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.
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?
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?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
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?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.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?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.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?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could. I don't thing the Blue Dogs welcomed blacks, though it wasn't cause they had anything personally against blacks, rather they were socially conservative dems from mostly southern states. Personally I find the Freedom Caucus pretty odious, but that's just me. I don't care for the black caucus positions ... unless they're basically not for killing blacks in churches or something everyone should agree upon.No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.Nobody is being denied goods or services. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
Our schools are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. Housing is segregated. You are actually arguing that bakers should be able to segregate, but that blacks should not.I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.No one has a right to join any caucus without approval. The Blue Dogs were exclusionary as is the Freedom Caucus. The fact that blacks would see common interests is hardly surprising. And, no, I don't share most of those interests.
the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
americans aren't "allowed" to segregate according to race, though...there are laws preventing that....."separate but equal" and all, you know....
....except in congress....and if one is black, of course...
Our schools are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. Housing is segregated. You are actually arguing that bakers should be able to segregate, but that blacks should not.I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.the congressional black caucus is race based and excludes white congressmen. That's segregation according to race...
It has nothing to do with party or committee...it's race...why should that be allowed in our government?
tough one to find your way out of, isn't it?
So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
americans aren't "allowed" to segregate according to race, though...there are laws preventing that....."separate but equal" and all, you know....
....except in congress....and if one is black, of course...
Of course. And you argue bakers should be legally able to be bigots. Take the cinder from thy own eye.Our schools are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. Housing is segregated. You are actually arguing that bakers should be able to segregate, but that blacks should not.I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.Not really. If white congressmen wanted to form a white all male caucus they could.
So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
americans aren't "allowed" to segregate according to race, though...there are laws preventing that....."separate but equal" and all, you know....
....except in congress....and if one is black, of course...
you make assertions with no data...I dispute that our schools are "more segregated than...30 years ago"...and I dispute that there are no laws preventing segregation in housing.
the congressional black caucus is racially segregated and does not allow whites... that is just a hard fact.
Is that not racism?
Of course. And you argue bakers should be legally able to be bigots. Take the cinder from thy own eye.Our schools are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. Housing is segregated. You are actually arguing that bakers should be able to segregate, but that blacks should not.I believe people do have a right to voluntarily segregate, yes. On ANY ground. Be they fundamentalist Christians or whatever. I believe they should be able to contract, or not contract, with whom they choose. I thought we agreed on that. They do not, however, have a freedom to ignore a court order, and my views, and yours, on segregation are neither shared by the courts or the majority.So you do favor segregation according to race...even in government...fair enough..
americans aren't "allowed" to segregate according to race, though...there are laws preventing that....."separate but equal" and all, you know....
....except in congress....and if one is black, of course...
you make assertions with no data...I dispute that our schools are "more segregated than...30 years ago"...and I dispute that there are no laws preventing segregation in housing.
the congressional black caucus is racially segregated and does not allow whites... that is just a hard fact.
Is that not racism?
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?
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?
I see..so you're in favor of segregation..... and racial discrimination in government...ok fair enough...
I see you're in favor of bad analogies. Do you think a Democrat should be able to join the GOP caucus, yes or no?
The House’s rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can’t employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity."
What bad analogy?
congressional black caucus is a segregated, racially discriminatory group embedded right in our own government and their salaries are payed with tax money. You support that?
Under Texas law, individual justices of the peace are not required to exercise their authority to perform marriage ceremonies. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. JM-22 (1983), Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. DM-397 (1996). Therefore, it is our opinion that justices of the peace who do not currently perform marriage ceremonies and do not plan to perform marriage ceremonies in the future are unaffected by today’s developments. Furthermore, it is our opinion that justices of the peace who decide to immediately stop performing all marriage ceremonies following today’s developments will not be affected by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell.
TJCTC Statement : Texas Justice Court Training Center : Texas State University
Care to try again?
