Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2015, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks more like you changed his post to try to create a new one.
 

How so? His point was:

Quote:In order for a contract to be binding there has to be consideration given by both sides.  In this case the judge is not giving anything up at all.  He is legally required to marry them even if he does not agree with same sex marriage.

Changing one word in his example doesn't change his point nor was his point dependent on the example. Not to mention, the change wasn't even necessary. His point was that the judge legally has to marry people despite his personal convictions, 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. The fact that he makes all people sign it is irrelevant in Fred's point.