got it. in any thread?
Moderator's Warning: Accusing people of being trolls is not civil.
Yes. In any thread.got it. in any thread?
Was this JP "elected"?
If so, what is the big deal? So it's un-PC, who cares?
Seriously, he cannot be forced to marry anyone. JP's marry people for the extra cash on the side...because they can. They are allowed to say "no" for any reason.
At the same time he cannot deny a marriage license based on race. There are federal laws prohibiting this type of conduct.
What this particular JP did is in direct violation of those laws.
They're tolls.
You don't.
Anything you do will only feed them, which is how Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
Rush Limbaugh has greater problems. A few years back he was arrested at an Airport for carrying a bottle of Viagra that belonged to somebody other than himself.
Meh, I could care less.
How much less?
Re-read the OP again. This is a Fox News tactic...kinda strange seeing it being applied elsewere.
So...
The first sentence makes you think this JP refused to allow them to marry.
In reality, they already had the license. The JP refused to endorse it - which he is ALLOWED to do for any reason. The JP could careless if they get married, he just isn't going to sign the paper.
There is no issue here. We cannot force this JP to think like anyone. Signing certs is during their off time. It is sickening how out of control people get about stupid things. Sorry it wasted your time...go to another JP and stop thinking you are someone speshal....
Okay vauge, fair enough, I'm going by the info in the AP story...
Um... that's because he did refuse to marry them.
Are you married? Getting the signature from the officiant is the deal. That's the marriage. That's the ceremony. That's the process.
And, as an elected official he can not discrimate. He can't viloate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and/or the La Constitution.
Forgive me, but there is a big f-ing issue here.
I can't believe you are serious.
Um... that's because he did refuse to marry them.
You don't see a difference between preventing someone from getting married and refusing to marry them yourself?
No one should ever be forced to endorse a marriage. How does forcing racist people to sign off on things they don't agree with help anyone?
Forcing him to endorse marriages he doesn't agree with won't make him any less racist.
You are still not "getting it". He refused to sign a piece of paper that he is not *required* by law to sign. The couple were already legally apt to get married - they had the paper. Everything was kosher. The JP said no - got their panties in a wad.
These people had to drive across town - it upset their feelings. Poor kids.
To be fair, this JP didn't withhold his sig in the name of racial purity and preventing a mongrel breed.
He did so in the name of high divorce rates.
The JP comitted an act of discrimination. While I understand they're in Texas, the JP violated federal anti-discrimination laws when he refused to marry them based on race.
This is exactly right. He violated federal law. He should be removed from office.
A few years ago, a restaurant/bar in a neighboring community refused to serve black people in their main dining room, requiring them to use a back entrance and back door. This was (maybe) 8 years ago. They were prosecuted by our state AG. That's the standard that private businesses are held to, and this JP should be held to the same standard. He is not above the law, nor is he a law unto himself.
This is no different from the Denny's discrimination lawsuit...
Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits - The New York Times
NOr is this something that should be thought of as a uniquely southern issue, this sort of thing can occur anywhere. REALLY.
Pittsburgh, for instance: Philadelphia workers file racial discrimination case - CNN.com
Boston: Racial Discrimination Cases Cost MBTA, Taxpayers Millions - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston
Walmart, nationwide: Wake-Up Wal-Mart Blog: Wal-Mart Settles Racial Discrimination Case
Discrimination is still real, still out there, and still a problem. And, our system needs to put some real teeth into enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
Still ... his decision was based on race.
It was based on divorce rate, not race.
But...But....Obama became President! That means racism is over!!
I think we've come a long ways, but to pretend that race is not still a huge issue in this country is simply absurd.
Parents of mulatto children have higher divorces rates??
Even if the answer is yes, the decision still isn't justifiable. Because if you follow the logic, then the JP should not marry people who had a divorce before. Re-marriage wouldn't be justifiable if we were to follow that logic.