Openly Gay Texas County Judge refused to conduct marriage until Texas had "marriage equality"

[Rotagilla]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

 

[BULLDOG]

Another fail for the Kormac.

County Judge

County Judge

Description of Office
The Texas Constitution vests broad judicial and administrative powers in the position of county judge, who presides over a five-member commissioners court, which has budgetary and administrative authority over county government operations.

The county judge handles such widely varying matters as hearings for beer and wine license applications, hearing on admittance to state hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally retarded, juvenile work permits and temporary guardianships for special purposes. The judge is also responsible for calling elections, posting election notices and for receiving and canvassing the election returns. The county judge may perform marriages.

A county judge in Texas may have judicial responsibility for certain criminal, civil and probate matters - responsibility for these functions vary from county to county. In those counties in which the judge has judicial responsibilities, the judge has appellate jurisdiction over matters arising from the justice courts. The county judge is also head of civil defense and disaster relief, county welfare and in counties under 225,000 population, the judge prepares the county budget along with the county auditor or county clerk.


You might want to read the last sentence in the second paragraph. It says a judge may perform marriages. It doesn't say he has to perform marriages. It's just an ability she can use or not use as she wishes. A clerk has to issue licenses.

Good points all.

Of course what the OP purposely omits is that the judge not performing a ceremony is nothing like not being able to get married. There are plenty of judges in the County, and likely a hundred churches with pastors who could officiate. But you have to have a license first. Not getting a license is peventative; a judge not performing a ceremony is not when there are other jurists readily available.

Of course, it's Texas where they elect judges so there is no even pretense of impartiality when it comes to justice down there.

so if a person has a business, say a bakery.....and refuses to serve a certain person, that person can go to another bakery, right?
the bakery "may" bake a cake but it isn't mandatory, right?.....or is that different?

That has already been decided. Quit whining and bake the damn cake. You lost.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

 

[Rotagilla]

Another fail for the Kormac.

County Judge

County Judge

Description of Office
The Texas Constitution vests broad judicial and administrative powers in the position of county judge, who presides over a five-member commissioners court, which has budgetary and administrative authority over county government operations.

The county judge handles such widely varying matters as hearings for beer and wine license applications, hearing on admittance to state hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally retarded, juvenile work permits and temporary guardianships for special purposes. The judge is also responsible for calling elections, posting election notices and for receiving and canvassing the election returns. The county judge may perform marriages.

A county judge in Texas may have judicial responsibility for certain criminal, civil and probate matters - responsibility for these functions vary from county to county. In those counties in which the judge has judicial responsibilities, the judge has appellate jurisdiction over matters arising from the justice courts. The county judge is also head of civil defense and disaster relief, county welfare and in counties under 225,000 population, the judge prepares the county budget along with the county auditor or county clerk.


You might want to read the last sentence in the second paragraph. It says a judge may perform marriages. It doesn't say he has to perform marriages. It's just an ability she can use or not use as she wishes. A clerk has to issue licenses.

Good points all.

Of course what the OP purposely omits is that the judge not performing a ceremony is nothing like not being able to get married. There are plenty of judges in the County, and likely a hundred churches with pastors who could officiate. But you have to have a license first. Not getting a license is peventative; a judge not performing a ceremony is not when there are other jurists readily available.

Of course, it's Texas where they elect judges so there is no even pretense of impartiality when it comes to justice down there.

so if a person has a business, say a bakery.....and refuses to serve a certain person, that person can go to another bakery, right?
the bakery "may" bake a cake but it isn't mandatory, right?.....or is that different?

That has already been decided. Quit whining and bake the damn cake. You lost.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

 

[BULLDOG]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

 

[Rotagilla]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

 

[bendog]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

I think Candy hit the nail on the head. The GLBT folks were never shown to have been denied a cake. They just had to go to a different baker in their city/town. However, Ms. Davis not only denied issuing a license, she didn't allow any licenses issued in her county to GLBT. Again, I don't agree with PA laws, and I don't think the bakers (or any other service/good provider) should be punished for not serving GLBT folks .... UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW THEY CAN'T GET SERVED ANYWHERE.

But I realize I'm on the losing side here, and PA laws are constitutional so people must follow them or accept the consequences.

 

[BULLDOG]

Good points all.

Of course what the OP purposely omits is that the judge not performing a ceremony is nothing like not being able to get married. There are plenty of judges in the County, and likely a hundred churches with pastors who could officiate. But you have to have a license first. Not getting a license is peventative; a judge not performing a ceremony is not when there are other jurists readily available.

Of course, it's Texas where they elect judges so there is no even pretense of impartiality when it comes to justice down there.

so if a person has a business, say a bakery.....and refuses to serve a certain person, that person can go to another bakery, right?
the bakery "may" bake a cake but it isn't mandatory, right?.....or is that different?

That has already been decided. Quit whining and bake the damn cake. You lost.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

 

[BULLDOG]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

 

[Rotagilla]

so if a person has a business, say a bakery.....and refuses to serve a certain person, that person can go to another bakery, right?
the bakery "may" bake a cake but it isn't mandatory, right?.....or is that different?

That has already been decided. Quit whining and bake the damn cake. You lost.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

 

[BULLDOG]

That has already been decided. Quit whining and bake the damn cake. You lost.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.

 

[Rotagilla]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

I see..nice double standard you advocate...just pointing it out...

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

 

[BULLDOG]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

What double standard? The law said they had to bake the damn cake. Courts even went back and double checked to make sure that's what the law said, and sure enough, they have to bake the cake.

The law says judges don't have to perform marriages.
( Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). )
There are several judges here in Texas who refuse to perform marriages since the same sex ruling. Don't like the law? Change it.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

Start your own private organization, and you can keep out anybody you want. If you do business with the public, everybody is allowed.

 

[Rotagilla]

but since the gvt made it a "law" it (arguably) is now an "official duty" of the baker....at the risk of jail for failure to comply....

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

I don't care what faggots, do..I don't like when the government gets involved to try to legislate what OTHER people have to do to accommodate them.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

Start your own private organization, and you can keep out anybody you want. If you do business with the public, everybody is allowed.

congressional black caucus isn't a "private organization", though. your first clue should be the name...
you don't see any "racism" there, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Every TK post is a bigger fail than the last one

He ignored me because samus's ass is scary to him.

He probably has half the board on ignore at this point.

Only the ones that post facts to counter his rants. Ad hominem attacks are fine.

 

[Seawytch]

It was the law before the case went to court. The court just reaffirmed what the law already said.

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

I kinda like businesses having to treat everybody fairly.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

Start your own private organization, and you can keep out anybody you want. If you do business with the public, everybody is allowed.

congressional black caucus isn't a "private organization", though. your first clue should be the name...
you don't see any "racism" there, right?

They aren't a business either. They don't provide goods and services of any kind.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't mind throwing a judge in prison for breaking the law.

Hell, I think they all need to serve a year behind bars before running for the bench--it will give them some perspective of what they are really ordering.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't see a comparison to refusing to carry our an official govt duty and violated a court order, and PA laws. And, no I don't think they should be constitutional, but they are .... so there ya go.

But you are free to challenge them if you want to. I question why these people are going after the small minority that have added gays to their LOCAL laws. Why not go after the granddaddy of PA laws, the CRA.

 

[Rotagilla]

great...we need more laws and gvt control...you must be thrilled?

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

I kinda like businesses that reserve the right to refuse service..."freedom" and all, ya know..

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

Start your own private organization, and you can keep out anybody you want. If you do business with the public, everybody is allowed.

congressional black caucus isn't a "private organization", though. your first clue should be the name...
you don't see any "racism" there, right?

They aren't a business either. They don't provide goods and services of any kind.

heh heh..nice dodge..they're government employees who work for the taxpayers and they deny admission to white congress members. you have to be black to join....that's racism, right?

 

[bendog]

I don't see a comparison to refusing to carry our an official govt duty and violated a court order, and PA laws. And, no I don't think they should be constitutional, but they are .... so there ya go.

But you are free to challenge them if you want to. I question why these people are going after the small minority that have added gays to their LOCAL laws. Why not go after the granddaddy of PA laws, the CRA.

Ah, another irony and, imo, irreparable crack in the republic brought about by the Founders inability to confront the horror of slavery. A majority of the gop agreed with Dirksen that the only way to root out the lunchcounter segregation was accepting the fed govt could force people to contract, despite the original BoR. People in some states have determined PA should be extended to those groups that will inevitiably win in the court of public opinion.

It is what it is. I don't lose sleep over people who act on bigotry, so it is what it is. But it is the collective will over the individual will.

 

[Seawytch]

These are laws that have been on the books for a long time.

We all remember how wonderfully that worked out.
View attachment 49620

So? what's wrong with freedom of association? It works both ways....

Explain how the congressional black caucus can exclude white people?...isn't that "racist"?
In fact isn't the very NAME "congressional BLACK caucus" "racist"?

Start your own private organization, and you can keep out anybody you want. If you do business with the public, everybody is allowed.

congressional black caucus isn't a "private organization", though. your first clue should be the name...
you don't see any "racism" there, right?

They aren't a business either. They don't provide goods and services of any kind.

heh heh..nice dodge..they're government employees who work for the taxpayers and they deny admission to white congress members. you have to be black to join....that's racism, right?

Nobody is being denied goods or services. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus?