So, if they can’t preside over a wedding, they shouldn’t be allowed to preside over any cases that involve LGBTQ+ people since there’s a possibility that they are religiously obligated to imprison or murder such people based on many “sincerely held beliefs” and since they have the power to do those things legally, it sure seems like a perceived conflict of interest. Or something along those lines should be true. So, if any use this to decline to marry, then I hope lawyers will use that to their advantage against that judge in their own cases.
So, if they can’t preside over a wedding, they shouldn’t be allowed to preside over any cases that involve LGBTQ+ people since there’s a possibility that they are religiously obligated to imprison or murder such people based on many “sincerely held beliefs” and since they have the power to do those things legally, it sure seems like a perceived conflict of interest. Or something along those lines should be true. So, if any use this to decline to marry, then I hope lawyers will use that to their advantage against that judge in their own cases.
Not only that, but if their religious convictions are so strong are they able to give fair and impartial rulings to people not of their religion?
Or even of their own religion.
“I’m a God-fearing Christian!”
“Ok, you’re free to go!”
Conflicts of interest only apply to people left of center.