Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He's paid to perform that service.
He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.
blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.
She actually is not required to do it, and even if she was, I would support her not doing it if that is her choice.
The Judge made this a PUBLIC issue. CAMPAIGNING from the bench should be discouraged.i've been married 29 years and my youngest child turned 18 yesterday
keep swinging rebbe nebbish
Boo Hoo
THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.thanks, rabbi obvious.
any other stupid comments you'd care to trot out?
If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
You are of course WRONG.
Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.
They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?
By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.
How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?
You really do need to read the actual OP.THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
You are of course WRONG.
Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.
They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?
By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.
How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?
Sounds like forcing her to perform these duties compromises her values, good for him for staying true to his personal belief system.
eta: changed pronoun, i too wrote he.
But if those damned churches get any stupid ideas about "staying true to their personal belief systems", throw the book at them!
Never mind that performing marriages IS part of her job description, and providing health insurance coverage is NOT part of the Catholic Church's, or any employer's.
I don't know what amazes me more: how leftists forget that the power they wield doesn't belong to them, but to the people, or how other leftists gladly transform themselves into blithering hypocrites in order to kiss their asses.
THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
You are of course WRONG.
Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.
They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?
By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.
How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?
Especially, opinions on the law and the application of it.THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.You are of course WRONG.
Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.
They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?
By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.
How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?
Judges are allowed to express their opinions. In fact , it's kinda what we pay them for.
He's paid to perform that service.
He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.
blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.
he's a she.
if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.
keep swinging
What I note is that that's what SHE says. Clearly, her take on reality and actual reality aren't always in contact, so you'll excuse me if I take the ravings of a lunatic with a grain of salt.
Out here in RealityLand, judges are given the ability to perform weddings precisely because they ARE expected to do so.
SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.
no minister, priest or rabbi does if it isn't to their liking.
Um, they aren't taxpayer-funded public servants.
he's a she.
if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.
keep swinging
What I note is that that's what SHE says. Clearly, her take on reality and actual reality aren't always in contact, so you'll excuse me if I take the ravings of a lunatic with a grain of salt.
Out here in RealityLand, judges are given the ability to perform weddings precisely because they ARE expected to do so.
i suggest you take it up with the state of texas, xanthippe, they have a different opinion.
"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm
good luck, bitch
None of them work for the state and get a taxpayer-funded check, bubbe.
thanks, rabbi obvious.
any other stupid comments you'd care to trot out?
If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.
no minister, priest or rabbi does if it isn't to their liking.
thanks, rabbi obvious.
any other stupid comments you'd care to trot out?
If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
no, i didn't. reading for comprehension is your friend
SHe should not have to perform these services. Neither should any minister have to provide said services to gays if it is not to their liking.
no minister, priest or rabbi does if it isn't to their liking.
feel free to move your lips if it helps you to understand the words
What I note is that that's what SHE says. Clearly, her take on reality and actual reality aren't always in contact, so you'll excuse me if I take the ravings of a lunatic with a grain of salt.
Out here in RealityLand, judges are given the ability to perform weddings precisely because they ARE expected to do so.
i suggest you take it up with the state of texas, xanthippe, they have a different opinion.
"Judges of courts of record are among those persons authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies by article 1.83 of the Family Code. A judge is not, however, required to exercise that authority, so long as a refusal to marry particular persons is not based upon constitutionally prohibited grounds."
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/htm/dm0397.htm
good luck, bitch
That would probably leave a mark if she were concerned with her arguments being factually based.
Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.
Thus you just proved it is gender discrimination.
it is not. It's not discrimination at all. It's a simple matter of the government should not be defining marriage.
Yall would have a lot better chance of winning if you'd stick to the topic.
Oh, and I am 100% for the government butting out of marriage altogether
See my signature.
Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.
Your logic is what fails. Horribly so. Sexual orientation is not the basis of the inequality. Gender is.
Also, my signature is linked to a legal web site. It is a fact of law that same-sex marriages do not get the same cash and prizes as opposite-sex marriages.
As long as there is DOMA, there is inequality.
The Judge made this a PUBLIC issue. CAMPAIGNING from the bench should be discouraged.
Boo Hoo
Ewe wouldn't be yelling "boo hoo" if some judge declared him/her self to anti gay. dipsit.
THIS Judge made a PUBLIC pronouncement about her reason for not doing so; THAT is objectionable.If it's so "stupid", how come all you had in response was insults, rather than refuting or arguing what he said?
YOU compared ministers to judges. So YOU need to respond to the self-evident fact - which you nevertheless missed in your initial comparison - that ministers are private citizens, employed by private institutions, and judges are public servants, paid by the taxpayers to serve the general population. And performing weddings IS one of the services they're paid to perform. This is why they are given the legal power to do so.
You are of course WRONG.
Judges are given the authority to preside over a wedding, they are NOT required to do so. In fact where I live a judge would be fired if he performed a wedding during "working hours" and in fact it has happened.
They perform weddings on their own time. Judges aren't working 24/7 , you know that right?
By the way ministers, chaplains, priests, etc are empowered to perform weddings as well, So are ship captains.
How would you like it if you were FORCED to stock shelves for a fast food restaurant you didn't like after a hard day of flipping burgers at your job?
See my signature.
Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.
Thus you just proved it is gender discrimination.
Two straight men cannot marry and claim benefits either.
Ergo gays have the same rights as men.
Fail on your signature line.
Thus you just proved it is gender discrimination.
Which gender is being discriminated against, men or women? Or is there some third possibility I don't know about?
