Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Tisme · 13 April 2018

Value Collector said:
I would say yes, But they aren't compelled to be a JP, when you are a JP you should put Australian Law ahead of your religious law when it comes to army out your JP duty, other wise you probably shouldn't be a JP to begin with.

item 1.1 and 4.4 in the code of conduct I linked definitely makes it sound like they can't refuse service.

If a document is lawful under the law, and the government requires a JP to sign it, the JP must carry out their duties, otherwise they breach the code of conduct and may lose their right to JP status.

That's just arguing that legislation is always right, in this case retrospective. Grandfather clauses were promised as part of the marketing campaign by the incumbent PM, but he betrayed that assurance in face of his segmentation voter strategy at the 11th hour.

Fooling most of the people some of the time is as old as Moses, but it doesn't mean it should not be railed against. The 80/20 always comes into play when the public acquiesce, the few more determined correct the errors...I am one of those 20% and not ashamed to admit it. IMO there's something weak about people who lay down misere in face of majority lost civil rights.

A glaring example of simpletons in play has been highlighted over the last few days on this very forum. You can't tell me you get a feeling of validation from that?

bellenuit · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
One thing I can't brag about is being silly in the context you are inferring.

And you find it satisfactory that individuals are subject at best to Dickensian rules, but in reality draconian laws? All the work of e,g, the labour movement ridding itself of the yolk of peasant oppression, only to be depreciated and handed back to to the powerful few ...well done on promoting social and legal devolution at the expense of those who value freedom of association, speech, opinion and human error.

Dickensian rules! Being required to fulfil the terms of your employment or the position you hold? What hyperbolic nonsense. Considering a JP is a volunteer position that in generally unpaid, then it is not like having the position taken away from you means you end up in the poor house.

Tisme · 13 April 2018

bellenuit said:
Dickensian rules! Being required to fulfil the terms of your employment or the position you hold? What hyperbolic nonsense. Considering a JP is a volunteer position that in generally unpaid, then it is not like having the position taken away from you means you end up in the poor house.

Insults aside, you are answering your own discord and agreeing with my contention.

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
That's just arguing that legislation is always right, in this case retrospective. Grandfather clauses were promised as part of the marketing campaign by the incumbent PM, but he betrayed that assurance in face of his segmentation voter strategy at the 11th hour.

Fooling most of the people some of the time is as old as Moses, but it doesn't mean it should not be railed against. The 80/20 always comes into play when the public acquiesce, the few more determined correct the errors...I am one of those 20% and not ashamed to admit it. IMO there's something weak about people who lay down misere in face of majority lost civil rights.

A glaring example of simpletons in play has been highlighted over the last few days on this very forum. You can't tell me you get a feeling of validation from that?

What does any of that have to do with JPs carrying out their duties.

The code of conduct was around before same sex marriage, JPs have always been required to carry out their duties regardless of their personal views.

eg, A JP can not refuse to witness a liquor license regardless of their views on alcohol, they aren't there to judge the contract, just witness the signatures, They aren't even required to read the contracts they witness, just check the ID of the people signing and witness it.

Tisme · 13 April 2018

Value Collector said:
What does any of that have to do with JPs carrying out their duties.

The code of conduct was around before same sex marriage, JPs have always been required to carry out their duties regardless of their personal views.

eg, A JP can not refuse to witness a liquor license regardless of their views on alcohol, they aren't there to judge the contract, just witness the signatures, They aren't even required to read the contracts they witness, just check the ID of the people signing and witness it.

They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.

If you read my posts properly, without getting pent up, that is the crux of my question ... in effect are they compelled to justify not being available for matters between gay people? Simplistically for people like bas, are there two sets of rules for SSM and TM?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.

.

This is the oath JPs have taken,

“... I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will.”

Refusing to witness a same sex marriage breaches multiple parts of that oath.

eg,

I will do right to all manner of people, (refusing to do your duty because of the peoples sexuality)

after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales (refusing to witness a lawful contract)

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.

.

This is the oath they have taken,

“... I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will.”

Refusing to witness a same sex marriage breaches multiple parts of that oath.

eg,

I will do right to all manner of people, (refusing to do your duty because of the peoples sexuality)

after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales (refusing to witness a lawful contract)

Tisme · 13 April 2018

Value Collector said:
This is the oath JPs have taken,

“... I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will.”

Refusing to witness a same sex marriage breaches multiple parts of that oath.

eg,

I will do right to all manner of people, (refusing to do your duty because of the peoples sexuality)

after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales (refusing to witness a lawful contract)

That's not what I was driving at. Of course they have to demonstrate even handedness, but will they be exposed to undue scrutiny and justification if they were to refuse a task that they deemed did not meet the relevant criteria.

Will they have to answer to various HRC and Racial vilification jurisdictions ... you betcha they will and the role of JP integrity will disappear to make way for gratuitous appeasement ..... it's a give.

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
That's not what I was driving at. Of course they have to demonstrate even handedness, but will they be exposed to undue scrutiny and justification if they were to refuse a task that they deemed did not meet the relevant criteria.

Will they have to answer to various HRC and Racial vilification jurisdictions ... you betcha they will and the role of JP integrity will disappear to make way for gratuitous appeasement ..... it's a give.

If they are breaching their code of conduct yes.

Basically they can't refuse anyone,

Tisme · 13 April 2018

Value Collector said:
If they are breaching their code of conduct yes.

Basically they can't refuse anyone,

JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.

bellenuit · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
Insults aside, you are answering your own discord and agreeing with my contention.

I think you have your knickers in a twist with that statement.

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.

have you read their code of conduct?

Value Collector · 13 April 2018

Tisme said:
JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.

Nope, I just looked it up for you.

Item 3 and 14 the Queensland Jp code of conduct is,

14. JPs and Cdecs shall administer the law as it stands, with no right to decline to act because of personally held views about particular legislation.

3. JPs and Cdecs shall not act with bias, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, malice and ill will. They shall pursue the principles of equity and social justice as consistent criteria in all their dealings with the community.

Tisme · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
have you read their code of conduct?

Sure have.

Tisme · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
Nope, I just looked it up for you.

Item 3 and 14 the Queensland Jp code of conduct is,

14. JPs and Cdecs shall administer the law as it stands, with no right to decline to act because of personally held views about particular legislation.

3. JPs and Cdecs shall not act with bias, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, malice and ill will. They shall pursue the principles of equity and social justice as consistent criteria in all their dealings with the community.

Read the code again in the context of this conversation

Tisme · 14 April 2018

bellenuit said:
I think you have your knickers in a twist with that statement.

I don't think so, as a matter of fact I no I don't.

Value Collector · 14 April 2018

Tisme said:
Read the code again in the context of this conversation

Read item 14 again in context of this conversation, it’s very clear.

Tisme · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
Read item 14 again in context of this conversation, it’s very clear.

We're getting nowhere on this so lets just see how our predictions unravel over time.

Tisme · 14 April 2018

Conventional marriage rates declined by ~16% in the 20 years ending 2016.

All things considered, if marriage was a corporation, would you take a short position or a put option ?

basilio · 14 April 2018

Still out poof bashing Tisme ? Can't stand the thought that gay people who love each other can in 2018 be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.

Just poisonous rubbish repeated and regurgited as nauseam.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Yes

No

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Have courage, and be kind.

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency