Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages

[del]

If any gays (or anyone else for that matter) decides to "bother me" with their business, I am quite capable of telling them to take a hike on my own. I have to admit that in the beginning I was quite pleasant to these two women, only when they insisted did I amuse myself with being as graphic and humiliating I could. And, knowing all the while I could do that. It was quite satisfying.

PSSST. There's NO Business! I'm an artist (among other things). But there's no business.

two questions.

1. Do you charge for your paintings

2. You were graphic and humiliating to someone just because you could be?

Most of the time I do not sell my work. I paint almost exclusively for competitions and exhibitions. I just keep sending them out, over and over to different competitions and exhibitions. Right now I have a bunch in China. If someone wants to buy something I had done, and it has happened we can work something out. Especially if it's old and has outlived its usefulness to me. I do not paint on commission. Although if I feel like it I will. I painted the portrait of a friend's dog. Consequently I do not advertise. I do not hold myself out as an artist that can be hired to perform a specific work of art. These women saw my work at an exhibition and came to see me to ask me to paint their wedding portrait. I told them I didn't want to do it, there are portraitists who advertise and will be happy to do it. They insisted and pissed me off. I knew, yes I did know that there was nothing they could do no matter how humiliating I was so I intended to teach them a lesson. They decided to sue, which gave me a hobby for five months. In the end, they failed to prove that I was in "business". They were essentially asking for a favor and I was within my absolute rights to tell them no however I wished to tell them no.

Unfortunately gays and lesbians have formed the opinion that merely by virtue of being gays and lesbians they are entitled to something. They aren't. I was supremely happy to make that known to at least two of them. Would my answer have been different had it been a heterosexual couple. Not really. I would NOT want to be tied up painting commissions and exclude what I want to do. Now, had this couple had a cute dog or cat and asked me to paint their pet, I might have been more persuaded. Not a sure thing because I do not like painting for someone else. When I do that, I don't get to exhibit or send it for competition. It's done. There are a ton of artists out there for that.

They picked on the wrong artist to try to strong arm.

thank you for posting that

thats some funny shit

 

[Peach]

This judge IS following the rules. Performing marriages is OPTIONAL on her part.

It was her FIRST announcement I objected to. Note she deleted her reasons in the second statement, thus the defect is CURED.

I watched slightly more than half of the video. How did she "delete" what she said there? Was the video edited?

Immie

I read she made a second statement that did include the "because..." sentences. Perhaps she did not. But IF she did, no problem. " I CHOOSE NOT TO" is all that should be said.

 

[Dot Com]

If any gays (or anyone else for that matter) decides to "bother me" with their business, I am quite capable of telling them to take a hike on my own. I have to admit that in the beginning I was quite pleasant to these two women, only when they insisted did I amuse myself with being as graphic and humiliating I could. And, knowing all the while I could do that. It was quite satisfying.

PSSST. There's NO Business! I'm an artist (among other things). But there's no business.

two questions.

1. Do you charge for your paintings

2. You were graphic and humiliating to someone just because you could be?

Most of the time I do not sell my work. I paint almost exclusively for competitions and exhibitions. I just keep sending them out, over and over to different competitions and exhibitions. Right now I have a bunch in China. If someone wants to buy something I had done, and it has happened we can work something out. Especially if it's old and has outlived its usefulness to me. I do not paint on commission. Although if I feel like it I will. I painted the portrait of a friend's dog. Consequently I do not advertise. I do not hold myself out as an artist that can be hired to perform a specific work of art. These women saw my work at an exhibition and came to see me to ask me to paint their wedding portrait. I told them I didn't want to do it, there are portraitists who advertise and will be happy to do it. They insisted and pissed me off. I knew, yes I did know that there was nothing they could do no matter how humiliating I was so I intended to teach them a lesson. They decided to sue, which gave me a hobby for five months. In the end, they failed to prove that I was in "business". They were essentially asking for a favor and I was within my absolute rights to tell them no however I wished to tell them no.

Unfortunately gays and lesbians have formed the opinion that merely by virtue of being gays and lesbians they are entitled to something. They aren't. I was supremely happy to make that known to at least two of them. Would my answer have been different had it been a heterosexual couple. Not really. I would NOT want to be tied up painting commissions and exclude what I want to do. Now, had this couple had a cute dog or cat and asked me to paint their pet, I might have been more persuaded. Not a sure thing because I do not like painting for someone else. When I do that, I don't get to exhibit or send it for competition. It's done. There are a ton of artists out there for that.

They picked on the wrong artist to try to strong arm.

Not enough information.

 

[Katzndogz]

We have way too many people who look for someone to whine to when they don't get their own way. Like this idiot judge. "We'll MAKE YOU do what we want". They have forced photographers to work for them, innkeepers to rent rooms in the B&B to them. Counselors to provide couples counseling. Everyonce in a while they need to fat NO shoved in their faces.

 

[del]

We have way too many people who look for someone to whine to when they don't get their own way. Like this idiot judge. "We'll MAKE YOU do what we want". They have forced photographers to work for them, innkeepers to rent rooms in the B&B to them. Counselors to provide couples counseling. Everyonce in a while they need to fat NO shoved in their faces.

and you're just the artist to do it, by golly

 

[jillian]

We have way too many people who look for someone to whine to when they don't get their own way. Like this idiot judge. "We'll MAKE YOU do what we want". They have forced photographers to work for them, innkeepers to rent rooms in the B&B to them. Counselors to provide couples counseling. Everyonce in a while they need to fat NO shoved in their faces.

Loser bigot is loser

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

We have way too many people who look for someone to whine to when they don't get their own way. Like this idiot judge. "We'll MAKE YOU do what we want". They have forced photographers to work for them, innkeepers to rent rooms in the B&B to them. Counselors to provide couples counseling. Everyonce in a while they need to fat NO shoved in their faces.

Loser bigot is loser

A person has the right to be a bigot. Of course you also have the right to call them a loser.

 

[jillian]

He has the right to be as stupid as he wants. And in his home, he can do whatever his dumb ass bigoted heart desires. So I agree with you.

He just doesn't get to discriminate against people if he runs a business that serves the public... Especially if that business is licensed by the state.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

He has the right to be as stupid as he wants. And in his home, he can do whatever his dumb ass bigoted heart desires. So I agree with you.

He just doesn't get to discriminate against people if he runs a business that serves the public... Especially if that business is licensed by the state.

and I completely disagree with that law.

Not denying that it is the current law, just disagree that it is in the spirit of the freedoms our nation was founded on.


I really don't see how anyone could disagree with that either.

 

[jillian]

He has the right to be as stupid as he wants. And in his home, he can do whatever his dumb ass bigoted heart desires. So I agree with you.

He just doesn't get to discriminate against people if he runs a business that serves the public... Especially if that business is licensed by the state.

and I completely disagree with that law.

Not denying that it is the current law, just disagree that it is in the spirit of the freedoms our nation was founded on.


I really don't see how anyone could disagree with that either.

The government has the power to legislate for the general welfare.

What do you think is a more important founding principle: the right to discriminate or the right to be treated like everyone else?

I'd think it depends on ones priorities. But I'm kind of glad sighs that say " no dogs, no blacks, no Jews" don't exist anymore and I have no problem that said signs aren't permitted to say, " no blacks, no Jews and no gays"

I think my priorities are better -- especially when I think most of today's "libertarians are fake" .... No offense. I don't know the sincerity of your pov.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

I've thought for a long time that the problem isn't Same-sex Civil Marriage, the problem is a group of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws.

In general I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, and self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model. Liberty and Freedom can be messy and no one has a right to not be offended by someone else.

With that said there are two conditions which may need retention:

1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would not apply to elective procedures.

2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from firms that discriminate (which is the governments choice).​

*******************************

If a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim. Fine.

If a Bakery doesn't want to sell cupcakes to Asians. Fine.

If a Photographer doesn't want to shoot a lesbian wedding. Fine.

If a non-profit organization commits to making a pavilion open to the public in return for special property tax breaks and then looses those tax breaks because they deny use to members of the public. Fine.


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

He has the right to be as stupid as he wants. And in his home, he can do whatever his dumb ass bigoted heart desires. So I agree with you.

He just doesn't get to discriminate against people if he runs a business that serves the public... Especially if that business is licensed by the state.

and I completely disagree with that law.

Not denying that it is the current law, just disagree that it is in the spirit of the freedoms our nation was founded on.


I really don't see how anyone could disagree with that either.

The government has the power to legislate for the general welfare.

What do you think is a more important founding principle: the right to discriminate or the right to be treated like everyone else?

I'd think it depends on ones priorities. But I'm kind of glad sighs that say " no dogs, no blacks, no Jews" don't exist anymore and I have no problem that said signs aren't permitted to say, " no blacks, no Jews and no gays"

I think my priorities are better -- especially when I think most of today's "libertarians are fake" .... No offense. I don't know the sincerity of your pov.

woah woah woah. Libertarians are anarchists. Count me out of that. The government obviously has a place.

As for equality. I do believe in equality. A jew should be able to hang up a sign on his deli saying "jews only" if that's what he wants. Just the same as the guy who has a sign up that says "No Jews"

Of course the rest of us are completely within our rights to stand on the sidewalk and point and laugh at the bigots.

And absolutely 100% I believe that discrimination within the government, at ALL levels, should remain illegal. Government services are different simply by virtue of a person can't go somewhere else to get those services.

 

[jillian]

Fair enough. But I wouldn't want to live in that world where someone could keep me out of their business that is sanctioned and licensed by the government.... Especially when those things would affect only minorities in any given community.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree because I think the reality of such a world is too ugly to contemplate.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Fair enough. But I wouldn't want to live in that world where someone could keep me out of their business that is sanctioned and licensed by the government.... Especially when those things would affect only minorities in any given community.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree because I think the reality of such a world is too ugly to contemplate.

I disagree. For one thing, wouldn't you rather know up front that some asshole isn't worthy of receiving your money, especially when he really doesn't want it?

Second, I believe these types of people would be quickly ran out of business when people stopped doing business with bigots. Others would choose NOT to be bigoted for their own bottom line.

 

[Peach]

Fair enough. But I wouldn't want to live in that world where someone could keep me out of their business that is sanctioned and licensed by the government.... Especially when those things would affect only minorities in any given community.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree because I think the reality of such a world is too ugly to contemplate.

I disagree. For one thing, wouldn't you rather know up front that some asshole isn't worthy of receiving your money, especially when he really doesn't want it?

Second, I believe these types of people would be quickly ran out of business when people stopped doing business with bigots. Others would choose NOT to be bigoted for their own bottom line.

But the businesses use PUBLIC resources; fire, police, water, waste disposal etc. PRIVATE clubs can allow whom they wish but public businesses must serve the PUBLIC.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Fair enough. But I wouldn't want to live in that world where someone could keep me out of their business that is sanctioned and licensed by the government.... Especially when those things would affect only minorities in any given community.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree because I think the reality of such a world is too ugly to contemplate.

I disagree. For one thing, wouldn't you rather know up front that some asshole isn't worthy of receiving your money, especially when he really doesn't want it?

Second, I believe these types of people would be quickly ran out of business when people stopped doing business with bigots. Others would choose NOT to be bigoted for their own bottom line.

But the businesses use PUBLIC resources; fire, police, water, waste disposal etc. PRIVATE clubs can allow whom they wish but public businesses must serve the PUBLIC.

Private clubs ALSO use public resources. Both pay for those services in the form of fees and taxes.


Anyone who cherishes freedom must admit that we ought have the freedom to be as bigoted with our own private property as we want to be. And businesses are the private property of SOMEONE.

 

[Avatar4321]

We have way too many people who look for someone to whine to when they don't get their own way. Like this idiot judge. "We'll MAKE YOU do what we want". They have forced photographers to work for them, innkeepers to rent rooms in the B&B to them. Counselors to provide couples counseling. Everyonce in a while they need to fat NO shoved in their faces.

Loser bigot is loser

Then stop being a bigot. Simple solution.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Having a judge with an agenda isn't right.
2. Thats why she is totally wrong.
3. Justice is blind, its been said.
4. Not with this judge ofcourse.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[asterism]

Fair enough. But I wouldn't want to live in that world where someone could keep me out of their business that is sanctioned and licensed by the government.... Especially when those things would affect only minorities in any given community.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree because I think the reality of such a world is too ugly to contemplate.

I disagree. For one thing, wouldn't you rather know up front that some asshole isn't worthy of receiving your money, especially when he really doesn't want it?

Second, I believe these types of people would be quickly ran out of business when people stopped doing business with bigots. Others would choose NOT to be bigoted for their own bottom line.

But the businesses use PUBLIC resources; fire, police, water, waste disposal etc. PRIVATE clubs can allow whom they wish but public businesses must serve the PUBLIC.

Bad premise. Air is public therefore according to your logic nothing is private.

 

[bodecea]

two questions.

1. Do you charge for your paintings

2. You were graphic and humiliating to someone just because you could be?

Most of the time I do not sell my work. I paint almost exclusively for competitions and exhibitions. I just keep sending them out, over and over to different competitions and exhibitions. Right now I have a bunch in China. If someone wants to buy something I had done, and it has happened we can work something out. Especially if it's old and has outlived its usefulness to me. I do not paint on commission. Although if I feel like it I will. I painted the portrait of a friend's dog. Consequently I do not advertise. I do not hold myself out as an artist that can be hired to perform a specific work of art. These women saw my work at an exhibition and came to see me to ask me to paint their wedding portrait. I told them I didn't want to do it, there are portraitists who advertise and will be happy to do it. They insisted and pissed me off. I knew, yes I did know that there was nothing they could do no matter how humiliating I was so I intended to teach them a lesson. They decided to sue, which gave me a hobby for five months. In the end, they failed to prove that I was in "business". They were essentially asking for a favor and I was within my absolute rights to tell them no however I wished to tell them no.

Unfortunately gays and lesbians have formed the opinion that merely by virtue of being gays and lesbians they are entitled to something. They aren't. I was supremely happy to make that known to at least two of them. Would my answer have been different had it been a heterosexual couple. Not really. I would NOT want to be tied up painting commissions and exclude what I want to do. Now, had this couple had a cute dog or cat and asked me to paint their pet, I might have been more persuaded. Not a sure thing because I do not like painting for someone else. When I do that, I don't get to exhibit or send it for competition. It's done. There are a ton of artists out there for that.

They picked on the wrong artist to try to strong arm.

Not enough information.

I smell definite bullshit.