Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2015, 04:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not even going  to bother. 4 post later and he still won't tell me what he disagrees with. I should probably just quote him and keep saying he was erroneous.

Maybe the part where he said the Judge is legally bound to marry them. Surprised I had to point that out.

Don't worry: We'll let you be "right" next time.

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2015, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe the part where he said the Judge is legally bound to marry them. Surprised I had to point that out.

Don't worry: We'll let you be "right" next time.

If he is offering that service, then he is.

If that's your only issue with his post, do you agree that the judge can't compel people to forgo their freedom of speech in order to receive a service from a government employee? The conservative in me is taking issue with this egregious overstep on behalf of the a government official. Maybe you're a little more liberal than I am.

[mallorian69]

At least he is still doing marriages unlike some places.

https://www.whiznews.com/content/news/local/2015/07/14/no-marriages-of-any-kind-will-be-officiated-in-guernsey-county

[*bfine32*]

BmorePat87 Wrote: Wrote:Maybe you're a little more liberal than I am.

I'm not sure about the liberal part; but I am obviously a great deal more literate.

I can read the OP then read this soapbox rant and realize that the person that wrote this rant did not have the capability to fully understand the OP.

BmorePat87 Wrote: Wrote:His point was that the judge legally has to marry people despite his personal convictions,

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2015, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure about the liberal part; but I am obviously a great deal more literate.

I can read the OP then read this soapbox rant and realize that the person that wrote this rant did not have the capability to fully understand the OP.

lol, why did you cut the quote off?

Quote:so requiring someone to sign a contract agreeing to conditions in order to get a service he legally has to provide whether or not someone signs the contract makes the contract nonbinding.

I don't have a law degree from Columbia, but according to the source, a law professor from there seems to agree with this. He can choose to not provide them to anyone, but as long as he is in the wedding business, this government official cannot compel you to forgo your rights in order to receive a service he has to provide. The contract won't hold up.

[fredtoast]

(07-15-2015, 01:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO the man is doing nothing discrimitory or illegal.

What he is doing is clearly discriminatory.  There is not dispute about that.  However I think it is still legal in Texas for now.  But I assume that will be corrected in the next few years.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What he is doing is clearly discriminatory.  There is not dispute about that.  However I think it is still legal in Texas for now.  But I assume that will be corrected in the next few years.

How is it discriminatory? He refuses service to no one and will freely perform a service that he is not obligated to perform to all who ask in the exact same manner. He simply wants the participants to understand his beliefs on SSM prior to conducting the ceremony.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2015, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How is it discriminatory? He refuses service to no one and will freely perform a service that he is not obligated to perform to all who ask in the exact same manner. He simply wants the participants to understand his beliefs on SSM prior to conducting the ceremony.

He is refusing his services to people who might mention same sex marriage.  He is clearly treating one group of people much different than another group.

That is about as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen.

Just because it is based on his religious beliefs does not mean it is not discrimination.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2015, 11:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He is refusing his services to people who might mention same sex marriage.  He is clearly treating one group of people much different than another group.

That is about as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen.

Just because it is based on his religious beliefs does not mean it is not discrimination.

I wonder if he would stop a straight marriage if someone mentioned being against SSM during the ceremony?  It *would* be talking about it as the contract allegedly says.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2015, 11:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He is refusing his services to people who might mention same sex marriage.  He is clearly treating one group of people much different than another group.

That is about as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen.

Just because it is based on his religious beliefs does not mean it is not discrimination.

He keeps ignoring the part where you argued that the "contract" is nonbinding, so he probably is coming from the position that the contract allows him to refuse service if you exercise your free speech.

[Rotobeast]

(07-16-2015, 12:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He keeps ignoring the part where you argued that the "contract" is nonbinding, so he probably is coming from the position that the contract allows him to refuse service if you exercise your free speech.

You can be charged with contempt of court for exercising your free speech, when court is in session.
If taking place in the courtroom, with the "contract" being signed, could you be charged with contempt for speaking without being addressed to do so ?
I don't know the formalities of the court and when it is officially referred to as such, so I am legitimately asking.
Fred ?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 11:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He is refusing his services to people who might mention same sex marriage.  He is clearly treating one group of people much different than another group.

That is about as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen.

Just because it is based on his religious beliefs does not mean it is not discrimination.

He is not refusing service to anyone that acknowledges they understand his views and is treating no one differently.

I am going to say that you have been pretty sheltered against discrimination if this is about ''as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen." This definately helps me better understand your point of view.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He is not refusing service to anyone that acknowledges they understand his views and is treating no one differently.

I'm curious as to what he thinks he's accomplishing here, other than just voicing his opinion that he's against SSM?

[GMDino]

(07-16-2015, 02:02 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm curious as to what he thinks he's accomplishing here, other than just voicing his opinion that he's against SSM?

He's a powerful person who wants to have his way.

And since he's a judge he thinks he can do it "legally" somehow.

I don't know if he can or can't...but it seems like a real stretch just to not even HEAR anything about SSM from other people.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: He's a powerful person who wants to have his way.

And since he's a judge he thinks he can do it "legally" somehow.

I don't know if he can or can't...but it seems like a real stretch just to not even HEAR anything about SSM from other people.

Seems like a lot of wasted effort, and a whole lot of over nothing.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:02 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm curious as to what he thinks he's accomplishing here, other than just voicing his opinion that he's against SSM?

To me he is giving those who wish to get married options. He is letting everyone know what he guidelines are prior to requesting his services. He is trying to save folks from being "emotionally raped" when they show up for the service and then they are informed of the guidelines.

How does this hypothetical differ:

I am a swim instructor. Before I agree to instruct anyone desiring my services; they must acknowledge that I am homosexual. I prefer to instruct homosexuals; however, I will instruct anyone that signs this agreement that states that they understand I am homosexual and during the instruction everyone must refrain from any mention of heterosexual activity.
 
 
I might suggest due to certain steps performed during the CPR portion of the lesson, some may feel more comfortable being instructed by those that share their heterosexual preferences.


Have I discriminated against anyone in the above scenario?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:29 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Seems like a lot of wasted effort, and a whole lot of over nothing.

From which side?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From which side?

Do you really need to ask?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:36 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Do you really need to ask?

I guess not, as I only see one side crying

[GMDino]

(07-16-2015, 02:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To me he is giving those who wish to get married options. He is letting everyone know what he guidelines are prior to requesting his services. He is trying to save folks from being "emotionally raped" when they show up for the service and then they are informed of the guidelines.

How does this hypothetical differ:

I am a swim instructor. Before I agree to instruct anyone desiring my services; they must acknowledge that I am homosexual. I prefer to instruct homosexuals; however, I will instruct anyone that signs this agreement that states that they understand I am homosexual and during the instruction everyone must refrain from any mention of heterosexual activity.
 
 
I might suggest due to certain steps performed during the CPR portion of the lesson, some may feel more comfortable being instructed by those that share their heterosexual preferences.


Have I discriminated against anyone in the above scenario?

More accurately your hypothetical would have to say no one can talk about any other exercise or means of self propulsion as the instructor does not believe anything but swimming is right.