Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
Thanks Tree16Thanks

Thread: State Pays $300K to Magistrate Who Quit Over Gay Marriage

  1. #1
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,311
    Thanks
    3001

    From
    Washington state

    State Pays $300K to Magistrate Who Quit Over Gay Marriage

    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) North Carolina is paying a $300,000 legal settlement to a former magistrate who resigned under duress because she said her religious beliefs prevented her from marrying gay couples.The settlement finalized in late January and made public Wednesday includes about $210,000 in lost pay and retirement benefits, in addition to attorneys' fees.Gayle Myrick was a Union County magistrate who resigned in 2014 after federal courts made gay marriage legal in North Carolina. State court officials then issued guidelines that local magistrates who perform marriages should comply with the federal ruling.After preparing a resignation letter, Myrick met with her supervisors in the local court system and asked if an accommodation could be made to allow her to work without performing gay marriages. The local judge who oversaw her said the state guidelines didn't allow such flexibility and accepted her resignation, according to legal documents filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    An administrative law judge working on behalf of the commission ruled last year that Myrick's employer failed to accommodate her religious beliefs as required under federal employment law. The judge, Michael Devine, found that her departure was not truly voluntary because declining to perform gay marriages would have subjected her to removal.Myrick issued a statement Wednesday that she believes the case could have been resolved within her office if she'd been allowed a schedule change to let her avoid performing marriages."I have always wanted to find a way to protect everyone's dignity," she said.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-carolina/articles/2018-02-07/state-pays-300k-to-magistrate-who-refused-to-marry-gays
    Look whats changing, religious beliefs are accommodated for this judge. Why, I have been told religious beliefs are a privilege not a right. The first amendment is finally working.


  2. #2
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    14,070
    Thanks
    13958

    From
    Oregon
    I don’t think that you read your own article. She didn’t win because of her religious beliefs or because the courts were saying discrimination should be allowed. She won the case because the state wouldn’t reasonably accommodate her schedule.

    The woman went about it in the right way. Her supervisor and her came up with a solution where her schedule wouldn’t marry anyone, so she would discriminate against anyone. The state made a mistake by refusing this request, and they copped to it

    However, in a ruling that just became final, a federal judge ruled that Gayle shouldn’t have had to face this difficult choice. The judge said that when the state government refused to even consider the many solutions available, solutions offered to other employees, it violated the law. The government later admitted that it had treated Gayle unfairly, and it just finalized a substantial settlement to make Gayle whole and give back the pay and retirement benefits that were unjustly taken from her.
    Sorry, this isn’t the great victory you think it is. Discrimination still isn’t allowed.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,311
    Thanks
    3001

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunchboxxy View Post
    I don’t think that you read your own article. She didn’t win because of her religious beliefs or because the courts were saying discrimination should be allowed. She won the case because the state wouldn’t reasonably accommodate her schedule.

    The woman went about it in the right way. Her supervisor and her came up with a solution where her schedule wouldn’t marry anyone, so she would discriminate against anyone. The state made a mistake by refusing this request, and they copped to it



    Sorry, this isn’t the great victory you think it is. Discrimination still isn’t allowed.
    Actually discrimination wasn't allowed towards this Christian judge, her work should have accommodated her. They suggested there was nothing they could do for her even though she tried to adjust her schedule so it wouldn't conflict with her beliefs. Its a victory for religious rights because a work place has to accommodate because of your beliefs

  4. #4
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    14,070
    Thanks
    13958

    From
    Oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Actually discrimination wasn't allowed towards this Christian judge, her work should have accommodated her. They suggested there was nothing they could do for her even though she tried to adjust her schedule so it wouldn't conflict with her beliefs. Its a victory for religious rights because a work place has to accommodate because of your beliefs
    They already had to. There are already laws supporting reasonable accommodation. The judge ruled the state didn’t follow them. This isn’t a landmark decision. It’s a settlement.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,311
    Thanks
    3001

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunchboxxy View Post
    They already had to. There are already laws supporting reasonable accommodation. The judge ruled the state didn’t follow them. This isn’t a landmark decision. It’s a settlement.
    right, its a win for religious rights. Sends a signal, don't discriminate against religious judges or any religious person for any reason.

  6. #6
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    14,070
    Thanks
    13958

    From
    Oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    right, its a win for religious rights. Sends a signal, don't discriminate against religious judges or any religious person for any reason.
    Uh no. Definitely not what it said.

  7. #7
    Moderator jacobfitcher's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,577
    Thanks
    6402

    From
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    right, its a win for religious rights. Sends a signal, don't discriminate against religious judges or any religious person for any reason.
    No. Not "any" reason. But, any "reasonable" reason.

  8. #8
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,043
    Thanks
    30730

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Actually discrimination wasn't allowed towards this Christian judge, her work should have accommodated her. They suggested there was nothing they could do for her even though she tried to adjust her schedule so it wouldn't conflict with her beliefs. Its a victory for religious rights because a work place has to accommodate because of your beliefs
    That is not correct. The worker did not peruse her case to allow her the accommodation and continue to work. She instead took the cash payout.

    The State was willing to pay off the squeaky wheel.

  9. #9
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,043
    Thanks
    30730

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    right, its a win for religious rights. Sends a signal, don't discriminate against religious judges or any religious person for any reason.
    Where are all the other Christian judges claiming their religious right?

    Are there so few Christian judges? ...or do Christian judges understand that the law is not based on a judge's personal religious beliefs but instead on the Rule of Law and the will of the People?
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 8th May 2018 at 04:03 AM.

  10. #10
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,043
    Thanks
    30730

    From
    SWUSA
    Clearly States need to remove a judge or pastor to make the determination of who can marry. If a couple meet the state's requirements, then all should be needed is for the couple to file a form and pay a fee.

    A judge or a pastor should have no say in the State's law.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 13th February 2018, 08:12 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22nd November 2017, 08:45 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 5th May 2013, 09:19 AM
  4. Washington State seventh state to legalize Same Sex Marriage
    By Osiris in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th February 2012, 03:36 AM
  5. Washington State Gets It Right On Gay Marriage
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 8th February 2012, 10:53 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed