The videographers must shoot the video

[EvilCat Breath]

Businesses will be forced to provide services they don't want to provide. They just don't have to do the same kind of job. The New Mexico court in the Elaine's photography case said the business had the right to publish any kind of disclaimer it wanted.

Use the laws that are left to you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you publicly offer your services, then you have made the choice to offer your services to everyone.

BULLSHIT!!!

Turn it around the other way. Are we going to force consumers to obtain goods or services from business owners they don't like? You must purchase X% of your groceries from this gay grocery store?

Jeez, you statist motherfucker. What's next?

 

[Papageorgio]

So this suit is all pretty much hypothetical, over whether the videographers can include on their website the helpful information that they will not video gay couples' weddings. I can see both sides here. Putting up a clear statement that you are going to discriminate is going to get you in a shitload of trouble with the law, but it is helpful for potential customers.
When some of those discriminatory laws in NC were adopted, businesses that welcomed gay couples started putting up signs saying "ALL are welcome here." Maybe if more businesses that have no problem with gays were to do that--all of them--like the ubiquitous signs everywhere that say "We Accept VISA," customers would know who to choose and perhaps those who are not ready to accept gay marriage could be given some more time.
I hate discrimination personally, but not everyone objecting to this is a hateful bigot. They need more time to accept an unprecedented change in thinking about homosexuality in the past forty years. It happened so fast people's thinking couldn't keep up. Forcing it is like putting my cat in the carrier. The more you force it, the more she fights. Can a solution somewhere near the middle be found?

That is where I am at, tell me you discriminate, then I can make an informed choice of using your business or not.

Businesses have a right to pick and choose who they do business with. There are groups in our industry that I refuse to work with because they are pains in the butt and aren't worth our time to work with. Anytime they call I tell them we booked up that day or I charge them the extra pain in the butt fee. Of course, my picking and choosing has nothing to do with sexual orientation, religion, color, race or sex. I will never deal with weddings of any kind.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one has forced you to open up a public business. If they only want to offer their services to a specific subset of the population, then the business should not be open to the public, but instead just be word of mouth and private.

Define "open to the public". Good luck with that.

 

[TheDude]

Unfortunately liberals are doing their best to reduce the quality of services, as they push poor ethics and twisted ideas on others.

If I owned a business I'd do a bang-up job, except where I'm forced to do a service I would otherwise choose not to do. Take a cake with two grooms, for example. First I'd suggest it's against my religious beliefs, which would be a lie. If they make a gay fuss, I'd make a shitty cake, plain and simple. Word will get around, but when you consider the source of the complaints, that might be enough to actually improve business. In other terms, provide the assholes shitty service & products and keep your mouth shut.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. So far as I know, it is still in effect.

That argument was put forth in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Incorporated v. United States, it didn't fly as opening a business is a voluntary action and choosing what services or goods to offer is also a voluntary action. Public Accommodation laws that don't allow busineses to refuse black people, Jews, Mexicans, the elderly, women, veterans, or divorced people are not slavery laws.


>>>>

You are forced to provide your labor and assets against your will. What else is it?

 

[xotoxi]

If you publicly offer your services, then you have made the choice to offer your services to everyone.

BULLSHIT!!!

Turn it around the other way. Are we going to force consumers to obtain goods or services from business owners they don't like? You must purchase X% of your groceries from this gay grocery store?

Jeez, you statist motherfucker. What's next?

Your analogy fails. The only point of having a public business, is to attract consumers. The general public, on the other hand, is not required to be a consumer at all.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'd shoot the video and forget to take the lens cap off, ooops my bad.

Or my product may be inferior to others work. That is why if the business is open and honest, then people will make an informed decision on who would be best for them.

 

[xotoxi]

So this suit is all pretty much hypothetical, over whether the videographers can include on their website the helpful information that they will not video gay couples' weddings. I can see both sides here. Putting up a clear statement that you are going to discriminate is going to get you in a shitload of trouble with the law, but it is helpful for potential customers.
When some of those discriminatory laws in NC were adopted, businesses that welcomed gay couples started putting up signs saying "ALL are welcome here." Maybe if more businesses that have no problem with gays were to do that--all of them--like the ubiquitous signs everywhere that say "We Accept VISA," customers would know who to choose and perhaps those who are not ready to accept gay marriage could be given some more time.
I hate discrimination personally, but not everyone objecting to this is a hateful bigot. They need more time to accept an unprecedented change in thinking about homosexuality in the past forty years. It happened so fast people's thinking couldn't keep up. Forcing it is like putting my cat in the carrier. The more you force it, the more she fights. Can a solution somewhere near the middle be found?

How about putting a sign up that says "We believe that homosexuality is a sin"?

They wouldn't turn away gay customers, but they likely would not get any gay customers because of the statement.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'd shoot the video and forget to take the lens cap off, ooops my bad.

Yeah, you totally won't get sued for that.

For what?

For being incompetent.

LLC good luck with collecting

 

[Papageorgio]

Unfortunately liberals are doing their best to reduce the quality of services, never mind pushing their poor ethics and twisted ideas on others.

If I owned a business I'd do a bang-up job, except where I'm forced to do a service I would otherwise choose not to do. Take a cake with two grooms, for example. First I'd suggest it's against my religious beliefs, which would be a lie. If they make a gay fuss, I'd make a shitty cake, plain and simple. Word will get around, but when you consider the source of the complaints, that might be enough to actually improve business. In other terms, provide the assholes shitty service & products and keep your mouth shut.

This is what I am talking about, why push an agenda when in the end it will hurt you. The people would be better off going elsewhere for the service. And if you let people know up front that you don't want to do business with gays, then they can decide if they want to do business with you or not.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'd shoot the video and forget to take the lens cap off, ooops my bad.

Or my product may be inferior to others work. That is why if the business is open and honest, then people will make an informed decision on who would be best for them.

I caught a bad case of a highly contagious flu, do you still want to hire me? (cough, cough)

 

[BluesLegend]

The FACT is, gays are abusing the law by trying to entrap businesses for the purpose of suing them and getting a settlement check.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'd shoot the video and forget to take the lens cap off, ooops my bad.

Yeah, you totally won't get sued for that.

For what?

For being incompetent.

LLC good luck with collecting

Right, sure, LLCs are bullet proof against breach of contract lawsuits.

 

[xotoxi]

Indeed. Forcing people to put forth their time and private property against their will because of beliefs isn't discrimination.

No one is forced to be a baker, or a photographer, or a store owner.

But when you are a baker, a photographer, or a store owner, you offer your services to the PUBLIC.

And you will be compensated for your time and your private property.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'd shoot the video and forget to take the lens cap off, ooops my bad.

Yeah, you totally won't get sued for that.

For what?

For being incompetent.

LLC good luck with collecting

Right, sure, LLCs are bullet proof against breach of contract lawsuits.

I laugh in your general direction, good luck finding a lawyer to take that case there's no money in suing some wedding photographer. Tissue?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, you totally won't get sued for that.

For what?

For being incompetent.

LLC good luck with collecting

Right, sure, LLCs are bullet proof against breach of contract lawsuits.

I laugh in your general direction, good luck finding a lawyer to take that case there's no money in suing some wedding photographer. Tissue?

Ever heard of small claims court? If a photographer 'left the lens on his cap' during a once in a lifetime event, I'd think the couple would at least get their money back and then a bit more, apparently you think every lawsuit is about tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[xotoxi]

The FACT is, gays are abusing the law by trying to entrap businesses for the purpose of suing them and getting a settlement check.

So the business should just foil their plan and offer the service.

And then they can laugh about it afterwards..."We showed those faggots...AND got paid for it!!!"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That argument was put forth in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Incorporated v. United States, it didn't fly as opening a business is a voluntary action and choosing what services or goods to offer is also a voluntary action. Public Accommodation laws that don't allow busineses to refuse black people, Jews, Mexicans, the elderly, women, veterans, or divorced people are not slavery laws.

That's where the Court held that Congress could regulate a hotel because it was engaged in interstate commerce and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited hotels from refusing lodging to individuals on the basis of race.

The Court found that 75% of the hotel's business came from out-of-state. In fact, the hotel purposely catered to interstate business. On that basis, the Court found that the hotel was clearly engaged in, and had an effect on, interstate commerce.

There was a law that regulated interstate commerce. The hotel was engaged in interstate commerce.

What is the basis for it in the OP example?

 

[TNHarley]

Indeed. Forcing people to put forth their time and private property against their will because of beliefs isn't discrimination.

No one is forced to be a baker, or a photographer, or a store owner.

But when you are a baker, a photographer, or a store owner, you offer your services to the PUBLIC.

And you will be compensated for your time and your private property.

nice feels