1. sounds like racism to me. 2. the couple will still have children even if they do not get married.

I can't pull the story up. From a ethical standpoint, based just on what your question says, I would say "no", a conscience law cannot protect him in a case like this. It's simple racial discrimination, and there's no reasonable interpretation of "conscience" which allows one to claim that bigotry is the moral high road.

I am editing out my bit about conscience laws and providing a link to an answer by someone who KNOWS the law: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8006805 Another edit showing that this is against the law itself: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 The case cited above is from Virginia but the law is nationwide. Pardon a rant on this guy: I am quoting bits of the article and commenting: (( First thing, he is LYING about the reason for his refusal. This from a bit I cited at the end: "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way." )) • "[Keith Bardwell] refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. <snip> it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long." --- What a crock. While there is stress on interracial relationships, I have yet to see a solid report that they end in divorce any more than same race marriages. An opinion is not substantial evidence of anything ("it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.") • ""There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."" --- That is true to a degree. However, what REALLY makes a difference between a good childhood and a bad one is the love between the parents and how they treat their children. The parents ethnicity has NO bearing on this. Just tell the truth that you do not "believe in mixing the races that way." • ""I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."" --- What a load of... fecal material. That "I have piles of black (or whatever ethnicity) friends" is a classic way people use to excuse racism after having made a statement that is racist. The louder they holler about it, the more I am likely to peg them as racist and he doth protest too much... "I let them use my bathroom"?? "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way" covers all of it. His refusal to perform the marriages has NOTHING to do with the children or divorce rate. It has EVERYTHING to do with believing in maintaining racial purity. It is not his job to maintain racial purity. His job is as a justice of the peace and he is using "concern" for children to hide the fact that he believes in racial purity. He needs to go back to the 1920's.

Conscience laws are generally discussed in terms of professional services in the private sector. Can an obstetrician refuse to perform an abortion, can a pharmacist refuse to fill a birth control prescription, etc. . It's a total legal patchwork in the U.S. right now as this is an ongoing issue of debate. . A justice of the peace, though, is a governmental official. Usually elected (at least my Uncle Fulton back home in Louisiana is elected). There are statutes that bar racial discrimination on the part of private individuals, but racial discrimination by government officials is barred by the Constitution. At least since 1967 is has been illegal for a governmental official to do what this justice of the peace did. . He does have a conscience clause -- it's the part of the statute creating his office that allows him to resign if he can't carry out his duties.

What a racist bastard!

He needs to not only be terminated, lose any credentials he has, but also face criminal charges for abusing his power. Racist bigots like him need to learn a lesson.