A Denton, TX JP is proving that the gay mafia won’t accept tolerance. They want and are demanding a full on kowtowing. Anything less will cause nothing but more strife, so there is no reason to give any more.
1: to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort; exhibit physiological tolerance for
2a : to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
b : to put up with <learn to tolerate one another>
Note that none of that is anything like encouraging, celebrating, desiring, etc. The very definition of tolerance is that you are willing to put up with it. This JP is putting up with it, pure and simple.
“I went back in forth with it, and I made the decision that, for my constituents, if that is their desire — it doesn’t matter to me what a person’s sexual preference is, what their sexual orientation is. Regardless, they’re a human being and they deserve dignity and respect. If that’s the way that they want to live their life, that’s between them, their partner and either they believe in their God or not, that’s their choice,” DePiazza says.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of tolerance. Keep it in mind, and note how often the left refuses to tolerate the right.
Katherine Franke, the director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia University’s law school, says that what DePiazza is doing — specifically in making marriage seekers sign the letter — is probably unconstitutional.
“I think it’s an interesting innovation in trying to hold your nose and do your job by making everybody else hold your nose as well. It’s creative, but I don’t imagine it will stand up in court,” Franke says. “Even for a heterosexual couple that’s getting married and [DePiazza’s] not opposed to their marriage, the only way they can get married is to acknowledge that he doesn’t want to marry gay people. I could see straight people being offended.”
Franke is probably wrong. There’s a quite a lot of inherent power in the judicial system for a judge to run his courtroom the way he sees fit. Judges can tell you to shut up about anything they don’t want to hear, and that absolutely applies to back talk. You don’t get to complain about the way a judge rules on an objection, you don’t get to bitch about prior rulings, and it follows that you don’t get to bitch about his policies on marriage declarations.
Judges have an inherent right to control their courtroom. They can tell you what you can and cannot say, what you can and cannot wear, where you can and cannot sit, and so on. Things that are absolutely protected in other places, like wearing shirts with slogans on them or carrying signs, can absolutely be prohibited by a judge within the walls of his courtroom.
Like it or not, this part will almost certainly stand. The judges above him aren’t going to give up their right to control their courtrooms by making up some exception here that will later bite them in the ass.