Your scenario is not how recusals work. There isnt a “case” for the judge to show bias one way one another. She must simply perform the duties as required by law
The law
Non sequitur. Its what he does
Hmmmm . . . I wonder which part of your statement doesn’t apply in the slightest to this situation?
1 Like
Not according to the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct
Faith is practiced by not serving gay people breakfast? Can they not serve atheists? Or Buddhists? Or black people?
Your analogy fails. Judge marries, she should marry all. Jewish butcher provides cut of beef, they make it available to all. A Muslim merchant doesn’t provide port cutlets, it is unavailable to all. You bake wedding cakes, you make it available to all.
Nobody is asking businesses to modify their offerings. They just need to ensure all have access.
1 Like
Quote the law. Provide a link to it.
I would like to know if she’s ever married one or both people that have committed adultery.
Oberfell v Hodges makes it the law of the land. She is a public official required not to discriminate
This may be the chief idiot of this story:
"In response to the warning against Hensley, Angela Hale, a spokesperson for Equality Texas, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, said, “Marriage is the law of the land and all elected officials must treat all Texans equally.”"
All Texans equally? How about 6 year old Texans who want to get married? How about Texans who are already married? How about Texans who want to marry animals?
1 Like
Man on dog! It’s just around the corner! Santorum will be proven right!
2 Likes
Makes WHAT the law of the land? She is an elected official who is entitled to perform marriage ceremonies. She can do it or not. There is absolutely nothing that says she cannot discriminate in her choices of who she chooses to perform the marriages for. Her refusal to marry queers is not a governmental ban on these marriages, anymore than If she refuses to marry drunks it would not be a governmental ban on drunk marriages.
And what he did.
Well besides the entire ruling itself.
None of these would meet the requirements for a marriage license and that is equally applied to all 6 year olds, already married persons, marrying animals, etc.
Exact same argument as Kim Davis… How did that turn out?
That would be the highlight of the wedding for people whose prime objective is authoritarian power.
The Dreamers called, they said “does doing the job mean they have to be deported”?
1 Like
Is the judge invoking the power of religion or the power of the state when she marries Adam and Steve?
That’s what I’m wondering.
Is a judge not a human being with a conscience and the First Amendment freedom to practice his or her faith?
It appears, as I’ve provided in the LGBTQ map link, that Texas offers a broad spectrum of religious exemptions.
Is a judge on the bench exempt from that protection?
