It's not a semantic argument at all. It may be nuanced for some, but it is a vital, material difference.
First. You can't know if it will substantially change under new management. That's speculation
They aren't banning ByteDance do to it being competition with domestic platforms. If that were the case the ban would be for TikTok directly. One example for it being a material difference.
Second. Yes. The fact that they are at least partly beyond our justice and regulatory system, is part of the reason for the ban. But it's only a real concern because...
Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elevate China's image.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with China collecting data on Americans. As you said that's laughable on the face of it.
Someone else gave a link, that basically described they really only need act as a witness to vows, then sign the form. They don't even need to say anything. Since that's all that's required, I can't see any reasonable cause for her to refuse in this case.
But the ceremony doesn't even matter. Any speach at any event you disagree with, it should be your right to decline.
Performing a ceremony is absolutely a creative work. One that shouldn't be required for a state to accept a marriage to begin with. But that's a separate issue.
If my friends thought I was a racist homophobe I doubt they would've had me officiate their wedding. That would've been weird.
The I believe in this case she had no good excuse not to act as a witness and sign the paperwork, since it seems that's all thats required, and she has no responsibility to perform any actual ceremony.
I still believe no judge or person should be required to perform or create anything they don't want to.
That doesn't mean she knows everything about the law. Any judge would be able to admit that. That's why they have specialities like family court, or criminal court, copyrights, etc.
It might be in ignorance. But it's certainly not in bad faith. I do actually believe everything I've said. Though some of that has turned out to be wrong.
There is no particular form or ceremony required except that the parties must state in the presence of an authorized public official or authorized member of the clergy and at least one other witness that each takes the other as his or her spouse.
So it seems the judge doesn't actually need to do anything more than be a witness. Then she could have done simply that, without saying anything. I wonder if she even new that.
But that link says nothing about the required duties of judges. They are nearly in the list of approved people, able to perform marriages. Also strange it comes from the department of health.
It's only a requirement as a vestigial remainder from religion, since all they can do are ceremonies. Legally it realy is nothing more than a contract, and could be treated as such.
I don't think a judge should be able to say no to a law for any reason.
And I would absolutely say the same. Even for a hetrosexual homoracial couple. (Is homoracial a word?) I'd say the same if the judge didn't like that the couple wore sneakers into the court. It doesn't matter the reason. Nobody should be required to create any kind of art, they disagree with.
Which is why the Judge should stop performing weddings at all. That may be her only legal option.
It should be available to everyone. It shouldn't even be a ceremony. Just file the paperwork. It's only a contract after all.
If it was her assignment that day, and part of her job, signing the paperwork is all that she should be expected or required to do. Performing a ceremony would be too much to require I think.
It's not a semantic argument at all. It may be nuanced for some, but it is a vital, material difference.
First. You can't know if it will substantially change under new management. That's speculation
They aren't banning ByteDance do to it being competition with domestic platforms. If that were the case the ban would be for TikTok directly. One example for it being a material difference.
Second. Yes. The fact that they are at least partly beyond our justice and regulatory system, is part of the reason for the ban. But it's only a real concern because...
Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elevate China's image.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with China collecting data on Americans. As you said that's laughable on the face of it.