It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he
held firmly to his
[bigoted]
convictions. Although I personally disagree with
Keith Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were
misguided.

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions.

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions.

On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions.

He refused to do his job. He lost it.
That's it, Junkie Young.

PDW

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations;

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions.

Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690

Moderator wrote:
This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.

"Defending a child's welfare" HA!

What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they
wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."


In responding
counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.

Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also
refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public
have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the
possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?

He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different
than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than
a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.

And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?


No different than a politician who panders to special interest groups

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690

Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap

Thursday, November 05, 2009
By Melinda Deslatte

Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a
couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday,
after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from
officials including the governor.

Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of
State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign
the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish,
Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."

Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."

Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.

When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying
interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up
suffering.

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.

On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
firmly to his convictions.

He refused to do his job. He lost it.
That's it, Junkie Young.

PDW

This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.

Dionisio wrote:
Moderator wrote:
This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.

"Defending a child's welfare" HA!

What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they
wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."

In responding
counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.

Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also
refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public
have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the
possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?

He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different
than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than
a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.

And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?

No different than a politician who panders to special

This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.

In responding
counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.

On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he
held firmly to his convictions.

He refused to do his job. He lost it.
That's it, Junkie Young.

PDW

This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to
remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. In responding
counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.