In 1960 Boynton v. Virginia outlawed racial segregation in public transportation.

In 1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States held constitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned racial discrimination in public places.

And – in the best named case ever – Loving v. Virginia banned race-based restrictions on marriage.

That last case was decided in 1967. Loving is now the law on this subject. Its a law that’s been tested countless times by people falling in love, getting married, and raising happy, well-adjusted, multi-ethnic kids.

This JOTP’s failure to acknowledge 1)the law and 2)the reality of happy, functioning, mixed-raced families… that has to comes from somewhere pretty dark mentally. It’s either racism, or a level of obtuseness that makes him unfit for his position.

Maybe he isn’t racist. Maybe he really believes that mixed race children suffer an identity alienation that he feels he can prevent.

Again, the only way he can “prevent” this from occurring is if the couple in question give up and decide not to have children. His position is that mixed-race children are a class of human being that are better off not existing.

Yes, as a citizen he is entitled to hold this opinion and to voice it with no fear of government interference. I agree.

Likewise, I am entitled to hold the opinion that his beliefs are deeply wrongheaded and immoral. There is no persecution of thought crime in that.

The question is this: as a civil servant, is he entitled to implement his beliefs as a matter of public policy? I would argue that he is not. In this case, his personal scruples are in conflict with the law of the land. If he can’t perform his job in good conscience, you suggest putting the burden of that on the couple to go find a more accommodating judge. Well, we can only hope that the next judge they go to is not your Jewish judge –who is just fine with the fact that one of them is black and one of them is white, but can’t stomach the fact that one is a gentile. Or maybe the next judge across town really is an out and out racist. Well what are we going to do, convict him of thought crime if he doesn’t want to perform the ceremony?

So much for equal protection under the law for this couple as they shop around town looking for a judge whose personal beliefs happen to line up with the fact that in this country, you’re supposed to be able to marry whomever you want without state interference.

No, the burden does not lie with the couple at all. If a justice of the peace cannot perform his duties under the law in good conscience, then he should find another line of work.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech — it doesn’t guarantee employment. I do product marketing for a software company. Suppose someone in my line of work comes to the conclusion that his employer’s chief competitor actually makes a superior product. Say this individual shows up at the office one fine morning and starts espousing that view — as a marketing manager he could probably write a few blog posts and get the word out about his change of heart to a significant number of industry influencers before being shown the door. But he would be shown the door (probably before the end of that day) and neither the first amendment nor the sincerity of his opinion would (or should) spare him that “persecution for thought crime.”

Consider what happens when technologically feasible sousveillance becomes incriminating evidence as the whims of public opinion drive your favorite pastime into public nuisance #1? I say you should have the right to be eccentric and eat your ice cream with a fork. I figure if you are up-front about it, then I can choose to associate with you or not. That’s preferable to building any dependency on your being ‘normal’ only to find out later than you’re a freak. (oh, and vice-versa)

“The mistake Bardwell makes — black or white — is to introduce his personal views into his professional judicial role. That is improper.”

I disagree. Show me a judge whose sense of justice and how they rule is not informed by personal views and I’ll show you a really good AI system – not a person.

Its important for the public – or the official appointing a judge – to knows a prospective judge’s personal views before they are appointed.

White or black, the racism is wrong. Sure, it’s wrong for him to impose his personal views, but we also get to have an opinion on those views. And we’re entitled to make up our own minds as to whether the act of imposing the views or the views themselves represent the greater moral offense.

Stephen –

Actually, the Colorado story is a bit scarier in that it might be indicative of something we’re evolving towards, rather than away from. I honestly hope it turns out to be a hoax. Otherwise we’re left with the reality of parents who, fearing their child is in mortal danger, call the FAA, then 911, then the local TV station.

And maybe that was the right thing to do, but I ask you — would that be your response? I wouldn’t have been mine. And you just can’t help but wonder how much of the thinking was “Hey, we need to get the word out” vs. “Hey, here’s an excellent opportunity to get back on TV.”

[Inappropriate sarcasm has been removed from the Rangiroa section of this comment. Sorry, this topic gets under my skin a little -- or could you tell?]

I guess that sums up the commentator’s point.

He must also not be a golf fan. Tiger Woods is not bi-racial, he’s multi-racial. His father was mostly black, with some Irish and Native American ancestry, and his mother was of Thai and Chinese descent.

Hmmmm. “Those people” sure can’t make it in America, I guess.

Or he certainly could be black, since many ordinary blacks hold the same point of view.

The mistake Bardwell makes — black or white — is to introduce his personal views into his professional judicial role. That is improper.

Unfortunately, the corruption of official roles by personal views is common all the way to Congress, the Supreme Court, to the White House.

That is the point of this story, not any moral about racism or the lack of it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/colorado.balloon.boy/index.html

Even his whining about not being a racist because he has black friends is dated.

I think this guy woke up that morning, forgot to put his glasses on, and misread the calendar by 40 years.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/not-in-tangipahoa-parish/