Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

1…7891012

Comments

  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    teaching him a lesson?

    i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.

    by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...

    :clap:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • TriumphantAngel
    TriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    AND ONE LAST TIME. I NEVER DEFENDED THIS IDIOT. I MERELY DON'T JUDGE AS QUICKLY AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO. WHICH MAKES YOU A HYPOCRITE IN THIS SITUATION.
    I wanted to know all of the facts before I jumped on the "racism" bandwagon, which you not only ride, but seem to drive.
    you said above that you never defended him. you defended him plenty. i don't care what you have said in your posts since then but don't say you didn't defend him when you clearly did. of course you could always admit you did initially defend him, and then researched the facts and decided you were wrong. that would work. just a thought of course.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    I'm about to get crucified, but I'll state my peace anyway. But I don't see how this guy can be labelled a racist. He doesn't think that races should mix.
    I disagree with him, but I don't think he is a racist. That's a bit strong of a word.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    let me just clear something up......I think this man is ignorant, but I still wouldn't call him a racist.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    To each their own, I say. But I don't call it racism.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    Everyone was calling him a racist, which I don't believe he is. He was wrong, but not a racist.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    Look at the definition and tell me what he did was racism. What he did was WRONG, but it wasn't racism. Sorry folks, but you are misdefining what racism is.

    then we had a little waah in the middle of it all..
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    and one last thing. I'm actually trying to have a civilized discussion, and some of you people are turning it into a schoolyard insult-fest. What gives? I don't agree with you so you have to resort to childish discrediting attempts at the person with this garbage?

    It's disgusting. :roll:

    I'm done with this thread. it's obvious some of you people can't have an adult conversation. And don't resort to the cliche "aw, he realizes he lost the argument, so he's leaving" crap. It's been said a thousand times before, and it's baseless, and most always uttered by the most immature.

    he's baaaaaaack.
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    Now I'm REALLY outta here.

    then we wanted to compare the topic to breeding of dogs....
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    Now, to get back to the topic, let me give you a hypothetical:

    A man owns two purebred dogs. He loves both dogs equally. Yet he doesn't want them to breed together, because he believes that they should stay within their breed. Is this man a breedist ( :lol: )? No, he wants both his dogs to breed, just not together. Does this mean he is disrespecting these dogs? Nope, he's looking out for what he believes is best for each of their future families. Do I agree with this dog-lover? Nope, because I could care less about breeds of dogs. And I think dogs should be able to f*** whoever they want! ;)

    This man acted outside of the law. He should be fired. But he is not racist with the facts that we know as reported by the media.

    now we're back to the dude is not a racist :roll:
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    The man simply, to my knowledge, has no prejudice against any race. He just doesn't think they should mix.

    ánd that's just a few.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    TriumphantAngel wrote:
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    of course you could always admit you did initially defend him, and then researched the facts and decided you were wrong.

    I still say I didn't defend him. I defended his right to his opinion, based on what I thought I knew at the time. But fine, we'll go your route so we can stop this nonsense.

    I INITIALLY DEFENDED HIM AND THEN RESEARCHED AND ADMITTED I WAS WRONG. (can we please move on now to the matter at hand?)

    to me (and to everone but you and gimme), that part of the discussion is dead. you people keep bringing it up when it was resolved about 4 pages ago. now we're talking about the right to sue someone for money they do/don't deserve.

    I'm NOT defending this guy. I'm against monetary compensation of ANY KIND IN ANY SITUATION unless there was some tangible monies lost by the plaintiff. To me it's that black and freakin' white.

    What money did these people lose? Did they miss work? Did they have hospital bills? NOPE.

    They didn't lose money. They shouldn't get money. Simple. You can't financially quantify a feeling being hurt.

    It IS that simple.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    damn, I love this thread... :lol:
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    teaching him a lesson?

    i sped the other day and the cop pulled me over. he started trying to write me a ticket but i told him that was stupid becos i clearly wasn't speeding anymore. he didn't buy it.

    by that token - everyone who speeds should get sued ... the JP has resigned - that's his "ticket" ...

    no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.
  • TriumphantAngel
    TriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    inmytree wrote:
    damn, I love this thread... :lol:
    I know I probably don't tell you this enough.... but sometimes inmytree, I really don't like or appreciate you. ;)
    i've spent quite a bit of time in this thead, and as the thread starter, i blame you!
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.

    uhhh ... ok ... what is a reasonable fee?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    no. we get points on our license which affect our driving privileges and insurance rates, which is a long term punishment/consequences akin to his resignation. then we pay the fee on top of that, and so can he.

    uhhh ... ok ... what is a reasonable fee?

    that's what the jury will decide.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    that's what the jury will decide.

    but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,593
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    g under p wrote:
    This case may get thrown out who knows but the message is sent to the powers that be or to any individuals who may want inflict their ways society should or should not conduct themselves. Basically discrimination is still a suitable offense right? Sad case that this kind of behavior towards people STILL exists in America today.

    Peace

    well ... therein lies the rub ... it appears too many things are sue-worthy ...

    at the end of the day - this was one JP abusing his power to support his prejudices vs. an entire organization or entity ... sadly, discrimination occurs on a daily basis around the world and ultimately will not change unless we educate people ... i find lawsuits like this excessive and ultimately counter to progress ...

    the JP violated this couple's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness because his personal biases got in the way. i am pretty certain that there is no established legal precedent on the books that states that it is ok to discriminate against a couple and deny them the right to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage based on race. there is no legal precedent that states whites must marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc. . who knows how many people that this JP denied marriage due to racism and his personal opinions? this could very well become a class action lawsuit if he denied a hundred couples this right. he was in office 20 something years, if he denied 4 couples a year over 25 years, then that is 100 couples. i think this could get pretty ugly, and this couple will take him to the cleaners. but then again it is the south, and racism is pretty much the norm in a lot of states down there so if they can't get a sympathetic jury then they might not get any damages.
    Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    that's what the jury will decide.

    but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?

    probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    that's what the jury will decide.

    but the jury doesn't decide what that fine is when you sped ... it's set for the most part ... what if i told you it would cost you $50,000 for your speeding ticket ... is that reasonable?

    probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.

    well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.

    well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...

    of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?

    that's entirely possible that they did that, thinking ahead of a civil lawsuit (kinda doubtful, but anything's possible), but in essence, it would be the same if you were in line at the grocery store, and one clerk said "I'm sorry, I don't serve Africans, but you can go see the clerk to my left, as they do".

    maybe he wasn't denying them anything per se, but it's still pretty offensive.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    soulsinging wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    probably not. but if the jury decides on something that is totally unreasonable, it will be overturned on appeal. and there are guidelines now in most jurisdictions that limit how much can be given out as punitive damages in tort claims like this. kinda like how a cop can decide whether or not he wants to just get you for speeding, or add a ticket for the busted tail light, missing seat belt, etc.

    well ... reasonable is subjective i suppose ...

    of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.

    I totally understand your point and the ideals behind the deterrence of crimes by way of punitive punishment, however, I think maybe you put a little too much faith in the justice system. You say "if it's nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed". There are too many cases to count where people get a ridiculous amount of money for ridiculous reasons. The most famous, of course, is the aforementioned McDonald's coffee fiasco. $3 million because that person spilled coffee on themselves? Outrageous.

    This could quite literally ruin this guy's entire life, which is not reasonable considering the long-term ramifications for the victims are pretty well non-existent.

    I think him resigning is being held accountable, no?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    soulsinging wrote:
    of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.

    my point is that it reeks of opportunism and greed and that this couple is taking advantage of a situation ... i've not heard of things getting tossed as i've read about some crazy settlements in the US ... in my opinion - they encountered someone with prejudice, something that happens to many all the time ... although it isn't right - i feel that they are going to sue for some (in my opinion) unreasonable amount ... something that ultimately is subjective ... obviously - i'm guessing just on this board the range of what is considered reasonable would be wide ranging
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    TriumphantAngel wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    damn, I love this thread... :lol:
    I know I probably don't tell you this enough.... but sometimes inmytree, I really don't like or appreciate you. ;)
    i've spent quite a bit of time in this thead, and as the thread starter, i blame you!

    he he he.... :lol:

    seriously, now some are attempting to draw a parallel between the JoP actions and a speeding ticket....and that these folks should not sue...even though suing is within their rights....

    this stuff is gold, pure gold...!!!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    polaris_x wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    of course it's subjective. which is why i'm not sure what your point is. if this is nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed. if there's something to it, it will go to a jury. there's a lot more need for discretion in this sort of thing. it's easy to have a flat fee for a speeding ticket becos it's the same offense for everyone. with a case like this, it depends on the hardship to the plaintiffs, the malice of the defendant, how much is needed to make it punitive without devestating, etc. all i'm saying is that just becos the problem has stopped doesn't mean the guy should be off the hook. there are a lot of good reasons to pursue some sort of punishment... to deter him or deter others from taking on this sort of responsibility and thinking they won't be held accountable if they deny our citizens their rights in their capacity as magistrate.

    my point is that it reeks of opportunism and greed and that this couple is taking advantage of a situation ... i've not heard of things getting tossed as i've read about some crazy settlements in the US ... in my opinion - they encountered someone with prejudice, something that happens to many all the time ... although it isn't right - i feel that they are going to sue for some (in my opinion) unreasonable amount ... something that ultimately is subjective ... obviously - i'm guessing just on this board the range of what is considered reasonable would be wide ranging

    of course you haven't. who's going to read about the thousands of cases that get tossed every day based on the opportunism you speak of? nobody would read that, so it doesn't get published. 1000 cases get tossed before anyone even gets a lawyer, but the only article you'll see is the one every 2-3 years where some slick lawyer got a sympathetic client and made a fortune on behalf of a dumb jury. if you truly believe that is the norm here... i don't know what to tell you.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Maybe thats why the couple picked him to begin with? Knowing they wouldbe denied by him? He stated he refered couples to other JP's who would perform the ceremony, so how is it exactly he's denying them of anything?

    that's entirely possible that they did that, thinking ahead of a civil lawsuit (kinda doubtful, but anything's possible), but in essence, it would be the same if you were in line at the grocery store, and one clerk said "I'm sorry, I don't serve Africans, but you can go see the clerk to my left, as they do".

    maybe he wasn't denying them anything per se, but it's still pretty offensive.

    there's a difference between private actors and state officials. private actors get far more leeway. even so, they cannot discriminate in sales contracts. so they'd be getting slapped with a lawsuit too.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    I totally understand your point and the ideals behind the deterrence of crimes by way of punitive punishment, however, I think maybe you put a little too much faith in the justice system. You say "if it's nothing more than fishing for cash, the case will get tossed". There are too many cases to count where people get a ridiculous amount of money for ridiculous reasons. The most famous, of course, is the aforementioned McDonald's coffee fiasco. $3 million because that person spilled coffee on themselves? Outrageous.

    This could quite literally ruin this guy's entire life, which is not reasonable considering the long-term ramifications for the victims are pretty well non-existent.

    I think him resigning is being held accountable, no?

    it's a start. but like i said, there's value in teaching a lesson and sending a message. he clearly hasn't learned anything and therin is the problem. and we need to let other people know this is unacceptable.

    i rather doubt it's going to come anywhere near ruining his life, and if it does, sorry, im not getting all misty-eyed becos some outdated racist went broke for being a douchebag.

Categories