Texas Judge James R. DePiazza Has Bizarre New Wedding Requirement

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2015, 11:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

Well I guess the obvious question is:  why change it then?

BmorePat87 Wrote: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.

According to the OP. He is not required to perform the ceremony. Perhaps another word change is isn't in order.