Judge Gamble

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

This is the way.

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

We would applaud your actions.

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

What if we ever turn into a Muslim country and a Muslim county clerk will not issue a marriage license to gay people?

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

What if we ever turn into a Muslim country and a Muslim county clerk will not issue a marriage license to gay people?

---

Until the laws of that jurisdiction are changed, the clerk gets canned for failure to do her sworn duty. "Muslim" makes zero difference.

Whoa. Them's some serious fees and costs!

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

The court spoke. The religious exemption is valid

Quote:

---

In October, the Texas Supreme Court added a comment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct that reads, "It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief."

---

bobbranco said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

The court spoke. The religious exemption is valid

Quote:

---

In October, the Texas Supreme Court added a comment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct that reads, "It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief."

---

---

I fully realize that. As another poster referenced, wait until a strict Muslim fills that post. Wait until that ruling drifts through all levels of government and services.

B-1 83 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

The court spoke. The religious exemption is valid

Quote:

---

In October, the Texas Supreme Court added a comment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct that reads, "It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief."

---

---

I fully realize that. As another poster referenced, wait until a strict Muslim fills that post. Wait until that ruling drifts through all levels of government and services.

---

I think "having an alternative option" is what helped here.

I thought Travis County was filled with libral justices?

B-1 83 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

The court spoke. The religious exemption is valid

Quote:

---

In October, the Texas Supreme Court added a comment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct that reads, "It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief."

---

---

I fully realize that. As another poster referenced, wait until a strict Muslim fills that post. Wait until that ruling drifts through all levels of government and services.

---

Your emboldened hypothetical has no ties to any religious belief or ceremony unless you can make a case that staking a pond or providing agronomic advice can be tied to religion.

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

Moving dirt or getting a soil sample vs getting married are a tad different, no?

I think the Act that is religiously-objected to, would have to be proven somehow or verified based on the particular religion's beliefs. (not pickin a fight)

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

A judge facing a conflict of interest would recuse him/herself for cause. That would appear to be the situation here. The judge is not refusing to perform a wedding ceremony; she simply cannot do so in good conscience and offers an alternative.

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

What if we ever turn into a Muslim country and a Muslim county clerk will not issue a marriage license to gay people?

---

Since the county clerk's office is the sole way to obtain a marriage license in a given county, this is very different from a JP who is authorized but not required to perform marriage ceremonies.

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

So what part of a JP not marrying a homosexual couple due to sincerely held religious conviction cast reasonable doubt as to the judges ability to act impartially in her judicial capacity? That is the charge the state alleged. How is that failing to carry out laws and policies applicable to the public office?

Seems to me this was very much a bake the cake scenario where the homosexual couple was trying to punish someone for not kowtowing to their agenda despite it costing them zero inconvenience or hardship.

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

---

Irrelevant. When you work for the public you don't get to pick and choose who you serve.

lol. apparently they do.

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

---

Irrelevant. When you work for the public you don't get to pick and choose who you serve.

---

That is true, and perhaps is the reason that she created an alternative path for same-sex couples. If we elected a Jewish or Muslim JP and part of their job was to visit pig farms, or to physically touch dead people as part of their duties in violation of their religious beliefs, we would make reasonable accommodations for them and have others perform those duties.

If they can't perform their job they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Should a devout Muslim be allowed to not serve women not dressed in a burka? To top it off, that judge's ruling can have impacts beyond just this JP - there are most certainly areas in the state where there may not be alternatives. A slippery slope.

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

---

Irrelevant. When you work for the public you don't get to pick and choose who you serve.

---

A government job does not make you a slave or remove your bodily autonomy. What an asinine take on this situation.

B-1 83 said:

---

If they can't perform their job they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Should a devout Muslim be allowed to not serve women not dressed in a burka? To top it off, that judge's ruling can have impacts beyond just this JP - there are most certainly areas in the state where there may not be alternatives. A slippery slope.

---

Oh no!!! Then they may have to drive to an area with an alternative. The horror!!!

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

The judge setup a way for gay people to get married. There was nobody that couldn't get married that wanted to get married.

Gay people wanted THIS particular judge to marry them for some apparent reason even though they had other means to get married.

That's what is different about this case.

---

this logic should not be hard to comprehend - no one was restricted from getting legally bound

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

But, somehow this shouldn't be applied to sitting presidents? Is adherence to the law only applicable to one side of the aisle?

It is some weird irony to call this judicial activism in this day and age.

I would completely agree with you if the judge was somehow trying to prevent the marriages; she was not. This is a no harm, no foul issue. Judges aren't supposed to wear hats in court, either. I am totally OK with a Sikh wearing a turban on the bench, however. That is the difference between being woke and being tolerant.

Finally, if you are a Native American, and you protested being the person who dug fence post holes in what you considered to be holy land that the US government owned, I would think you would have a point.

B-1 83 said:

---

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

No. I'll get called the dreaded F16 "concerned moderate" for this, but when you sign on to work for the public you sign on to carry out the laws and policies applicable to that public office and apply them equally to all taxpayers - they paid for it. This is not a private business. It wasn't too long ago had that been a White woman and a Black man there would have been people that would refuse the paperwork. What if I had refused to stake a pond or provide agronomic assistance to the same sex couples I encountered in my work?

---

What if we ever turn into a Muslim country and a Muslim county clerk will not issue a marriage license to gay people?

---

Until the laws of that jurisdiction are changed, the clerk gets canned for failure to do her sworn duty. "Muslim" makes zero difference.

---

The law of that jurisdiction is that a judge doesn't have to perform a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. So, I don't understand your problem.

If you don't like that, take it up with your congressman.

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

---

Irrelevant. When you work for the public you don't get to pick and choose who you serve.

---

A government job does not make you a slave or remove your bodily autonomy. What an asinine take on this situation.

---

So you believe government employees should be able to pick and choose who they serve? Wow………thats quit an F16 bombshell on a forum that hates government employees to begin with. Perhaps the USPS employees from the other thread can refuse to deliver mail to those they have religious disagreements with now?

What a shortsighted take on the situation.

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

You're really stretching it with your "I was a government employee and what if I refused to do my job in service of gay people" analogy there.

In your hypothetical, would you arrange for a gay-friendly govt employee to do the job in your place? Reality is this is no different than someone saying "My religion forbids me from working on the Sabbath", so they find someone else who is free to work on the Sabbath.

---

Not even close. Always look at the other end of the spectrum and where it could go in these decisions. Be careful what you wish for…..

---

You didn't answer my question, though.

This JP offered easy alternatives, this is a case of an attention-seeking couple trying to force their beliefs on someone who clearly doesn't believe.

---

Irrelevant. When you work for the public you don't get to pick and choose who you serve.

---

A government job does not make you a slave or remove your bodily autonomy. What an asinine take on this situation.

---

So you believe government employees should be able to pick and choose who they serve? Wow………thats quit an F16 bombshell on a forum that hates government employees to begin with. Perhaps the USPS employees from the other thread can refuse to deliver mail to those they have religious disagreements with now?

What a shortsighted take on the situation.

---

I would be OK with a Muslim postman asking a different postman to deliver a live pig, which would require him to handle a pig, so I don't understand your point.

This judge isn't saying she wouldn't handle cases that included gay people. That would not be OK. Can you not see the difference?

Wildmen03 said:

---

This is just another "bake the cake" scenario. There are plenty of places you can get a cake made, there are plenty of places you can get married. But for some reason certain people insist on having services rendered by people/businesses that don't want to do it.

It's bullying.

---

That's all the left does. And if bullying doesn't work, they assassinate you.

It's apparent you don't. Would you be ok with not delivering mail to infidels? Not working along side women? I see no situation where handling a live pig by a postal employee would happen…..

It's all fun and games until it impacts you.