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
If you're going to have "convictions" that are locked in cement, first make

On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup???  The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
Canada.  lol

Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race
couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages?
I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
Canada. lol

On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the
as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The
child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here
in Canada. lol

Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a
mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should
be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -


I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?

Moderator wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the
as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The
child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here
in Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a
mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should
be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?

I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not claiming
that
it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what
exactly
do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right
to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is
that too
complex for you?

thomas p. wrote:
Moderator wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the
as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The
child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here
in Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a
mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should
be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?

I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not
claiming
that
it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what
exactly
do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right
to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is
that too
complex for you?


Hey Thomas,

I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question,
what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next
question of yours?

In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if
you're not even going to believe the answer.

Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.

Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup???  The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
Canada.  lol

On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:





Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup???  The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.

I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
Canada.  lol

Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race
couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages?
I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?- Hide quoted text -

thomas p. wrote:
Moderator wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the
as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The
child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here
in Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a
mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should
be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?

I don't take your word.  I thought that was clear.  If you are not claiming
that
it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what
exactly
do you think you are complaining about?  The former judge has every right
to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge.  Is
that too
complex for you?

Hey Thomas,

I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question,
what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next
question of yours?

"Calvin Ramsey" <calram... at (no spam) oaken.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:hd6i9h$bce$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...





thomas p. wrote:
Moderator wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the
as yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The
child's welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here
in Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a
mixed-race couple because the official does not think there should
be such marriages? I guess you are babbling. lol- Hide quoted text -

I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?

I don't take your word.  I thought that was clear.  If you are not
claiming
that
it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what
exactly
do you think you are complaining about?  The former judge has every right
to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge.  Is
that too
complex for you?

Hey Thomas,

I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question,
what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next
question of yours?

What are you talking about?  I really do not know.



In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if
you're not even going to believe the answer.

Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.

I may be incredibly naive in asking the following question, but I am going
to try anyway.
We disagree about a number of things. Why not discuss those things and drop
the personal insults?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a [blessing] this man was forced to resign his position

tirebiter 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. 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.

Why would someone believe that unless they themselves would willingly
heap abuse on children of interracial couples?

Why would someone believe...?

1. Observation.

2. Experience.

2. Crime stats.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1... at (no spam) news.alt.net>  wrote:

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.

He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.

Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
to sell his house to a black?