It's only a requirement as a vestigial remainder from religion, since all they can do are ceremonies. Legally it realy is nothing more than a contract, and could be treated as such.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not really. Because the law gives them quasi common-carrier protections. So they can't be held liable by the courts.
That made sense at the time; When the feed was just a simple reverse chronology of whatever you decided to subscribe to. But now, they actually decide what you see and don't. The laws need to catch up.
Centralized, engagement-driven, advertisement financed, social media, is the internet's greatest mistake.
Prior to that shit, the internet was pretty great. The fediverse is way to fix much of it.
To be clear the last ban was a ByteDance ban, not a TicTok ban. If ByteDance sells off it's portion of TikTok, TikTok would be able to remain.
But in this case, the Section 230 needs to re-visited. It was written before social networks started algorithmically deciding what to show people. It needs to be adapted so these companies can be held liable for the content they "recommend" to users. Once they can be sued for their algorithm's decisions, those algorithms will magically get better. Or at least less harmful.
It's only a requirement as a vestigial remainder from religion, since all they can do are ceremonies. Legally it realy is nothing more than a contract, and could be treated as such.