more smh Texas...

[Blake]

" Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton*issued a statement Sunday saying state workers can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if doing so is contrary to his or her religious beliefs."(Judges and other state workers) may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,"*Paxton said in the statement.

Workers who choose to deny licenses to same-sex couples may face litigation and fines, but there are lawyers willing to defend them, according to Paxton.

"Numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights," Paxton said......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/29/paxton-state-workers-can-deny-marriage-licenses-same-sex-couples/29456745/

[Blake]

:madrun muh religious rights

can't wait to see the first county clerk to stand ground

[RD2191]

Fuck yeah. We don't have to marry those queers if we don't want to.

[Slutter McGee]

While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.

Slutter McGee

[DMX7]

It's not like they're forcing the state works to get gay married. It's there job to do this.

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol I want to be paid for a job which I don't want to perform because it is contrary to my religion. Why, for example, would Seventh Day Adventists want to marry Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Catholics? They all constitute offenses against their faith, right? Is the TX legislature just hoping they have a majority of Lutheran, Catholic and Baptist employees that agree with them? How far is TX willing to go with this before they realize the corner they're painting themselves into? SMH is right.

[Blake]

While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.

Slutter McGee

Bullshit.

Fundamental rights trump silly religious beliefs every time.

[boutons_deux]

While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.

Slutter McGee

Govt employees in a position to hand out marriage licenses took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If they refuse, aka break their oath of office (for the bullshit of God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT), then they should be fined, fired, etc.

No "glee" involved, just "law enforcement" that you shit-for-brains rightwingnuts insist upon so vehemently when applied to blacks and browns.

[Slutter McGee]

Govt employees in a position to hand out marriage licenses took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If they refuse, aka break their oath of office (for the bullshit of God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT), then they should be fined, fired, etc.

No "glee" involved, just "law enforcement" that you shit-for-brains rightwingnuts insist upon so vehemently when applied to blacks and browns.

Ohh, bullshit, nothing makes you liberals more happy than forcing a religious person to bake a gay wedding cake or better yet, not baking it so you can sue them. Its really pretty pathetic. I'm not talking about the legalities one way or another. Just the irony of how progressives get off on destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Tolerance my ass.

Slutter McGee

[Spurminator]

Ohh, bullshit, nothing makes you liberals more happy than forcing a religious person to bake a gay wedding cake or better yet, not baking it so you can sue them. Its really pretty pathetic.

That must be why there are SOOO many examples of this happening.

:cry

[boutons_deux]

Ohh, bullshit, nothing makes you liberals more happy than forcing a religious person to bake a gay wedding cake or better yet, not baking it so you can sue them. Its really pretty pathetic. I'm not talking about the legalities one way or another. Just the irony of how progressives get off on destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Tolerance my ass.

Slutter McGee

Slut, the law is the law, an oath is an oath, even for the God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT Bible humpers, Christian Taliban supremacists. They started this hate-filled fight, and they FUCKING LOST IT.

[CosmicCowboy]

Government employees have an obligation to do their job. If their job entails filling out marriage licenses and SCOTUS says gays can marry then they need to do their job and fill out the license or quit.

Private citizens on the other hand should have every right to tell them to fuck off, whether it's baking the wedding cake, renting out the facility, or performing the ceremony.

[Blake]

Ohh, bullshit, nothing makes you liberals more happy than forcing a religious person to bake a gay wedding cake or better yet, not baking it so you can sue them. Its really pretty pathetic. I'm not talking about the legalities one way or another. Just the irony of how progressives get off on destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Tolerance my ass.

Slutter McGee

Lol explain how a bigoted clerk's life is destroyed by handing out a marriage license to a gay couple.

I admit I e-get off on seeing bigots cry about not being able to enact their bigotry any more.

[RD2191]

That must be why there are SOOO many examples of this happening.

:cry


Lol explain how a bigoted clerk's life is destroyed by handing out a marriage license to a gay couple.

I admit I e-get off on seeing bigots cry about not being able to enact their bigotry any more.
Crofl. Faggots melting down in every thread.

[Blake]

Crofl. Faggots melting down in every thread.

croflmao at you not knowing what a meltdown is

[spurraider21]

While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.

Slutter McGee
the state doesnt endorse any one religion. if you are a state employee, then you are part of that entity. your religion is what you do on your own time, not while you're punched in and collecting a paycheck from the state

clerk could go to a church after work and confess his sin granting gays a marriage

[vy65]

County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms
that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to
issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges
also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly
when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting
such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering any
compelling governmental interest in ensuring that such ceremonies
occur. Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

[vy65]

Why not just have a deputy clerk do it? Or another JP?

[RD2191]

croflmao at you not knowing what a meltdown is
Sure I do. Member when you posted that your wife cucked you in the club?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Govt employees in a position to hand out marriage licenses took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If they refuse, aka break their oath of office (for the bullshit of God-Told-Me-To-Hate-LGBT), then they should be fined, fired, etc.

Obama must have missed this memo :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms
that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to
issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges
also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly
when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting
such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering any
compelling governmental interest in ensuring that such ceremonies
occur. Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

That's all fine and good except for the part in which it violates the Constitution (and the now recognized constitutional right of same sex couples to marry). This nonsense about being able to use religious preferences in deciding whether to perform ministerial, governmental duties is pretty well divorced from any Constitutional basis.

A governmental clerk can no more justifiably deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than he can deny a marriage license to an interracial couple. Each couple now has precisely the same right to marry, and the religious beliefs of the clerk have nothing to do with their exercise of that right through acquiring a necessary license.

If a governmental employee doesn't like carrying out parts of his or her job that are constitutionally required but personally offensive, perhaps that person should find other employment.

[vy65]

That's all fine and good except for the part in which it violates the Constitution (and the now recognized constitutional right of same sex couples to marry). This nonsense about being able to use religious preferences in deciding whether to perform ministerial, governmental duties is pretty well divorced from any Constitutional basis.

A governmental clerk can no more justifiably deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than he can deny a marriage license to an interracial couple. Each couple now has precisely the same right to marry, and the religious beliefs of the clerk have nothing to do with their exercise of that right through acquiring a necessary license.

If a governmental employee doesn't like carrying out parts of his or her job that are constitutionally required but personally offensive, perhaps that person should find other employment.

I don't think that's a correct reading. I just give the opinion a quick glance, but I think the AG's point is that an individual can pass off on performing his ministerial duty to another clerk if he has an objection. That's why it speaks in terms of accommodation, the presence of another JP, and "the facts and circumstances of each case." I don't think it suggests outright denial is proper.

County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow
accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage
licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of
each case.

Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and
may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized
individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means
of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.

[Blake]

Sure I do. Member when you posted that your wife cucked you in the club?

Yes, that was a meltdown. This isn't.

If you want to see some meltdowns on this issue, I'll start a new thread and show you some genuine ones. Most are fucking hilarious.

[Blake]

County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms
that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to
issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges
also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same sex
wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly
when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting
such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering any
compelling governmental interest in ensuring that such ceremonies
occur. Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation
claim depends on the particular facts of each case.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf

That's the AG's personal opinion on the matter.

He further made it very clear that if a clerk denies a license based on religious grounds that he/she is gonna probably need a personal defense lawyer.

[vy65]

^ Thanks buddy. Coulda swore that was an Attorney General Opinion.

[RandomGuy]

While liberals are on the correct side of this issue, the perverse glee they take in forcing religious people to violate their beliefs is quite hypocritical. Talking to you Blake.

Slutter McGee

Not sure exactly how it violates their beliefs.

The bible is quite clear on shellfish, and blended fabrics.

Does this mean that someone could decide not to issue a construction permit for a Red Lobster because it violated their religious beliefs?

Seems to me that if doing an important part of your job "violates your beliefs", you should stop doing that job, and find work more in line with your beliefs.

[Clipper Nation]

It's Texas, not Cuxas. OP is a faggot.

[RandomGuy]

That's the AG's personal opinion on the matter.

He further made it very clear that if a clerk denies a license based on religious grounds that he/she is gonna probably need a personal defense lawyer.

The PDF was an official Opinion, with a capital O. It talked about the legal mechanics and issues involved in a clerks refusal.

The whole thing read to me like a reasonable conservative trying to reassure the hysterical idiot counterparts in that half of the political spectrum that, "no, they are not going to force your pastor to perform gay marriages".

[vy65]

Lotta hypocrisy up in here ...

[ElNono]

It's not the clerk that should get sued, it's the government that employs people that refuse to do the jobs they were hired to do.

[vy65]

What's the harm in, say, Harris County clerk A (WBC member) refusing to wed two fags and then having Harris County Clerk B (also a fag) issue the license? How have the fags' rights been violated?

[ElNono]

What's the harm in, say, Harris County clerk A (WBC member) refusing to wed two fags and then having Harris County Clerk B (also a fag) issue the license? How have the fags' rights been violated?

I think the question is what happens when none of the clerks want to issue the license? Are they forced to comply or?

[ElNono]

The whole thing is false bravado anyways, as you can probably get a license in places like Austin if needed be.

[vy65]

I think the question is what happens when none of the clerks want to issue the license? Are they forced to comply or?

In that scenario, I think they have to comply, or, find someone with authority to perform the ministerial act.

That being said, I don't see this being an issue -- there really aren't gays going out to municipalities with only 1 JP or 1 clerk to get gay married.

[ElNono]

I think legally the question here is bigger than "wearing a burqa" or some such, where the religious objection doesn't prevent you from performing your duties. In this particular case, the objection goes directly towards performing a duty you were hired to do.

[RD2191]

It's Texas, not Cuxas. OP is a faggot.

[ElNono]

In that scenario, I think they have to comply, or, find someone with authority to perform the ministerial act.

That being said, I don't see this being an issue -- there really aren't gays going out to municipalities with only 1 JP or 1 clerk to get gay married.

Texas is pretty big, tbh... lots of little municipalities out there.

[vy65]

I think legally the question here is bigger than "wearing a burqa" or some such, where the religious objection doesn't prevent you from performing your duties. In this particular case, the objection goes directly towards performing a duty you were hired to do.

It goes to one of many duties you were hired to do. And unless the person was hired on Friday afternoon or today, they weren't hired to issue gay marriage licenses or perform gay marriages.

Do you have a problem with giving new hires a choice to do/not do gay marriages if they have a sincere belief?

[vy65]

Texas is pretty big, tbh... lots of little municipalities out there.

Absolutely. I just don't think there's a lot of fags in said municipalities wanting to get married.

[ElNono]

More deeply in the legal mumbo jumbo, whatever religions objections the clerks might have are between them and their church. They are acting as direct representatives of the Government.

As such, there has to be more than just religious or moral reasons for refusing to do their job, as they're effectively causing the Government to refuse to grant a fundamental right to citizens.

[ElNono]

It goes to one of many duties you were hired to do. And unless the person was hired on Friday afternoon or today, they weren't hired to issue gay marriage licenses or perform gay marriages.

Do you have a problem with giving new hires a choice to do/not do gay marriages if they have a sincere belief?

I do when it's a government employee, sure, in the interest of keeping Government away from religion.


Absolutely. I just don't think there's a lot of fags in said municipalities wanting to get married.

I've no idea how many closeted homosexuals are out there, tbh, but that doesn't mean they should be denied their right...

[vy65]

I do when it's a government employee, sure, in the interest of keeping Government away from religion.

Well, this still doesn't address the people who were hired as of last Thursday. And I don't see how allowing a person to opt out of performing a gay marriage is tantamount to establishing a religion. I think there's case law that allows people to decline ministerial functions if it violates a "sincerely held religious belief" but it's been a while.


I've no idea how many closeted homosexuals are out there, tbh, but that doesn't mean they should be denied their right...

Closeted fags don't get married though.

[ElNono]

Well, this still doesn't address the people who were hired as of last Thursday. And I don't see how allowing a person to opt out of performing a gay marriage is tantamount to establishing a religion. I think there's case law that allows people to decline ministerial functions if it violates a "sincerely held religious belief" but it's been a while.

There might be case law on private individuals, but I'm pretty sure when it comes to government, the government itself can't claim such. Clerks are direct representatives of the State, there's no way around that. I expect any lawsuit over this to go directly at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as FWD correctly pointed out in the other thread. By denying a marriage license solely on religious grounds, that clerk and by extension the State is forcing a religious view on the petitioner. That another clerk might approve it is really putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

I don't think "novelty" will be a defense, tbh... after all, what they're after is a Marriage License just like the ones that have been issued for many years, not a new instrument (ie: "Fag Coupling License"), in that sense it doesn't matter when the clerk was hired.


Closeted fags don't get married though.

They can certainly get out of the closet now, tbh, more options...

[vy65]

There might be case law on private individuals, but I'm pretty sure when it comes to government, the government itself can't claim such. Clerks are direct representatives of the State, there's no way around that. I expect any lawsuit over this to go directly at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as FWD correctly pointed out in the other thread. By denying a marriage license solely on religious grounds, that clerk and by extension the State is forcing a religious view on the petitioner. That another clerk might approve it is really putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

I'm 95% positive there's caselaw dealing with public employees and the RFRA, but I don't know any details one way or another. FWD would probably know though.

Disagree on your pig/lipstick assessment. Fags are absolutely entitled to have a marriage performed now. If the municipality denies them a marriage license, then that municipality has problems. However, fags do not have the right to have clerks who religiously object to gay marrying them perform the ritual or get the certificate if there is another willing clerk/JP. I think you'd be hard strained to find anything in Obergefell that suggests that not only do fags have the right to marriage, they also have the right to have religiously objecting public workers perform the ritual/issue the certificate. Again, this is in the scenario where non-objecting workers are willing to step in. Frankly, in that scenario, everyone wins -- so I don't get the lipstick/pig bit.

The point about novelty was that the overwhelming majority of clerks/JPs were hired not to gay marry fags. And the issue obviously is divisive. So it's a little dishonest to suggest that it was always already in their job description

I don't think "novelty" will be a defense, tbh... after all, what they're after is a Marriage License just like the ones that have been issued for many years, not a new instrument (ie: "Fag Coupling License"), in that sense it doesn't matter when the clerk was hired.


They can certainly get out of the closet now, tbh, more options...

Are you trying to tell us something here my nig?

[ElNono]

I'm 95% positive there's caselaw dealing with public employees and the RFRA, but I don't know any details one way or another. FWD would probably know though.

I think he already did:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249913&p=8069818&viewfull=1#post8069818


Disagree on your pig/lipstick assessment. Fags are absolutely entitled to have a marriage performed now. If the municipality denies them a marriage license, then that municipality has problems. However, fags do not have the right to have clerks who religiously object to gay marrying them perform the ritual or get the certificate if there is another willing clerk/JP. I think you'd be hard strained to find anything in Obergefell that suggests that not only do fags have the right to marriage, they also have the right to have religiously objecting public workers perform the ritual/issue the certificate. Again, this is in the scenario where non-objecting workers are willing to step in. Frankly, in that scenario, everyone wins -- so I don't get the lipstick/pig bit.

The point about novelty was that the overwhelming majority of clerks/JPs were hired not to gay marry fags. And the issue obviously is divisive. So it's a little dishonest to suggest that it was always already in their job description

The Obergefell decision simply says they have the same rights to Marriage as any heterosexual couple. With that in mind, it's the State's responsibility to ensure such licenses are issued. If the State can't do that, for whatever reason, then they're violating a constitutional right of the petitioner.


Are you trying to tell us something here my nig?

Well, yeah, fruits can legally marry now. That's a new option, right?

[ElNono]

FWIW, from what I read, Clerks "can delegate", but they don't have to. And I think these are the kind of waters that will be tested here.

[vy65]

I think he already did:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249913&p=8069818&viewfull=1#post8069818

I'm actually wrong about this since RFRA doesn't apply to states/municipalities. My B. Still besides the point.


The Obergefell decision simply says they have the same rights to Marriage as any heterosexual couple. With that in mind, it's the State's responsibility to ensure such licenses are issued. If the State can't do that, for whatever reason, then they're violating a constitutional right of the petitioner.

I think we're saying the same thing here. Fags can marry, absolutely. If a clerk A doesn't want to issue the license on religious grounds, but clerk B is fine with it, and does issue the certificate, there's been no constitutional violation, right? Or are you saying that the fag couple has a right to insist on clerk A issuing the certificate over his religious objection? If not, then we're in agreement.

[TeyshaBlue]

FWIW, from what I read, Clerks "can delegate", but they don't have to. And I think these are the kind of waters that will be tested here.

Not much to test, IMO. Clerk is a gov emoloyee. Clerk hews to gov policy. End of argument.

[ElNono]

I think we're saying the same thing here. Fags can marry, absolutely. If a clerk A doesn't want to issue the license on religious grounds, but clerk B is fine with it, and does issue the certificate, there's been no constitutional violation, right? Or are you saying that the fag couple has a right to insist on clerk A issuing the certificate over his religious objection? If not, then we're in agreement.

If the State resolves the issue internally, I don't see the problem, as long as the license issues. But I suspect some clerks might just object and not delegate over that objection. Then we'll have our first case where a License won't issue.

When that happens, I don't think the AG opinion will hold up in court.

[ElNono]

Not much to test, IMO. Clerk is a gov emoloyee. Clerk hews to gov policy. End of argument.

It could make a compelling case for Abbott to rant about the big bad federal gubmint intruding on the State and the Holy Bible.

Amen

[TeyshaBlue]

Eons ago I pulled a stint in the job corp. I was a Dept of Labor employee. Pretty cut and dried what I could or could not say in the course of my duties.

[ElNono]

Eons ago I pulled a stint in the job corp. I was a Dept of Labor employee. Pretty cut and dried what I could or could not say in the course of my duties.

Yeah, I see this more as false bravado than anything else, really.

[Blake]

^ Thanks buddy. Coulda swore that was an Attorney General Opinion.

Couldn't tell if you were passing it off as fact

[Blake]

Well, this still doesn't address the people who were hired as of last Thursday. And I don't see how allowing a person to opt out of performing a gay marriage is tantamount to establishing a religion. I think there's case law that allows people to decline ministerial functions if it violates a "sincerely held religious belief" but it's been a while.


if gay marriage is a fundamental right then date of hire is irrelevant. You can't be grandfathered into being allowed to perform acts of bigotry here.

[vy65]

Blake apparently gets to choose which rights are fundamental and which are not

[vy65]

If the State resolves the issue internally, I don't see the problem, as long as the license issues. But I suspect some clerks might just object and not delegate over that objection. Then we'll have our first case where a License won't issue.

When that happens, I don't think the AG opinion will hold up in court.

I think everyone is operating under the assumption that the license will issue. The point is that it doesn't matter who actually issues it as long as it issues. That's why this is like you said bravado

[Shastafarian]

Sweet so I don't have to do certain aspects of my job based on my religious beliefs? And I still get paid as if I were doing those things? 'Murica.

[ChumpDumper]

What's the harm in, say, Harris County clerk A (WBC member) refusing to wed two fags and then having Harris County Clerk B (also a fag) issue the license? How have the fags' rights been violated?Clerk A should get another job because Clerk A is a huge pussy.

[ElNono]

I think everyone is operating under the assumption that the license will issue. The point is that it doesn't matter who actually issues it as long as it issues. That's why this is like you said bravado

In general I would agree, but on the other hand, I think the AG's opinion is legal junk, and in the unlikely event there's a situation where such bad advice leads to a delay or denial of a license, it's going to cost the State a pretty penny.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think that's a correct reading. I just give the opinion a quick glance, but I think the AG's point is that an individual can pass off on performing his ministerial duty to another clerk if he has an objection. That's why it speaks in terms of accommodation, the presence of another JP, and "the facts and circumstances of each case." I don't think it suggests outright denial is proper.

Okay, suppose that it's a judge who has to make some determination concerning a same sex couple. I realize that's not what the AG's memo deals with specifically, but the question is essentially the same, because ultimately, the question is whether a person who elects to assume an obligation to carry out constitutional requirements can choose, based on personal preferences, to ignore some of those requirements.

I think it's absolutely clear that if, for instance, a married same-sex couple appeared before a judge to finalize an adoption, the judge could not refuse to sign the order granting the adoption based solely on the fact that the people before him are of the same-sex and he has some objection to their marriage. Similarly, if a judge is asked to resolve a dispute about the inheritance of the survivors of a man who is married to another man, he cannot elect to ignore the fact that the deceased was legally married and must carry out the law as it applies to spouses. That's true no matter how earnest the judge's personal religious beliefs are.

A clerk is different in degree (perhaps) but not in type. Both the clerk and the judge assume obligations upon taking office to carry out the law. In performing their governmental duties, neither the judge nor the clerk is acting as an individual; they are, in those moments, the State of Texas and it's absolutely unconstitutional (now) for the State of Texas to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. So, I don't think that there's any way that the AG's opinion is correct.

I don't disagree that in some clerks' offices, there may be ways to make accommodations for principled dissenters as a courtesy within the office. But the problem arises where there is nobody else to do what's required after all of the objectors have been placated.

[FromWayDowntown]

Blake apparently gets to choose which rights are fundamental and which are not

Blake is just saying what the Supreme Court said on Friday.


Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause.

A significant part of its decision was its reiteration of the conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right in American society:


The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

[mrsmaalox]

:madrun muh religious rights

can't wait to see the first county clerk to stand ground


El Paso County to judges: Marry all couples or none at all


El Paso County Clerk Delia Briones said today judges who marry couples in county facilities must also marry same-sex couples or not perform any marriages at all.

The County Clerk's Office on Friday began processing marriage license applications for same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that ended the ban in 14 states, including Texas.

"The Supreme Court to me is the ultimate law. It's the law of the land. The Attorney General's opinion is just that, an opinion. But the highest law of the land is the Supreme Court of Justice and it is that law I must follow," Briones said.

County Attorney JoAnne Bernal issued an advisory on Friday reminding officials that the county could not discriminate against same-sex couples following the Supreme Court ruling.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a written opinion issued Sunday said county clerks in the state who have religious objections to same-same marriages can opt out of issuing licenses but could face fines or legal challenges.

In El Paso County, 30 district and county court at law judges in El Paso County, as well as eight justices of the peace, are authorized to perform marriages.

"In El Paso County, everybody has been made aware that if we choose to marry (couples), then we can't discriminate," said County Criminal Court Judge Alma Trejo, who also serves as the administrative judge for the Council of Judges.

County Court at Law No. 5 Judge Carlos Villa, who was the first to marry a same-sex couple in El Paso on Friday, said he and other judges have the option to marry all couples or none at all.

"You either opt out all together, or if you do marriages, then you can't discriminate," Villa said.

In a press conference today, Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, said that will send a mixed and incorrect message to county clerks across the state.

He said certain elected officials, including the county clerk, can be removed from office if they don't perform their duties of office.

"They do not have an option," Rodriguez said.

El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar today called Paxton's opinion "highly irresponsible" that could be very costly to counties if county governments have either a judge or a (justice of the peace) or a county clerk who refuses to comply with the federal law."



http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_28401747

[z0sa]

The courthouse needs to issue marriage licenses. That is their job. Period. The law is the law.

I'm guardedly in support of churches refusing to cater to teh gays, though. The main issue, for me, was always concerning the rights bestowed by legally obtaining a marriage license. The gays have every right to one under the Constitution. If a church wants to discriminate based solely upon religious objections, that should be their prerogative.

[vy65]

Okay, suppose that it's a judge who has to make some determination concerning a same sex couple. I realize that's not what the AG's memo deals with specifically, but the question is essentially the same, because ultimately, the question is whether a person who elects to assume an obligation to carry out constitutional requirements can choose, based on personal preferences, to ignore some of those requirements.

I think it's absolutely clear that if, for instance, a married same-sex couple appeared before a judge to finalize an adoption, the judge could not refuse to sign the order granting the adoption based solely on the fact that the people before him are of the same-sex and he has some objection to their marriage. Similarly, if a judge is asked to resolve a dispute about the inheritance of the survivors of a man who is married to another man, he cannot elect to ignore the fact that the deceased was legally married and must carry out the law as it applies to spouses. That's true no matter how earnest the judge's personal religious beliefs are.

A clerk is different in degree (perhaps) but not in type. Both the clerk and the judge assume obligations upon taking office to carry out the law. In performing their governmental duties, neither the judge nor the clerk is acting as an individual; they are, in those moments, the State of Texas and it's absolutely unconstitutional (now) for the State of Texas to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. So, I don't think that there's any way that the AG's opinion is correct.

I don't see a difference at all. The government code and the trcp allow judges to recuse themselves and my recollection is that the recusal standard is pretty loose. If a judge is religiously opposed to the concept of gay marriage, let him recuse himself. Do you really want a vehemently anti-gay judge making rulings in the cases you just described?


I don't disagree that in some clerks' offices, there may be ways to make accommodations for principled dissenters as a courtesy within the office. But the problem arises where there is nobody else to do what's required after all of the objectors have been placated.

There's no disagreement that a license has to issue. End of story. The question is whether it's constitutional to force someone opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds to issue the certificate where a non-objecting clerk is available and willing to issue the same.

[vy65]

Clerk A should get another job because Clerk A is a huge pussy.

Man, you're a real tough guy

[vy65]

Blake is just saying what the Supreme Court said on Friday

Sorry, I missed the part of the courts opinion abrogating Title VII. Can you gimme a cite for that part?

[ChumpDumper]

Man, you're a real tough guyTougher than Clerk A.

[vy65]

Tougher than Clerk A.

Absolutely

[ChumpDumper]

AbsolutelyYep. If you can't handle putting a stamp on a paper, find something else to do.

[vy65]

Yep. If you can't handle putting a stamp on a paper, find something else to do.

Such an alpha thing to say

[ChumpDumper]

Such an alpha thing to sayNah, it's just not that difficult a job.

[spurraider21]

:lol

[vy65]

Nah, it's just not that difficult a job.

And now you're brushing it off ... like a boss. Nice.

[HI-FI]

This is how you reach 100K.

[vy65]

This is how you reach 100K.

Nah, you get there by being a fucking boss who calls out municipal workers for being pussies.

[ChumpDumper]

And now you're brushing it off ... like a boss. Nice.Brushing what off?

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, you get there by being a fucking boss who calls out municipal workers for being pussies.What is your point about them again?

[ElNono]

Sorry, I missed the part of the courts opinion abrogating Title VII. Can you gimme a cite for that part?

Just curious, why would it?

[vy65]

Just curious, why would it?

Employers are required to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Blakes cuckvengeance on conservative christian clerks probably isn't a religious accommodation when someone else is willing to sign off on the certificate.

[ElNono]

Employers are required to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Blakes cuckvengeance on conservative christian clerks probably isn't a religious accommodation when someone else is willing to sign off on the certificate.

The State can certainly reshuffle their personnel if one or more of them can't perform their duties due to religious objections. It certainly wouldn't be grounds for termination.

[vy65]

The State can certainly reshuffle their personnel if one or more of them can't perform their duties due to religious objections. It certainly wouldn't be grounds for termination.

Exactly my point.

[Shastafarian]

Employers are required to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Blakes cuckvengeance on conservative christian clerks probably isn't a religious accommodation when someone else is willing to sign off on the certificate.

And so you think accommodations should be made for clerks who refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples?

[Shastafarian]

The "Slippery slope" argument is usually bullshit. But when religious beliefs are involved it seems increasingly valid. Find a random verse from the bible and use it to discriminate against people. Where does it end?

[vy65]

And so you think accommodations should be made for clerks who refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples?

Is there such a thing as a sincerely held religious belief, as that term is defined in the case law, that allows something like that?

[Clipper Nation]

The "Slippery slope" argument is usually bullshit. But when it suits my argument it seems increasingly valid.

FIFY

[Shastafarian]

Is there such a thing as a sincerely held religious belief, as that term is defined in the case law, that allows something like that?

Why not? How do you define a "sincerely held belief"? I'm sure many in the south would argue yes (and from what I've read about the historical south, this in fact happened).

[Shastafarian]

FIFY

Thanks. Here I was thinking more and more christians are using "religious beliefs" to discriminate against people. Silly me. :tu

[vy65]

Why not? How do you define a "sincerely held belief"? I'm sure many in the south would argue yes (and from what I've read about the historical south, this in fact happened).

Man, that's such a great question. If only there was a SCOTUS case or two defining it and, hell, maybe even applying it?

[Shastafarian]

Man, that's such a great question. If only there was a SCOTUS case or two defining it and, hell, maybe even applying it?

So show us the cases then. Since you clearly know everything there is to know about the subject.

[Shastafarian]

Or skip the cases. How is it any different to say you have a religious objection to issuing marriage licenses to an interracial/interfaith couple? There are passages in the bible which specifically mention that.

[vy65]

How is it any different to say you have a religious objection to issuing marriage licenses to an interracial/interfaith couple? There are passages in the bible which specifically mention that.

What religion has this as a tenet? Which religion has its believers practice this?

[vy65]

So show us the cases then. Since you clearly know everything there is to know about the subject.


You can shepherdize US v. Seeger.

[Shastafarian]

What religion has this as a tenet? Which religion has its believers practice this?

Christianity and Judaism. It's in the scriptures.

[Th'Pusher]

What religion has this as a tenet? Which religion has its believers practice this?

Should a Salafi be able to deny a woman a drivers license based on religious exception?

[ChumpDumper]

Should a Salafi be able to deny a woman a drivers license based on religious exception?I'm sure the DMV could find a homosexual to issue the license.

[vy65]

Should a Salafi be able to deny a woman a drivers license based on religious exception?


I'm sure the DMV could find a homosexual to issue the license.

[ChumpDumper]

lol that was vy's serious answer.

[Th'Pusher]

^lipstick on a pig. You've conceded the point a person can be forced to issue the license.

[vy65]

lol that was vy's serious answer.

Yeah what's wrong with it tough guy?

[vy65]

^lipstick on a pig. You've conceded the point a person can be forced to issue the license.

I've conceded the point that the DMV should reasonably accommodate someone's religious preferences if another worker can issue a license. How did you not get that?

[vy65]

Should a Salafi be able to deny a woman a drivers license based on religious exception?


Why would the woman care who gives her the license so long as she gets one? Have her rights been violated in any way by having the Salafi pass her over to another worker? Why is she driving in the first place and why are you such a fagget?

[Th'Pusher]

Yeah what's wrong with it tough guy?
You've already conceded the person with the deeply held belief has to issue the license if the gay guy calls in sick. It's a shitty argument and laughable a lawyer would float it...

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah what's wrong with it tough guy?What if no one wants to issue the license?

[Th'Pusher]

I've conceded the point that the DMV should reasonably accommodate someone's religious preferences if another worker can issue a license. How did you not get that?
I got your shitty point just fine. But you conceded the bigot must issue the license if no one else will.

[vy65]

What if no one wants to issue the license?

That's a different scenario. If the DMV has one and only 1 salafi worker, then he cannot be reasonably accommodated, and has to issue the license. How often does this happen. Please be specific in your answer.

[Th'Pusher]

Why would the woman care who gives her the license so long as she gets one? Have her rights been violated in any way by having the Salafi pass her over to another worker? Why is she driving in the first place and why are you such a fagget?
Shitty lawyer getting emotional.

[vy65]

You've already conceded the person with the deeply held belief has to issue the license if the gay guy calls in sick. It's a shitty argument and laughable a lawyer would float it...

Why's it shitty? Saying so doesn't make it so.

[vy65]

Crofl playing the emo card. Last refuge of a slurper who's got nothing left besides "thats shitty!" and "you've conceded my point!"

[ChumpDumper]

That's a different scenario. If the DMV has one and only 1 salafi worker, then he cannot be reasonably accommodated, and has to issue the license.What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

[vy65]

Th'slurper, can you please point me to all these DMVs with only two workers: a gay guy and a salafi?

[vy65]

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

How likely is that scenario? Be specific, tough guy.

[ChumpDumper]

How likely is that scenario? Be specific, tough guy.It's a hypothetical, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

[vy65]

It's a hypothetical, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

Your hypothetical is implausible, tough guy.

[vy65]

What if America turns into a country of religious bigots or fags? What happens then CD?

[Shastafarian]

Your hypothetical is implausible, tough guy.

Why is it implausible? Saying so doesn't make it so. Ever been to the rural south?

[ChumpDumper]

Your hypothetical is implausible, tough guy.Give it a try there, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

[Th'Pusher]

Th'slurper, can you please point me to all these DMVs with only two workers: a gay guy and a salafi?
You're deflecting. Fine. Accommodate all you want. The reality is that when it comes down to it, you agree the person with the deeply held religious belief CAN be forced to issue the license.

As as soon as you conceded that, you lost the fucking argument and everything else is lipstick on a pig...

thats the law.

[vy65]

Give it a try there, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?


What if America turns into a country of religious bigots or fags? What happens then CD?

[ChumpDumper]

Why the stonewalling, tough guy?
Give it a try there, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

[Spurminator]

On the plus side, it's nice to finally see Republicans at least pretend to give a shit about government workers, though.

[vy65]

You're deflecting. Fine. Accommodate all you want. The reality is that when it comes down to it, you agree the person with the deeply held religious belief CAN be forced to issue the license.

As as soon as you conceded that, you lost the fucking argument and everything else is lipstick on a pig...

thats the law.

Congrats on being caught up to speed on what was said on page 1 of this thread.

In your implausible hypothetical yes they can be forced to issue a license. As a practical matter, can you cite to a single instance where this has been the case? Or is likely to be to the case? Or are you just scoring empty points?

[vy65]

Why the stonewalling, tough guy?


No stonewalling. When has this ever happened?

[ChumpDumper]

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/9/91/Helen_Lovejoy.png/revision/latest?cb=20130424171522
Please, won't someone think of the fundamentalist clerks!

[ChumpDumper]

No stonewalling. When has this ever happened?It's a hypothetical, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

[vy65]

Man, Simpson's images huh? You're like a more intelligible Fabbs.

[vy65]

It's a hypothetical, tough guy.

What if there are 100 people and none of them want to issue the license?

It's a stupid hypothetical because it's unrealistic. Which makes it not worth answering. Why are you not getting this?

[ChumpDumper]

Man, Simpson's images huh? You're like a more intelligible Fabbs.You got a problem with Mrs. Lovejoy, tough guy?

[ChumpDumper]

It's a stupid hypothetical because it's unrealistic. Which makes it not worth answering. Why are you not getting this?What part is unrealistic?

[vy65]

You got a problem with Mrs. Lovejoy, tough guy?

Nah, I'd fuck her.

[Th'Pusher]

Congrats on being caught up to speed on what was said on page 1 of this thread.

In your implausible hypothetical yes they can be forced to issue a license. As a practical matter, can you cite to a single instance where this has been the case? Or is likely to be to the case? Or are you just scoring empty points?

I've been reading you getting shit on by pretty much everyone since page one. Didn't you think this Supreme Court decision was a snore?

We'll see about how plausible it is in the coming months.

[vy65]

What part is unrealistic?


The part where you have hate-DMV filed only with bible thumping vitriolic clerks and not a single worker willing to give a fag a license. I'd have thought that was obvious, tough guy.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I'd fuck her.She's a cartoon, tough guy. She's not real. Your hypothetically having sex with her is unrealistic. Why are you not getting this?

[vy65]

I've been reading you getting shit on by pretty much everyone since page one. Didn't you think this Supreme Court decision was a snore?

We'll see about how plausible it is in the coming months.

Ok Blake, whatever you say.

[vy65]

She's a cartoon, tough guy. She's not real. Your hypothetically having sex with her is unrealistic. Why are you not getting this?


And the devolution is now complete.

[Shastafarian]

Nah, I'd fuck her.
Stick to law. Humor isn't your strong suit.

[ChumpDumper]

The part where you have hate-DMV filed only with bible thumping vitriolic clerks and not a single worker willing to give a fag a license. I'd have thought that was obvious, tough guy.Who said anything about hate or the bible or homosexuals?

None of that was obvious at all.

You're not good at this, tough guy.

[ChumpDumper]

And the devolution is now complete.As long as you can keep ducking simple questions, I guess you think you win.

[HI-FI]

Th'slurper, can you please point me to all these DMVs with only two workers: a gay guy and a salafi?
:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Ok Blake, whatever you say.
:yield

:cry

[ChumpDumper]

vy65 ran away in the absolute tough guy-est way possible.

He sure showed us!

[Shastafarian]

Nothing says tough guy like using slurs against an entire group of people.

[Th'Pusher]

vy65 ran away in the absolute tough guy-est way possible.

He sure showed us!
I can't imagine he is that incompetent in arguement. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he takes what he knows to be a shitty position just for the sake or arguing.

The guy consistently shits his pants in thread after thread. I don't think I've ever seen him win an argument.

[admiralsnackbar]

I can't imagine he is that incompetent in arguement. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he takes what he knows to be a shitty position just for the sake or arguing. The guy consistently shits his pants in thread after thread. I don't think I've ever seen him win an argument. Don't spend enough time here to know who does what anymore, but in his defense, it is midnight on a Monday, y'all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Don't spend enough time here to know who does what anymore, but in his defense, it is midnight on a Monday, y'all.

You think you're better than me bc you can tell time, tough guy?

[FromWayDowntown]

Hey tough guys, I haven't read/heard the phrase "tough guy" this much in one place since I was in Monmouth County, New Jersey in the mid-90's, tough guys.

[RD2191]

Nothing says tough guy like using slurs against an entire group of people.
Lol, faggot.

[RD2191]

So why can't faggots donate blood?

[Blake]

Lol, faggot.

Lol failed Christian

[RD2191]

So why can't faggots donate blood?

[ChumpDumper]

So why can't faggots donate blood?What does this have to do with their being able to marry?

Please explain yourself.

[Blake]

So why can't faggots donate blood?

Because of ignorant homophobes like yourself.

But that will soon change. If you need blood during surgery in the next 10 years or so, it's possible you'll have plenty of gay blood coursing through your veins giving you erections every time Magic Mike 2 is shown on TBS

[Oh, Gee!!]

So why can't faggots donate blood?

The Bible forbids it

[RD2191]

The Bible forbids it
:lol

[mrsmaalox]

What does this have to do with their being able to marry?

Please explain yourself.

He's not capable of putting a thought into words. But give him a min or 2 and he'll find the perfect meme. If all else fails, he'll post his go to :lol and maybe add the word faggot to show how serious he is.

[RD2191]

He's not capable of putting a thought into words. But give him a min or 2 and he'll find the perfect meme. If all else fails, he'll post his go to :lol and maybe add the word faggot to show how serious he is.
lol, old desperate dust whore. fishing for comments online.:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

lol, old desperate dust whore. fishing for comments online.:lmaoSo what does donating blood have to do with being able to marry?

Please explain yourself.

[mrsmaalox]

lol, old desperate dust whore. fishing for comments online.:lmao

Middle school education wrestles with critical thought and reading comprehension :lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

what a dumb bitch. She thought you was gonna "LOL," but you "ROFL'd" instead. You proved her wrong

[RD2191]

Middle school education wrestles with critical thought and reading comprehension :lmao
:lolgraduated at the top of my class
:loltoo stupid to realize I'm trolling
:loldesperate for attention
:lolneglected by husband so looks for approval online

[ChumpDumper]

:cry I'm jes trollin! I have no point! :cry

[RD2191]

So what does donating blood have to do with being able to marry?

Please explain yourself.
:lolwhy cant gays donate blood? answer the question.

[RD2191]

:cry I'm jes trollin! I have no point! :cry
david, shutup before I post your pics.

[mrsmaalox]

:lolgraduated at the top of my class
:loltoo stupid to realize I'm trolling
:loldesperate for attention
:lolneglected by husband so looks for approval online

Too stupid to think for himself, must recycle SBM's insults. The word "cuck" coming any second now.....

[Blake]

:lolgraduated at the top of my class
:loltoo stupid to realize I'm trolling
:loldesperate for attention
:lolneglected by husband so looks for approval online

Lol just trollin

[Oh, Gee!!]

they see me trollin', they hatin'

[ChumpDumper]

:lolwhy cant gays donate blood? answer the question.Many can.

And given the testing blood goes through errs on the side of caution, I really don't know why the remaining ban is in place. [EDIT:I do know now]
Now, what does donating blood have to do with getting married?

[Blake]

:lolwhy cant gays donate blood? answer the question.

What's your thought on it

[RD2191]

:lolSo a cuck, a handi, and a whore walk into a bar...

[ChumpDumper]

:lolSo a cuck, a handi, and a whore walk into a bar...Now, what does donating blood have to do with getting married?

[mrsmaalox]

Too stupid to think for himself, must recycle SBM's insults. The word "cuck" coming any second now.....


:lolSo a cuck, a handi, and a whore walk into a bar...

Bingo

[ChumpDumper]

lol she called it.

[Blake]

Bingo

Nobody was going to bet against you. Not even rob.

[boutons_deux]

TX AG telling TX govt employees to break Federal law because God tells them to HATE LGBT.

[RD2191]

lol she called it.
Ok david.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok david.Who's David?

Please try to explain yourself for once. You're making less and less sense as the reality of same-sex marriage sinks in to your upset mind.

[Blake]

Ok david.

It's funny when you call him David because your real name is probably really Rob Diaz.

And I'm gonna guess you were stupid enough to put your DOB in your user name: 02/01/1991

[RD2191]

Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.

And no, my name isn't even Rob. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.Rescue? Who's David?


And no, my name isn't even Rob. :lolWhy is your screen name ribdiaz2191?

[Blake]

Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.

And no, my name isn't even Rob. :lol

Crofl sure it's not.

[spurraider21]

Why is your screen name ribdiaz2191?
who knows. is your first name Chump? Why is your screen name ChumpDumper?

[mingus]

That's all fine and good except for the part in which it violates the Constitution (and the now recognized constitutional right of same sex couples to marry). This nonsense about being able to use religious preferences in deciding whether to perform ministerial, governmental duties is pretty well divorced from any Constitutional basis.

A governmental clerk can no more justifiably deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than he can deny a marriage license to an interracial couple. Each couple now has precisely the same right to marry, and the religious beliefs of the clerk have nothing to do with their exercise of that right through acquiring a necessary license.

If a governmental employee doesn't like carrying out parts of his or her job that are constitutionally required but personally offensive, perhaps that person should find other employment.

Religious intermarriage can be denied by priest or rabbi. Nobody makes a big shit about it, right or wrong. How's that any different (serious question bec. I truly don't know)? I'm talking non-government employees. I understand why government employees have no out.

Anyway, those who want intermarry simply find a priest or rabbi willing to do it, of which there are plenty.

I don't see the point forcing private citizens to offer that service. Different people have different beliefs in regards to what marriage constitutes. If they don't believe it encompasses more than man-women then so be it...there's plenty of people out there that are open to it, go knock on their door. Same with interracial marriage.

[ElNono]

A priest or a rabbi conducting personal business doesn't make them a representative of the State. That the State might admit documentation from a priest or a rabbi in order to issue a marriage license still doesn't make them a representative of the State.

A government clerk *IS* a representative of the State and his/her actions directly produce State speech.

Got it now?

[ChumpDumper]

who knows.He does.
is your first name Chump?No.
Why is your screen name ChumpDumper?Named after the dump-a-chump Spurs offense.

Pretty simple stuff.

[ChumpDumper]

A priest or a rabbi conducting personal business doesn't make them a representative of the State. That the State might admit documentation from a priest or a rabbi in order to issue a marriage license still doesn't make them a representative of the State.

A government clerk *IS* a representative of the State and his/her actions directly produce State speech.

Got it now?lol why is it so difficult for these people to stay on point?

[Shastafarian]

Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.

And no, my name isn't even Rob. :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238466&page=17&p=7559263&viewfull=1#post7559263

Just trolling right?

[Blake]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238466&page=17&p=7559263&viewfull=1#post7559263

Just trolling right?

lol

[CosmicCowboy]

A priest or a rabbi conducting personal business doesn't make them a representative of the State. That the State might admit documentation from a priest or a rabbi in order to issue a marriage license still doesn't make them a representative of the State.

A government clerk *IS* a representative of the State and his/her actions directly produce State speech.

Got it now?

Just playing devils advocate to this argument.

All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.

[ChumpDumper]

Just playing devils advocate to this argument.

All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.Not happening.

[boutons_deux]

I suspect the big televangelists, Hagee, Robertson, hyper-wealth mega-church hucksters, etc make "dark money" political contributions to Christian supremacist Repug politicians.

[ElNono]

Just playing devils advocate to this argument.

All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.

I don't think that would survive scrutiny from a court of law, if the sole basis for denying tax exempt status is religious objection.

If there are other reasons, then it might be meritorious.

[Blake]

Just playing devils advocate to this argument.

All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.

Except that it's not really the church that agrees to perform a wedding. It's the individual minister.

where it would get tricky imo would be when the gay couple wants to pay to have the ceremony at a church and are denied. That might be kinda like the Christian bakers refusing to make the gay cake.

Ftr, I think it's complete bull shit that churches are granted tax exempt status. You can toss Goodwill stores in there too.

[ElNono]

Except that it's not really the church that agrees to perform a wedding. It's the individual minister.

where it would get tricky imo would be when the gay couple wants to pay to have the ceremony at a church and are denied. That might be kinda like the Christian bakers refusing to make the gay cake.

Ftr, I think it's complete bull shit that churches are granted tax exempt status. You can toss Goodwill stores in there too.

Nothing tricky about that, tbh.... you can chose to do business with whomever you want.

[boutons_deux]

"All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt"

The HUGE FUCKING LIE, FUD, these MEN OF GOD, and their Repug/Fox LIARS, keep repeating is that the Feds will jail them for refusing to marry same-sexers.

ALREADY, priests, pastors, ministers have complete rights to refuse to marry anyone ALREADY, been doing that forever.

[Blake]

Nothing tricky about that, tbh.... you can chose to do business with whomever you want.

depends on the state, iirc

[FromWayDowntown]

Just playing devils advocate to this argument.

All churches benefit greatly from the Federal government subsidy of being tax exempt. One could make the argument that if they don't want to follow federal guidelines they are free to do so but they lose their tax exempt status.

If the government tried that, based solely on a church's refusal to wed same-sex couples, I have no difficulty saying that I hope the court would quickly grant judgment to the church and would sternly rebuke the government for wasting its time with such nonsense.

The one thing that has struck me about the debate on this issue since Friday is how little so many people know about the Constitution and how it actually works. The Constitution doesn't directly apply to non-governmental actors. That's why you can fire an employee who makes a statement that you take issue with and his recourse isn't to claim that he has some First Amendment right to say what he wants.

The notion that states should get to decide whether or not individuals can exercise fundamental rights is laughably inaccurate. The notion that churches or preachers can be made -- either by force of affirmative law or by the compulsion of implied law -- to violate their fundamental religious tenets is bizarrely detached from the actual law of the land (which, again, Justice Kennedy took pains to note in his opinion).

Churches can lose their religious rights when they stop being religious, but when they act from a place of religious conscience, their conduct is protected by a fundamental right -- the fundamental right to free exercise.

[FromWayDowntown]

Nothing tricky about that, tbh.... you can chose to do business with whomever you want.

Even if a state has a law that prohibits discrimination in such things, there's absolutely no way that the State can apply that law to religious groups without infringing their right to Free Exercise.

[Blake]

Even if a state has a law that prohibits discrimination in such things, there's absolutely no way that the State can apply that law to religious groups without infringing their right to Free Exercise.


About twenty states with that type of law

but from that standpoint, even the Civil Rights Act contradicts the right to free exercise.

[FromWayDowntown]

About twenty states with that type of law

Without an exemption for churches? That would be stunning, since most of those laws expressly exempt religious organizations from their application.

[FromWayDowntown]

For instance, Title VII includes a provision (42 U.S.C. s. 2000e-1) that exempts religious organizations from a significant portion of its requirements and allows those religious organizations to (for example) refuse to hire people of other faiths to perform work related to the religious organization's activities.

[Blake]

For instance, Title VII includes a provision (42 U.S.C. s. 2000e-1) that exempts religious organizations from a significant portion of its requirements and allows those religious organizations to (for example) refuse to hire people of other faiths to perform work related to the religious organization's activities.

If a church opens it doors to the general public to hold wedding ceremonies, I think tha title vii is gonna get tested very very soon thanks to gay marriage ruling.

I put the over under on a lawsuit coming at +/- one year.

I know it's England, but iirc, there's a gay couple suing the church of England for refusing.....

[ElNono]

Even if a state has a law that prohibits discrimination in such things, there's absolutely no way that the State can apply that law to religious groups without infringing their right to Free Exercise.

Not to mention that, realistically speaking, if there was a bill in Congress that would remove tax exemption solely based on religious objection, it wouldn't pass. Especially in this Congress.

[FromWayDowntown]

Not to mention that, realistically speaking, if there was a bill in Congress that would remove tax exemption solely based on religious objection, it wouldn't pass. Especially in this Congress.

I think the exemption thing would more likely be handled at the administrative level (within IRS) rather than at the Congressional level (by the enactment of a law) -- likely because it would be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than in some sort of holistic way. Regardless, I think that the "realistically speaking" part of that is important; if IRS tried to strip a church of tax exemptions on the basis of a refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, the political blowback would be nuclear in its intensity.

[FromWayDowntown]

If a church opens it doors to the general public to hold wedding ceremonies, I think tha title vii is gonna get tested very very soon thanks to gay marriage ruling.

I put the over under on a lawsuit coming at +/- one year.

Anyone can bring a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that such a lawsuit would have merit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If a church opens it doors to the general public to hold wedding ceremonies, I think tha title vii is gonna get tested very very soon thanks to gay marriage ruling.

From one non-religious person to another, why do you care so much? It sounds like you want the churches to be taken to court for something that violates their personal beliefs. If the church denies them another church will hold the wedding. Your hate for all things religious is amusing, maybe a nice Sunday in church is what you need.

[Blake]

Here's one for CC....not quite what you were getting at, but close:


By*JILL*P.*CAPUZZO

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association....

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?referrer=

[Blake]

From one non-religious person to another, why do you care so much? It sounds like you want the churches to be taken to court for something that violates their personal beliefs. If the church denies them another church will hold the wedding. Your hate for all things religious is amusing, maybe a nice Sunday in church is what you need.

It's mostly just fascinating to watch and to guess how things will play out. Like the Tom Brady case, I'm really fascinated with no dog in the fight. I'm just here talking about it, but nothing more than that off this board.

A good Sunday nap sounds good tho

[Blake]

Anyone can bring a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that such a lawsuit would have merit.

I thought there was precedence for churches having to perform marriages based in skin color. Apparently not...my mistake.

[ElNono]

Here's one for CC....not quite what you were getting at, but close:

lol, Ocean Grove is not that far from here... it's a well know queer town, tbh... They seem to have won the case on discrimination grounds:
https://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/

What should be noted in this particular case is that the tax-exempt status was granted under a program that requires the pavilion to be an "open space" to qualify.

[Shastafarian]

:lolgraduated at the top of my class



If he had chosen the Spurs he would of already announced imo. I'd hate to see the bottom of that class.

[RD2191]

I'd hate to see the bottom of that class.
bruh. if you can understand it then the message was conveyed.:lol

[boutons_deux]

I'd hate to see the bottom of that class.

most have been received "mental health care" from police guns.

[Shastafarian]

bruh. if you can understand it then the message was conveyed.:lol

Doesn't change the fact your class must have been pretty terrible if you were at the top.

[Shastafarian]

Crofl. Semen shield Blake to the rescue.

And no, my name isn't even Rob. :lol

:lol Explain your name change request then. What does "RD" stand for?

You wanna be able to talk shit but don't want people to be able to do the same to you. Grow up kid.

[RD2191]

:lol Explain your name change request then. What does "RD" stand for?

You wanna be able to talk shit but don't want people to be able to do the same to you. Grow up kid.
Tf is your faggot ass talking about

[Shastafarian]

Tf is your faggot ass talking about

Someone who graduated at the top of his class would know exactly what I'm talking about "RD".

[boutons_deux]

BRENHAM //

For the safety of residents in Brenham (pop.15,716), “defensive shooting” and CHL instructor John Deans penned a timely guide to “Protecting yourself during mob violence” in the pages of the Brenham Banner-Press. (http://www.brenhambanner.com/news/protecting-yourself-during-mob-violence/article_e74f17d7-ff4d-5719-b63d-af1b7f6cf56c.html) “You need to have your situational awareness in high gear,” Deans advises. “You must assume that the police cannot save you during those war-like events. Your survival skills will be all that is protecting yourself and your family.” Deans recommends keeping abreast of national news and being aware of “highly charged court decisions” and “questionable shootings” that could prompt local reactions. Shooting or running over rioters with your car should be considered “a last resort in many ways,” employed only after one of them breaks your window. “With Ferguson and Baltimore demonstrating how the War on Cops is raging, officers are under siege in many urban areas,” Deans wrote. “I would include the massive shooting in Waco last month at Twin Peaks, but let us just see what the real story is there since things in Waco are smelling a bit fishy again.”

SULPHUR SPRINGS

// A 14-year-old Sulphur Springs Middle School student came home at the school year’s end toting a handsome certificate bordered in metallic gold, announcing him as the winner of “The ‘huh?’ Award” in the “8th Annual Ghetto Classroom Awards.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ghetto-classroom-award-youtube-759x427.jpg

The African-American child’s grandmother, Debra Jose, related her reaction to Dallas’ CBS 11: “Tears just started falling out of my eyes. I was like, ‘What did they just do to him again? … I just lay in bed and thought about it all night long.” Teachers Stephanie Garner and Tim Couch have since apologized for issuing the baffling awards, which include the forged signature of their principal—a detail that one teacher said “is what makes this award ghetto.” TheSulphur Springs News-Telegram (http://www.myssnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29464:ghetto-awards-family-finds-closure-through-forgiveness&catid=93:local-news&Itemid=376) reported that the family was finally able to forgive the teachers after meeting with them, school officials and their pastor. Morning Chapel Baptist Church Pastor Harold Nash told the paper the teachers’ case was compelling. “For the Jews, the ghetto was where the Jews lived. The teachers stressed that if the Jews could overcome such incredible oppression, students can do anything if they wanted to,” Nash explained. “It was supposed to be a positive message.”

LAMESA

// The Honorable Judge Carter Tinsley Schildknecht—who ran unopposed for re-election last year for a term ending in 2018—was ordered by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to take four hours of “additional education” after she referred to District Attorney Michael Munk as a “New York Jew.” The public condemnation follows Schildknecht’s earlier attempts to smooth things over by simply explaining to Munk, “When I tell people why you are different and have different thoughts, I explain because you are from New York and because you are Jewish.” Schildknecht has also explained that “I may be too blunt, but I am not biased or prejudiced against New Yorkers or Jews.” It’s a courtesy she may not extend to other religions. The disciplinary action, reported by The Texas Tribune (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/), notes her comments to another lawyer about his beard: “You look like a Muslim, and I wouldn’t hire you with it.”

DEL RIO

// As part of its ongoing goodwill mission, the U.S. Border Patrol staged a Holocaust-themed art contest for Del Rio and Comstock middle school students. Part of the Congressionally approved, weeklong Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, the contest prompted students in South Texas to imagine a life circumscribed by fences and checkpoints, under a police force that kills with impunity. “All the students did an outstanding job with their art exhibits,” Del Rio Sector Chief Rodolfo Karisch said in a statement. “In the end it was about a learning experience and awareness of a time in history that should never be forgotten so that it may never be repeated.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/strangest-state-an-uninvited-bull-and-a-holocaust-art-contest/

[Slutter McGee]

BRENHAM //

For the safety of residents in Brenham (pop.15,716), “defensive shooting” and CHL instructor John Deans penned a timely guide to “Protecting yourself during mob violence” in the pages of the Brenham Banner-Press. (http://www.brenhambanner.com/news/protecting-yourself-during-mob-violence/article_e74f17d7-ff4d-5719-b63d-af1b7f6cf56c.html) “You need to have your situational awareness in high gear,” Deans advises. “You must assume that the police cannot save you during those war-like events. Your survival skills will be all that is protecting yourself and your family.” Deans recommends keeping abreast of national news and being aware of “highly charged court decisions” and “questionable shootings” that could prompt local reactions. Shooting or running over rioters with your car should be considered “a last resort in many ways,” employed only after one of them breaks your window. “With Ferguson and Baltimore demonstrating how the War on Cops is raging, officers are under siege in many urban areas,” Deans wrote. “I would include the massive shooting in Waco last month at Twin Peaks, but let us just see what the real story is there since things in Waco are smelling a bit fishy again.”

SULPHUR SPRINGS

// A 14-year-old Sulphur Springs Middle School student came home at the school year’s end toting a handsome certificate bordered in metallic gold, announcing him as the winner of “The ‘huh?’ Award” in the “8th Annual Ghetto Classroom Awards.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ghetto-classroom-award-youtube-759x427.jpg

The African-American child’s grandmother, Debra Jose, related her reaction to Dallas’ CBS 11: “Tears just started falling out of my eyes. I was like, ‘What did they just do to him again? … I just lay in bed and thought about it all night long.” Teachers Stephanie Garner and Tim Couch have since apologized for issuing the baffling awards, which include the forged signature of their principal—a detail that one teacher said “is what makes this award ghetto.” TheSulphur Springs News-Telegram (http://www.myssnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29464:ghetto-awards-family-finds-closure-through-forgiveness&catid=93:local-news&Itemid=376) reported that the family was finally able to forgive the teachers after meeting with them, school officials and their pastor. Morning Chapel Baptist Church Pastor Harold Nash told the paper the teachers’ case was compelling. “For the Jews, the ghetto was where the Jews lived. The teachers stressed that if the Jews could overcome such incredible oppression, students can do anything if they wanted to,” Nash explained. “It was supposed to be a positive message.”

LAMESA

// The Honorable Judge Carter Tinsley Schildknecht—who ran unopposed for re-election last year for a term ending in 2018—was ordered by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to take four hours of “additional education” after she referred to District Attorney Michael Munk as a “New York Jew.” The public condemnation follows Schildknecht’s earlier attempts to smooth things over by simply explaining to Munk, “When I tell people why you are different and have different thoughts, I explain because you are from New York and because you are Jewish.” Schildknecht has also explained that “I may be too blunt, but I am not biased or prejudiced against New Yorkers or Jews.” It’s a courtesy she may not extend to other religions. The disciplinary action, reported by The Texas Tribune (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/), notes her comments to another lawyer about his beard: “You look like a Muslim, and I wouldn’t hire you with it.”

DEL RIO

// As part of its ongoing goodwill mission, the U.S. Border Patrol staged a Holocaust-themed art contest for Del Rio and Comstock middle school students. Part of the Congressionally approved, weeklong Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, the contest prompted students in South Texas to imagine a life circumscribed by fences and checkpoints, under a police force that kills with impunity. “All the students did an outstanding job with their art exhibits,” Del Rio Sector Chief Rodolfo Karisch said in a statement. “In the end it was about a learning experience and awareness of a time in history that should never be forgotten so that it may never be repeated.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/strangest-state-an-uninvited-bull-and-a-holocaust-art-contest/

Perhaps you should stop blaming teachers and blame black communities who devalue education. I blame them.

[boutons_deux]

Perhaps you should stop blaming teachers and blame black communities who devalue education. I blame them.

Perhaps you should join the herd that stalks The Great Boutons.

Blaming blacks for poor school performance, blaming SCHOOLS for failing, is how whites refuse ALL responsibility for anything.

[Blake]

Perhaps you should stop blaming teachers and blame black communities who devalue education. I blame them.

So you're cool with the ghetto award.

neat.

[boutons_deux]

Bodycam legislation closed too many records


Texas' new legislation related to police body cameras has been mostly praised in the media (http://communityimpact.com/texas-sets-guidelines-for-body-worn-cameras/), but Grits must admit I'm not a fan.

But the dashcam legislation - which was really part of a larger bill defining and banning racial profiling - did not include the sort of closed records provision in Texas bodycam bill, SB 158 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=SB158), which to me go too far. ACLU of Texas and the NAACP reportedly negotiated these provisions. With all due respect to my friends at those groups, if they really agreed to these closed records provisions then frankly they got rolled.

Under Texas' Public Information Act, police already don't have to release video unless there's a conviction or deferred adjudication in a case. So there exists plenty of discretion to protect privacy in situations where there's no public interest in disclosing the footage.

At first glance, SB 158 appears to include open records provisions but, on closer inspection, imposed new, needless restrictions. (See text (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SB00158F.htm).) For example:


A member of the public is required to provide the following information when submitting a written request to a law enforcement agency for information recorded by a body worn camera:

(1) the date and approximate time of the recording;
(2) the specific location where the recording occurred; and
(3) the name of one or more persons known to be a subject of the recording.

So if you don't know all of those details, you can't access the records. Say you witnessed an event but didn't know the people involved? Can't get the records. Say you know who was involved and the date but not the "specific location"? Can't get the records. Moreover, this would prevent research projects using the video because one could not, for example, get all video for a certain time period if you didn't have the specifics stated above regarding each police encounter.

I really can't think of another brand of open records request where the requester must know so much detail before filing the request. Typically one files open records requests to get that sort of detail, requiring folks to have it up front is an unnecessary barrier.

Another loophole you can drive a truck through: You can't get bodycam videos from misdemeanor traffic stops under an open records request without written permission from the person being recorded, even though about 44% of police encounters (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2229) with the public are at traffic stops. From the bill:


A law enforcement agency may not release any portion of a recording made in a private space, or of a recording involving the investigation of conduct that constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by fine only and does not result in arrest, without written authorization from the person who is the subject of that portion of the recording or, if the person is deceased, from the person's authorized representative.


Consider: Dashcam video is still public at traffic stops but the bodycam video is not? What possibly justifies that distinction? Drivers in public don't have a legal expectation of privacy, so to me this is more about protecting the cop from accountability than enforcing privacy rights.

Ditto for the bit about a "private space." Once you let a cop in your door, you've lost any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding what they see.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2015/07/bodycam-legislation-closed-too-many.html

[boutons_deux]

TX "small govt"! :lol

TX govt is CORRUPT govt. gov and atty genl investigated for financial corruption. Do ya think they are the only ones?

DPS brass gets massive pay hikes, again


DPS brass continues to enjoy financial rewards that front-line state employees or managers in the private sector could only dream about. Reported the Dallas News (http://www.dallasnews.com/investigations/20150711-as-state-employees-get-small-raises-dps-managers-enjoy-larger-salary-bump.ece), "DPS Director Steve McCraw and 56 agency executives have been given double-digit raises, with most increases reaching 17 percent." Some readers may recall when the Austin Statesman reported (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/management-positions-salary-increase-at-dps-while-/nTc8w/) three years ago:


When Gov. Rick Perry made Steve McCraw the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2009, only a dozen DPS employees earned $100,000 a year or more at the notoriously tight-fisted agency.

[As of 2012, there were] 73, reflecting an enormous growth in DPS management positions and pay since McCraw, an ex-FBI agent who formerly led the governor’s Homeland Security office, took charge of the department in August 2009.


Under the new management pay scheme, though:


McCraw will now be paid $214,672 annually, up from $183,498. Two deputy directors, David Baker and Robert Bodisch, saw their yearly base pay rise from $176,460 to $206,458.

Figures released by DPS this month show that 15 assistant directors will now be paid $193,330 a year. Seven regional commanders will receive an increase to $176,026. Also, 32 deputy assistant directors will see their annual salaries rise to $161,109.


By contrast, reported the News, "Earlier this year, the Legislature granted many state employees a raise of 2.5 percent to offset increased contributions by workers to their pension fund."

It's not like the free market is offering comparable pay for police administrators. And it begs credulity to imagine these raises were based on pay-for-performance: There's no way managerial productivity gains matched these pay hikes.

A cynic might suggest the state is throwing good money after bad, rewarding folks for going along to get along as first Rick Perry and now the Legislature politicized the agency and its mission. That probably overstates things, just as does the agency's claim that the raises are all merit based. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, though perhaps a bit closer to the cynics' camp than to those justifying the raises.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2015/07/dps-brass-gets-massive-pay-hikes-again.html

as compared with:

http://www.teachingdegree.org/texas/salary/

[FromWayDowntown]

Though it surprises me that the State Bar of Texas has undertaken further investigation of this, the fact that it's pressing forward in assessing whether Paxton violated the rules of professional conduct in his guidance to clerks last summer is noteworthy:

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/10/state-bar-will-investigate-paxton-conduct-after-sa/

State Bar Will Investigate Paxton for Conduct After Marriage Ruling
by Jordan Rudner Feb. 10, 2016

The list of investigations into Attorney General Ken Paxton’s conduct just got a little bit longer. The Texas State Bar was ordered last week to launch a disciplinary probe into Paxton’s conduct in the days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage — an investigation that could end with Paxton getting disbarred.

In a Feb. 2 letter, the state Board of Disciplinary Appeals told lawyers who filed a complaint against Paxton that it was directing the State Bar to investigate Paxton's "possible violation" of its rules of professional conduct.

The legal saga began last summer, after the Supreme Court announced same-sex marriage had been legalized nationwide. Two days later, Paxton issued an opinion telling county clerks they could opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the clerks had religious objections to doing so. Paxton clarified that clerks might face fines or legal challenges if they refused to issue licenses because “the strength of any particular religious-accommodation claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

Almost immediately, a group of lawyers, former State Bar directors and judges filed a complaint with the State Bar’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, alleging Paxton’s opinion constituted a violation of the rules of professional conduct to which he is bound as an attorney.


“Attorney General Paxton violated his own official oath of office to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state,’” the complaint read.

Although the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s office originally dismissed the complaint, the group of attorneys appealed to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas.

The case is now back in the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s court, where the office will determine whether Paxton committed professional misconduct and ask Paxton to respond to the complaint.

A spokeswoman for Paxton, Cynthia Meyer, said he is sure he has not violated his oath.

"This complaint has always lacked merit, and we are confident the legal process for resolving these complaints will bear that out," she said in an email.

Paxton also faces three felony charges related to claims that he misled investors in business dealings before he took office. The attorney general, who was indicted last summer and pled not guilty to the charges, has said the case against him is politically motivated.

[Blake]

Fuck that jackass, but since he clarified that the clerks that refuse issuing the licenses may be fined or sued, I would think he should be okay there.

Lolsmh Texas that our Bible beating AG is facing felony charges for other shady deals.

[Blake]

And yeah, mildly surprising they're pushing this investigation