the state treat them differently on account of their race. That is exactly what the JP did.
Well, in some places they are like a minor local judge. However I understand that most places that still have them nearly their only duty is to marry people. However[sup]2[/sup], Louisiana is unique so I have no idea in this case.
Yes he did. That the possibility exists to find someone else who will obey the law does not change this.
Which is plainly clear when you consider why I can’t set up a Whites Only diner and then claim to be in the clear because blacks can go to a diner down the street.
In his public capacity this officer denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution (as interpreted in Loving). This is pretty clearly a violation of the law cited by Oakminster and the officer should be subject to the penalties defined therein.
You’re failing pretty badly here. There does not need to be a right to interracial marriage. There’s a right to marriage, therefore he can’t deny that right to people based on their race. That’s what Loving v. Virginia is about. Get it now?
As detailed earlier, you’re wrong. You’re especially wrong if laws recognizing this right have been passed in the past 40 years.
One of my a friends suffered some discrimination in housing just the other day: a prospective landlady wanted to know what he looked like before she rented to him. By your logic, she didn’t deprive him of anything because he can rent from someone else - which of course is exactly what he’s going to do. But she still discriminated illegally and there are laws against it.
Bolding mine.
He must get divorced a lot. What a weird lifestyle. Usually when people come to my house I just offer them a beverage and such. I wonder what it is about marrying him that makes those black folks need to pee so bad?
Not only will we take away your privilege to practice law, but we’ll transport you onto a Klingon war vessel! 
It worked with the tribbles, didn’t it?
That’s awfully harsh on the Klingons, Polycarp. What did they ever do to deserve having this guy inflicted on them? 
What he left out was that he has two separate bathrooms. But they’re equal!
We got into this in some detail in the Pit thread, see the second page there, especially RNATB’s post here.
No I don’t. Loving struck down state anti-miscegenation laws. That’s why it is perfectly legal in all states for blacks and whites to intermarry. Check. This idiot JP didn’t tell this couple that they couldn’t get married in Louisiana. He said that HE would not marry them.
It is specifically against the law for a restaurant or hotel owner to deny service to blacks because of their race. I fail to see a similar law against elected officials refusing to perform marriage ceremonies.
Now, what I also do not get is how the laws that have been cited in this thread re: depriving a person of a right under color of authority, which were passed at a time when many state laws were being actively enforced against intermarriage can be used to prosecute a JP in Louisiana for not marrying an interracial couple.
That is surely not what the authors of the law intended as they knew that anti-miscegenation laws were on the books and being enforced, yet chose to not address those in the civil rights acts.
I’ve said that the guy should lose his JP-ship. What I don’t see is a criminal act on his part.
hee hee
That was good
Meh, I think the guy should be fired for violating the law. As for prosecution, I would leave that up to Law Enforcement to decide.
Right. And that’s a clear and unambiguous violation of their civil rights. He doesn’t get off the hook on the assumption that they can find someone else somewhere who’s willing to not break the law. He’s required, by law, to treat everyone who comes before him equally, regardless of their race. He did not do that. Therefore, he is in breach of the law.
It’s the same law. The law that says you can’t refuse to serve someone in a restaurant for being black also says you can can’t refuse to serve them in a courthouse. The law does not specifically mention courthouses or restaurants: it just says you can’t do it, period.
The fact that many states were in violation of this law for some time after it was passed does not alter the meaning of the law. Anyway, in your first paragraph, you acknowledged that it’s against the law to prevent mixed race couples from marrying, so I’m not sure what you’re even talking about here. The 14th says you can’t treat people differently because of the color of their skin. For a long time, a bunch of states ignored this law when it came to (among a great number of other things) issuing marriage licenses. Finally, in Loving v. Virigina, the court got around to pointing out that, yes, the 14th amendment means marriage, too.
If it’s not a criminal act, on what basis do you think he should lose his JP-ship? If he hasn’t a broken a law, what is he being punished for?
Could someone clarify something? In the first version of the incident, it says he refused to marry a gay couple. Later he talks about race? Was it an interracial gay couple or am I missing something?