Posted on 04/22/2015 8:30:58 AM PDT by xzins
(Courthouse News) – Two former magistrates sued the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts claiming it violated their religious rights by forcing them to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or face discipline, termination, and even criminal prosecution.
Gilbert Breedlove and Thomas Holland claim in a lawsuit filed in the Wake County Superior Court that they resigned from their positions after the AOC and its director, John Smith, made no attempt to accommodate their religious beliefs while attempting to comply with the change in law on same-sex marriage.
Instead, they say, the AOC forced them to choose between “taking an act that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs or being criminally prosecuted.”
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
Faced with these options, Breedlove and Holland resigned “under duress.” They are now asking the court to reinstate them to their jobs.
Holland lives in Graham County, N.C. and served as a magistrate for almost 24 years until he resigned on November 1, 2014. In the lawsuit he says he professes and practices his religion as a Christian and has done so for all of his adult life. He was raised a Baptist and “believes that same-sex marriage violates the principles and edicts of his religion.” Therefore, “he sincerely believes that he cannot maintain his religious beliefs and simultaneously participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony.”
Breedlove, a former Marine, lives in Swain County, N.C. and served as a magistrate for about 24 years until he resigned on October 21, 2014. He too is a Christian and is a member of the New Testament Independent Missionary Baptist Church. Breedlove believes that participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony places him “at odds with his religious beliefs.”
After the federal courts issued an order declaring that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina not to recognize same-sex marriages, the AOC issued a statement that said, “Magistrates should begin immediately conducting marriages of all couples presenting a marriage license issued by the Register of Deeds.”
“A failure to do so would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the federal ruling,” Smith wrote, “and would constitute a violation of the oath and a failure to perform a duty of the office. For these reasons, all magistrates must treat same-sex marriages for which a marriage license has been issued by the Register of Deeds the same way that marriages between a man and a woman are scheduled and conducted.”
Smith said that if a magistrate refuses to perform same-sex marriages, then he or she could be suspended, removed from office, and potentially face criminal charges. Smith said the reason for the magistrate’s removal didn’t matter. In other words, there were no exemptions offered in the AOC’s policy for a magistrate to avoid participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony for any reason, religious or otherwise, the lawsuit says.
In a letter to N.C. Senator Phil Berger on November 5, 2014, Smith stated that “the AOC would not accommodate any magistrate who felt compelled to refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony for religious reasons and that any magistrate who attempted to avoid participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony could face civil liability.”
According to the complaint, Smith, “basically said that if a magistrate has a religious objection to participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony, the magistrate should resign.”
The N.C. Constitution, however, states that “all persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. . . . No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Holland and Breedlove’s faith is based on a “foundational belief that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman.” Therefore, according to the complaint, they “cannot participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony because doing so would force them to act in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The plaintiffs asked the AOC to accommodate their religious beliefs in a way that would not force them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or resigning their position as a magistrate. The AOC, however, “made no effort to attempt to offer some alternative that would address Plaintiffs’ request.”
“Defendants have an obligation to perform their duties in a manner consistent with the North Carolina Constitution including not interfering with Plaintiffs’ rights protected by Article I, Section 13 and not discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion as prohibited by Article I, Section 19,” the complaint says.
As a result of the AOC’s refusal to accommodate, Holland and Breedlove were forced to resign. They now seek a declaration that the defendants’ direction and policy discriminated against them and violated Article I, Sections 13 and 19 of the N.C. Constitution.
Holland and Breedlove seek a determination by the court that they should be reinstated to their positions as magistrates with all back pay and lost benefits. They also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Smith and the AOC, and anyone acting in or on their behalf, from mandating that Holland and Breedlove must participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony without as much as an attempt to offer accommodation for them.
Plaintiffs’ lead counsel is Ellis Boyle of Raleigh, N.C.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/04/13/judges-say-gay-marriage-forced-them-out.htm
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
> The whole underlying agenda of the left is to destroy Christian influence in the world.
Christianity is an obstacle to evildoers ergo they must be removed. Why? Allah said so.
I'm a lawyer. I advocate on behalf of my clients. If my client believes X, then for the purpose of my representation, I believe (and advocate for) X. Even if I personally believe Y.
And if your job of 20+ years, all of a sudden, forces you to violate your own conscience, then THEY (the employer) should make accommodations for you, NOT the other way around. If they refuse to accommodate, then they are violating your religious rights!
That, I agree with. They should have accomodated.
exactly, I’m not entirely sure what the law is for judges, but I believe they ARE allowed to recuse themselves from certain cases based on their own personal beliefs or involvement or personal connections in certain issues. Catholic judges I believe can recuse themselves from cases involving abortion
Note on the first case that a judge’s ruling may be brought into question IF he finds that gay folks should not be married because the judge is religious-
It is NOT true that judges must be impartial- there are MANY instances where a judge must recuse themselves based on personal belief
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a d epositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
[[I’m a lawyer. I advocate on behalf of my clients. If my client believes X, then for the purpose of my representation, I believe (and advocate for) X. Even if I personally believe Y. ]]
Ok- you have taken a PERSONAL stand on the issue- however, even lawyers are free to decline a case based on their belief, or involvement that might affect the case one way or the other- infact, a biased lawyer is required to recuse themselves from a case when it is clear they can not objectively defend their client- No?
by biased lawyer, I mean a lawyer who’s personal belief, or personal involvement in a case might affect an outcome, or even be perceived as affecting an outcome- just like the judges, if there is any chance that someone might perceive that a bias held by a judge or lawyer might affect the outcome, a Mistrial can be granted no?
“When you see these things come to pass, look up, for your redemption is nigh”
Horray for liberty, and for taking the Lt. Gov’s blueprint on how to fight this!!
You nailed it right there!
Leftist atheism (or communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism or whatever else anyone wants to call it) IS a religion. It first appeared in the Garden of Eden, spread through the ancient world and has thrived in various forms ever since. The current embodiment began in the French Revolution (as best I can tell), Darwin adapted science to it, Marx codified it, Hitler, Stalin and Mao weaponized it and the current regime wants to fulfill Satan's agenda.
To pretend that forcing physicians to perform abortions and forcing judges, magistrates and clergy to validate sodomy is anything other than a religion is an insult to basic logic. This is no different from ISIS going into a village and beheading anyone who refuses to embrace Islam.
Yes. In private practice, a lawyer can (and in some cases must) refuse to take a case based on a conflict with their personal beliefs. Government lawyers, as a practical matter, can't really do that. An ADA who does not beleive that drugs should be illegal, for instance, cannot just opt out of any drug-related cases to which he is assigned. The only way a prosecutor in that situation can recuse himself is to resign.
The first element would satisfy all government needs for the registration of the relationship in question. The second element would independently satisfy the moral, ethical, and social needs of the couple and the person performing the religious ceremony.
End of drill.
I agree. They should be permitted to recuse themselves. Although, since this is a requirement to conduct a civil wedding as part of a job description, then how does recusal apply to an act? Although, I certainly agree that a recusal is an accommodation to a judge with a conflict.
I think the two judges over many years know their own laws in NC much more than you or I.
There is no test for ones own religious beliefs at all.
” To pretend that forcing physicians to perform abortions and forcing judges, magistrates and clergy to validate sodomy is anything other than a religion is an insult to basic logic. “
Unfortunately, logic and common sense are in short supply these days. Our current SCOTUS is corrupt as well (see Obamacare opinion as a recent example)
For someone who claims to be a lawyer then I would expect you to spell believe correctly.
You also seem to have a personal issue in this. Also you state for Govt lawyers. “as a practical matter, can’t really do that”
For a lawyer I would expect you be to more specific and to the point. What does they can’t really do that? Does it state in the NC law that or in the Constitution?
Then who decides who gets what in a divorce and what authority do they have to make the party oblige by it?
Just out of curiosity, since “a lawyer can refuse to take a case...based on...beliefs”, why do judges (lawyers almost always) find it odd that a baker would want to refuse a case based on beliefs?
Very short supply.
Obama has had years now of stacking the courts with his activist judges and we will feel the effects for decades because of this.
WOW extremely very good question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.