Comments on: When The Loving Decision Just Isn’t Enough

By: careycarey2

careycarey2 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:06:38 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. Okay….. since he “stated it” he was in violation of the law.

On a side note….. On a personal note…. I really do not want the services of omeone that doesn't want me. Granted, there may be legal ramification, but I am moving on. I am thinking of places like exclusive membership clubs. They can have their club, and I wouldn't be mad at them. To be honest, a person doesn't have to serve me “his” food. I'll take my money to someone who appreciates it.

By: careycarey2

careycarey2 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:06:38 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. Okay….. since he “stated it” he was in violation of the law.

By: greedygirl1

greedygirl1 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:40:21 +0000

Hi stopping by to show some luv from http://www.blogshercolor.com

I have to say I read about this and my jaw dropped. I don't know why i'm so shocked but it always takes your breath away when some one blatantly proves to be a racist.

I read some of the other comments and this a great debate, it's a shame more people don't seem upset about this and it seems to be forgotten so soon.

By: greedygirl1

greedygirl1 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:36:57 +0000

Just about anyone can deny services in a place or business or profession, but it can not be based on discrimination. If you clearly state as he has I will not serve you because you are black, gay, women, catholic, etc. then you are in violation of anti discrimination laws it doesn't matter if your job is a state position or not,

There are some exceptions to these laws but i can't see how Officiant would fall into it.

By: When The Loving Decision Just Isn’t Enough | FreshXpress.:.The PULSE of Young Black America

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:27:00 +0000

[...] Originally Posted Here Share and Enjoy: [...]

By: supra shoes

supra shoes — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:29:45 +0000

I must say this is a great article i enjoyed reading it keep the good work.

By: Michelle Thorton

Michelle Thorton — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:36:24 +0000

Truly a sad situation. I hope he gets what he deserves!

btw, love the site!

By: kweenkiwi

kweenkiwi — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:29:32 +0000

You have a point there. Which brings me to another question, why is it that these states keep people like this in positions that could bring suit against them…where loss of money is potentially involved? *rhetorical* There needs to be a shift in power…antiquated ideology and people who live by it need to retire these positions.

By: dannigyrl

dannigyrl — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:27:21 +0000

I first heard about Mr. and Mrs. Loving via a film by the same name starring Lela Rochon (and I think Timothy Hutton but not totally sure) when I was 21. When Mrs. Loving died, I remember hearing a lot about them in the media. Of course, now with this new story of the interracial couple not being able to get married, it still brings this issue to the forefront. Our President is biracial but interracial marriage is still looked down by some. The more things change, the more they stay the same I say.

By: careycarey2

careycarey2 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:41:24 +0000

On further review, it appears Mr. Bardwell is breaking the law. It's my understanding that “justices of the peace” is a held office.

There is still a question on the floor. If he was not under the state, could he then deny his services based on his own personal beliefs? Again, just like any other profession that can pick and chose their clients, can he be forced to render his services? Am just asking.

By: careycarey2

careycarey2 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:23:49 +0000

I am not going to do the dog-pile-on-the-rabbit. This issue is a very slippery slope. I wonder if Terence & Beth have any legal recourse. Is Mr. Bardwell employed by the state or merely "under the state". I do not know, I am just asking the question. Is he not like an attorney that is licenced by the state? If so, doesn't he have the right to deny his services much like an attorney?

Although I do not agree with Mr. Bardwell's reasoning or condone it, I wonder what many would say if the couple in question were gay? ut oh, what then? In several states, gay marriage is sanctioned by law. I doubt ....well, I know several pastors in those state will not perform a gay marriage in their church, or anywhere.

If Mr. Bardwell's "job" is working for the state, I have a moot point. If not, then I believe he has all the right in the world to stand behind his beliefs. Right or wrong, love it or leave it, Mr. Bardwell stated his reasons for not marrying this couple.

On a side note: is it a fact that "mixed" marriages fail more often than same race marriages? Is it a fact that the children have a harder time in life?

By: [fung'ke] [blak] [chik]

[fung'ke] [blak] [chik] — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:32:46 +0000

Unfortunately, being that he operates under the state, he's NOT allowed to turn someone away. It's not like he's a self-employed business owner.

By: kweenkiwi

kweenkiwi — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:58:55 +0000

I think it's ridiculous. It's 2009…and it's clear that our society is becoming more and more integrated. If interracial couples want to marry so be it…throw rice. I do believe thought that however racist and asinine it is to take this stance…he has a right to do that. Anyone providing a service has a right to turn someone away. Messed up, but true enough. I just wish that it didn't matter so much. I'm so over it. If there's love to be found in this world, grab hold, I say.