CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[martybegan]

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

That's not the point. They are being forced to do a job they don't want to do, and it's not a necessary, vital, or unreplaceable job. The government doesn't have a compelling interest to deny them their free exercise rights just because someone on the pity totem pole's feelings are hurt.

 

[colfax_m]

That's not the point. They are being forced to do a job they don't want to do, and it's not a necessary, vital, or unreplaceable job. The government doesn't have a compelling interest to deny them their free exercise rights just because someone on the pity totem pole's feelings are hurt.

And serving black people at a lunch counter also was a job that people didn't want to do. We decided it was a compelling interest to deny them the right to refuse people lunch based on their skin color.

Not that different.

 

[martybegan]

That's not the point. They are being forced to do a job they don't want to do, and it's not a necessary, vital, or unreplaceable job. The government doesn't have a compelling interest to deny them their free exercise rights just because someone on the pity totem pole's feelings are hurt.

And serving black people at a lunch counter also was a job that people didn't want to do. We decided it was a compelling interest to deny them the right to refuse people lunch based on their skin color.

Not that different.

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

 

[colfax_m]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

 

[colfax_m]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

 

[progressive hunter]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

dont you mean FORCED TO DO??

Edited-meister

 

[colfax_m]

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

The problem with this analogy is that the variable "x" is not constant in your example. The first "x" is "Alabama banning abortions", the second "x" is "living in Alabama". Those aren't the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

 

[martybegan]

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

The problem with this analogy is that the variable "x" is not constant in your example. The first "x" is "Alabama banning abortions", the second "x" is "living in Alabama". Those aren't the same thing.

The variables are meaningless, the logic of the statement is what is in question, and logically they are the same.

In the end, it's a cop out argument, nothing more or less.

 

[colfax_m]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

 

[colfax_m]

The variables are meaningless, the logic of the statement is what is in question, and logically they are the same.

The variables are the entire point, not meaningless. Logically they are not the same. They're not even close.

It's not a cop out argument. The analogy you produced fails to follow the same logic. If you disagree with smoking, don't smoke. If you disagree with getting an abortion, don't get an abortion. If you disagree with same sex marriage, don't get married to someone with the same sex. The "variables" here are all the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

 

[dblack]

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

For now ...

 

[martybegan]

The variables are meaningless, the logic of the statement is what is in question, and logically they are the same.

The variables are the entire point, not meaningless. Logically they are not the same. They're not even close.

It's not a cop out argument. The analogy you produced fails to follow the same logic. If you disagree with smoking, don't smoke. If you disagree with getting an abortion, don't get an abortion. If you disagree with same sex marriage, don't get married to someone with the same sex. The "variables" here are all the same thing.

They are the same. If you don't like SSM don't get an SSM, if you want to have an abortion, don't live in Alabama. (if Alabama gets to ban abortions).

You also didn't answer my other statement, Should Catholic Churches be forced to perform Same sex ceremonies or not?

 

[colfax_m]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

 

[dblack]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

Splitting hairs. Once you concede that government is a "business partner", that if you dare to open your business to the public you give up self-determination, the battle is lost.

 

[colfax_m]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

A person can declare anything against their religion they want, it's not the government to decide what is and isn't a religious belief.

Even so, it's easy to see a way that the plumber would deny service based on race. For instance, that black person is married to a white person, which people have declared against their religion in eras gone by.

The religion in question does not say that they shouldn't take photos of a gay couple. The photographer isn't endorsing anything. No one cares if the photographer thinks these people should get married.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Your statement is very simple minded, anyway.

This issue is one of forced speech, not public accommodation. As a business owner, I follow these public accommodation laws and do not refuse to sell a product in my inventory to a person based upon a number of factors inherent to that person. By that same token, they cannot force ME to submit an official endorsement for how they use that product.