Quote:

---

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.

---

I would not be OK with forcing a postman to, for example, directly handle bacon, even if his job was to dispose of the bacon because it was not acceptable to mail it.

I would also not be OK with allowing a postman not to deliver to infidels.

This judge was not opposed to hearing cases involving gay people. She was against being forced to officiate a marriage between gay people as long as she could find an alternative person to officiate the wedding.

Pretending that this is the same thing is being intentionally obtuse.

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.

---

You apparently believe once you start working for the government, you lose all personal autonomy and become a slave to the state. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Government employees are still human and have the right to make personal decisions in their job.

Per your way of thinking, a rape victim can be forced to serve their rapist if their government job brings them in contact with their rapist. That is asinine.

Backyard Gator said:

---

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.

---

You apparently believe once you start working for the government, you lose all personal autonomy and become a slave to the state. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Government employees are still human and have the right to make personal decisions in their job.

Per your way of thinking, a rape victim can be forced to serve their rapist if their government job brings them in contact with their rapist. That is asinine.

---

You are seriously comparing the two? At this point there is zero reason to even try to explain the difference.

I 'took it to the extreme', as you said.

Government employees are not slaves. EOS.

It's really much simpler. The duties and authorities of JPs are set out in the Government Code. There is no mention of performing marriages. The Family Code lists who is authorized to perform marriages, including judges. They are authorized, but not required to perform marriages. It is not a duty.

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?

---

I disagree with you on a legal basis. As stated in the opinion, this JP was being paid by the couple to perform this ceremony, just as all judges in the state get paid extra to perform a marriage ceremony. So this is a discretionary task, not one mandated by law.

And this JP referred the couple to a nearby JP who charged the same amount for performing a marriage ceremony.

I know many judges in TX who refuse to perform any marriage ceremonies. And they have that right. It is not a mandatory act pursuant to their judicial role.

EDIT: I did not see Martin's response when I posted mine.

And now 'concerned moderate' B-1 83 has egg on his face!

Martin Cash said:

---

It's really much simpler. The duties and authorities of JPs are set out in the Government Code. There is no mention of performing marriages. The Family Code lists who is authorized to perform marriages, including judges. They are authorized, but not required to perform marriages. It is not a duty.

---

That's going to leave a mark.

Backyard Gator said:

---

And now 'concerned moderate' B-1 83 has egg on his face!

---

Oh no! That old CM B-1 missed this one.
Since the case is it is a voluntary duty, I'll man-up and humbly take the "L". I won't, however follow some posters down that slippery slope of letting government officials discriminate while doing their job.

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?

---

I agree with this...

It's a government office, so they need to apply the law equally to EVERYONE.

Now, a private business is different and should not be forced to do things against their beliefs.

Who here knew B-1 83 was a married, gay man?

(Not that there's anything wrong with that)