Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[*bfine32*]

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

 No Fred. He is treating everyone that follows his instructions exactly the same. He is treating everyone that mentions SSM exactly the same.

I really don't think it is that hard to follow; apparently I am mistaken.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2015, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  No Fred. He is treating everyone that follows his instructions exactly the same. He is treating everyone that mentions SSM exactly the same.

And he treats those two different groups DIFFERENTLY.

He will marry one of those groups and not the other group.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 12:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And he treats those two different groups DIFFERENTLY.

He will marry one of those groups and not the other group.

Are you really trying to say The Judge discriminates against those that fail to follow his instructions? Does this actually make sense in your head? I realize you have to try extra hard to make this appear to be discrimination because you said: “This is about as clear a case of discrimination I have ever seen.”. So when shown this is not a case of discrimination; then you must accept you have not now or ever had any idea what you are talking about.

Below is a link to the "discriminatory" agreement:


http://dentoncounty.com/~/media/Departments/Justice-of-Peace-Pcts/Justice-of-the-Peace-Precinct2/PDF/Wedding-Letter-and-receipt_2015_07.pdf

It appears he also "discriminates" against those that fail to pay the fee on time or show up on time.

[StLucieBengal]

This is exactly why the court should never have weighed in the matter. States and counties will find a way around anything. They should have let this SSM just get voted on by state and let it win naturally. It would have happened soon enough.

[Benton]

(07-17-2015, 02:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is exactly why the court should never have weighed in the matter.    States and counties will find a way around anything.   They should have let this SSM just get voted on by state and let it win naturally.   It would have happened soon enough.

The problem there is it effects people from one state to the next. If you get married in Maryland and move to Delaware and are suddenly divorced, how is that working on the basic principles of life, liberty and happiness? Not even bringing your 1st Amendment rights into it, just the basic ability to live in the same country and not have to worry about your spouse suddenly being "other."

[StLucieBengal]

(07-17-2015, 02:29 AM)Benton Wrote: The problem there is it effects people from one state to the next. If you get married in Maryland and move to Delaware and are suddenly divorced, how is that working on the basic principles of life, liberty and happiness? Not even bringing your 1st Amendment rights into it, just the basic ability to live in the same country and not have to worry about your spouse suddenly being "other."

Yeah but the problem with that argument was that it rarely happened. Because people with gay marriages didn't move to non gay marriage states. Which makes perfect sense.

When you force people they just find a way to dance around it .... And that's a shame. It would have passed when it was ready.

[fredtoast]

(07-17-2015, 01:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Below is a link to the "discriminatory" agreement:


http://dentoncounty.com/~/media/Departments/Justice-of-Peace-Pcts/Justice-of-the-Peace-Precinct2/PDF/Wedding-Letter-and-receipt_2015_07.pdf

It appears he also "discriminates" against those that fail to pay the fee on time or show up on time.

This is nothing like what is described in the OP.

There is no language about banning any mention of "same sex marriage"

[fredtoast]

(07-17-2015, 03:05 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  people with gay marriages didn't move to non gay marriage states. 

Yes they did.  There were thousands of them who did this.

*sigh*  When are you going to start trying again?  This stuff you have been posting lately is so FDR.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 07:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is nothing like what is described in the OP.

There is no language about banning any mention of "same sex marriage"

Yeah. I probably should have asked you if you had any proof besides the fact that you just keep saying it is.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 07:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is nothing like what is described in the OP.

There is no language about banning any mention of "same sex marriage"

That's because he changed it again and removed the language. 2 days ago it had the language found in the OP. It looks like he realized it was not legal and removed it.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 10:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah. I probably should have asked you if you had any proof besides the fact that you just keep saying it is.

lol  you realize DePiazzo removed it, right?

Or did every single media outlet lie about it and fake the document?

Here's a saved copy from the Dallas Observer

http://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/dentoncountypdf.pdf

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 11:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol  you realize DePiazzo removed it, right?

Or did every single media outlet lie about it and fake the document?

Here's a saved copy from the Dallas Observer

http://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/dentoncountypdf.pdf

Still don't see the discrimination. Can you point that part out to me? Doesn't even look like it was the Judge's idea to put the "discussion" disclaimer in there.

Of course no one lied; it appears many just over-reacted. It happens all the time here and elsewhere.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Still don't see the discrimination. Can you point that part out to me? Doesn't even look like it was the Judge's idea to put the "discussion" disclaimer in there.

Of course no one lied; it appears many just over-reacted. It happens all the time here and elsewhere.

You're asking me to repeat what has been repeated for you multiple times in this thread so that you can just ignore it again and ask that I repeat it?

Sorry, it's the summer. I only deal with children between August and June.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're asking me to repeat what has been repeated for you multiple times in this thread so that you can just ignore it again and ask that I repeat it?

Sorry, it's the summer. I only deal with children between August and June.

bfine32 Wrote:Yeah. I probably should have asked you if you had any proof besides the fact that you just keep saying it is.

I hate when folks have to keep repeating themselves.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I hate when folks have to keep repeating themselves.

Then stop asking me to repeat what has already been posted here.

Also, proof that the language existed was supplied by me. Fred already explained how the contract was nonbinding and you cannot deny service (discriminate) if people freely speak about your views on gay marriage.  What hasn't been said or supplied?

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Then stop asking me to repeat what has already been posted here.

Also, proof that the language existed was supplied by me. Fred already explained how the contract was nonbinding and you cannot deny service (discriminate) if people freely speak about your views on gay marriage.  What hasn't been said or supplied?

Here is the language:

Quote:While we many (assuming the "saved" copy meant may) not necessarily agree with, we accept judge DePiazza ’

Quote:s position on same-sex marriages, accept the conditions expressed above and understand that there will be no discussion regarding his position before, during or after the ceremony.

So folks are not allowed to discuss the Judge's position on SSM while he is providing them equal protection under the law? Oh the outrage; when will this discrimination stop?

I am actually glad you and Fred consider this Judge to be practicing discrimination. It is telling of your standard.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here is the language:




So folks are not allowed to discuss the Judge's position on SSM while he is providing them equal protection under the law? Oh the outrage; when will this discrimination stop?

I am actually glad you and Fred consider this Judge to be practicing discrimination. It is telling of your standard.

So you agree that he refuses service if someone legally talks about his position?

That's progress, I guess.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 01:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you agree that he refuses service if someone legally talks about his position?

That's progress, I guess.

I appreciate your persistence; unfortunately for you, most folks that frequent this board have a degree of intelligence.
 
I think even Fred gave up on this one once he read the actual document(s).
 

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2015, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate your persistence; unfortunately for you, most folks that frequent this board have a degree of intelligence.
 
I think even Fred gave up on this one once he read the actual document(s).
 

So you're trying to suggest that he didn't threaten to refuse service to those who freely spoke about his views?

And this is all one big lie being reported on by numerous media outlets?

http://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/dentoncountypdf.pdf

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2015, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you're trying to suggest that he didn't threaten to refuse service to those who freely spoke about his views?

And this is all one big lie being reported on by numerous media outlets?

http://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/dentoncountypdf.pdf

Perhaps the issue is that you are confusing discrimination with censorship. He threatened to stop services to ANYONE who failed to follow his instructions during the ceremony. He also threatened to not provide services to ANYONE that did not pay on time or was late for their appointment.

He is merely protecting himself. Imagine if he did not make this disclaimer known prior to the ceremony and during a SSM ceremony a blushing groom asks "So Judgie, what do you think of the beautiful thing Rupert and I are doing?" Now imagine if he is performing a heterosexual wedding and the eager groom asks "So judge what do you think about all these queers getting married?" He is just ensuring that no one feels "emotionally raped" on their big day. If you want his optional services and your equal protection he will provide it; if you want someone to chit-chat with you about SSM during your ceremony; you may have to look elsewhere. 

Once again I have stated no one lied. However, this board does not own a monopoly on slack-jawed liberals that love to run their Johnson holsters about discrimination, when there is none.

Outside of that I have nothing more to offer you. We'll just let this conversation survive on its own merit.