Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(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?

Do you always go to absurd hypotheticals to make a point?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

OK change it. Have I discriminated?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess not, as I only see one side crying

Same here

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:38 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Do you always go to absurd hypotheticals to make a point?

Well I do try to get a better understanding.

I guess we can just go with the usual: 'I'm right, you're wrong".

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Same here

Glad to see we both have no issue with the Judge's guidelines.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Glad to see we both have no issue with the Judge's guidelines.

Whatever helps ya sleep better at night.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess we can just go with the usual: 'I'm right, you're wrong".

That's the usual?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 02:45 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: That's the usual?

New to the forum?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 02:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: New to the forum?

You are?

[Rotobeast]

(07-16-2015, 02:43 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Whatever helps ya sleep better at night.

Does this count as your willingness to cuddle with him ?
This statement always tickles me, as it seems as whoever is making it is agreeing to anything under the sun.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2015, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK change it. Have I discriminated?

I'm no lawyer.  I'd think as long as you provided the service it is not discrimination.

However I do not know the nuances of limiting free speech just to receive the service.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-16-2015, 03:02 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Does this count as your willingness to cuddle with him ?
This statement always tickles me, as it seems as whoever is making it is agreeing to anything under the sun.

Whatever trips your trigger

[*Nately120*]

I would want this judge to sign a paper to acknowledge that I think Italians like him are sleazy, shouldn't be trusted, and their immigration to this country was the beginning of the end! Also, he smells like pizza and is probably in the mafia! ACKNOWLEDGE MY VIEWS!!!!!

[fredtoast]

(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.

He is refusing his services to anyone who dares mention same sex marriage.

He treats people who mention same sex marriage differently than everyone else, by refusing to marry them.

That is discrimination.

[fredtoast]

(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?

If the swim instructor refuses to provide his services to anyone who mentions heterosexual activity then he is discriminating.

What exactly do you think the word "discrimination" means?

BTW this is a really stupid hypothetical because their is not a long history of heteroasexuals being deprived of their right to swim based on religious beliefs. Here is one alittle more on point.


"I will only allow black people into my store as long as they respect my opinion that they are an inferior race. Any black person who claims black people are equal to white people will be denied service."

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He is refusing his services to anyone who dares mention same sex marriage.

He treats people who mention same sex marriage differently than everyone else, by refusing to marry them.

That is discrimination.

I've also seen Judges treat folks differently in courtrooms for not following their instructions. Is that Judge discriminating? Hell they make everybody stand up when they walk in. Are they discriminating against folks that prefer to sit?

To discriminate you have to treat a group of people differently. He is not doing this, no matter how many times you say he is.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 06:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the swim instructor refuses to provide his services to anyone who mentions heterosexual activity then he is discriminating.

What exactly do you think the word "discrimination" means?

BTW this is a really stupid hypothetical because their is not a long history of heteroasexuals being deprived of their right to swim based on religious beliefs.  Here is one alittle more on point.


"I will only allow black people into my store as long as they respect my opinion that they are an inferior race.  Any black person who claims black people are equal to white people will be denied service."

Where did this Judge declare anybody to be inferior?

Looks like stupid hypothetical are contagious.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2015, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To discriminate you have to treat a group of people differently. He is not doing this, no matter how many times you say he is.

So in your mind he is treating people who mention same sex marriage exactly the same as people who do not?

I can't even begin to follow your line of thinking here.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did this Judge declare anybody to be inferior?

When he claims that same sex couples are not worthy of equal protection under the law.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2015, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When he claims that same sex couples are not worthy of equal protection under the law.  

Do you have anything to back this claim except for the fact that you keep saying it?

Here is a quote from the Judge:

Quote:"I went back in forth with it, and I made the decision that, for my constituents, if that is their desire — it doesn't matter to me what a person's sexual preference is, what their sexual orientation is. Regardless, they're a human being and they deserve dignity and respect. If that's the way that they want to live their life, that's between them, their partner and either they believe in their God or not, that's their choice," DePiazza says. 

Offering only the stripped down ceremonies, DePiazza says, allows him to perform the duties required of a justice of the peace without compromising his personal beliefs.
"One of the laws now in Texas is that same-sex couples can now get married. So, if they want me to sign as a witness on their marriage license, that goes nothing against my convictions. That's why I decided to change the vows, not just for same-sex couples but across the board. I would be very uncomfortable because of my convictions saying to somebody 'I now pronounce you husband and husband or wife and wife.' That would've been very difficult for me to do. To honor my authority as a justice of the peace to be a witness to somebody saying they want the rites of marriage in the state of Texas, that's civil law and I have no issue with giving them that."

IF he were to only offer a "stripped down" of his ceremony to SSM then you may have a point. If he were to refuse to conduct SSM ceremonies you may have a point.

The Judge is actually accommodating SSM; yet the usual suspects keep yelling DISCRIMINATION!!