CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

The choice is being forced on them by the government, against the Constitution.

No one is forcing the seller to operate in public accommodation instead of private accommodation on a for-profit basis. The seller made that rational choice under our form of Capitalism not social moralism.

The government is forcing them to accept working a SSM ceremony or stop doing business.

Massive fines = force.

The seller can operate on a not-for-profit basis and advertise their religious beliefs. For example, specializing in Christian events.

 

[colfax_m]

The would only be endorsing if they contracted to host the SSM wedding, something I think they should be able to do.

I don't think either is an endorsement, but if one is then both are given there's no real difference in their role. The photographer is just there to take photos. The restaurant is just there to serve dinner. That's not endorsement, that's just providing a service.

No one considers whether the restaurant agrees with their relationship anymore than anyone has ever considered whether a photographer does. The photographer is placing weight to their action which does not exist.

Turns out that PA laws apply here too.

 

[dblack]

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

There is no such thing as "unfettered access" and places of public accommodation still retain rules by which their property can be used, so long as those rules are nondiscriminatory.

Only if they're nondiscriminatory re: protected classes. All other discrimination is legal.

 

[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.

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

Yep, the "public accommodation" conceit is the problem

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Segregation/desegregation didn't affect free speech on websites.

That isn't what I asked you.

I asked if you were in the position of the
LIBERAL LGBT or PROCHOICE
Forced "by law" to post
CONSERVATIVE or PROLIFE content
On YOUR company website
Would you protest that policy violated free speech?

If you cannot answer this question danielpalos
It is the Bullring for you

Dear emilynghiem,

You are begging that question.

This is a clause in our supreme law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

1. You cannot force a business to provide a SERVICE it does not offer.

***Once they provide certain services to the public, yes you can expect THOSE services to be provided.***

But not make up "your own version of those services" and force that against the free will of the provider.

The problem here danielpalos is just because you see wedding services as "all the same" you see this as denying "the same services" because of the Customer.
For people and businesses to whom those are completely different, and even "conflicting" services, those are two different types, and they only offer one type, not the other.

2. Second you believe in mixing religious intent in to determine discrimination.

A. If someone only sews men's clothes not women's they have that right to advertise as a business for men's apparel only.
B. But you are saying if they verbalize their intent of only selling men's clothes because they hate women and discriminate as sexist, then that is advertising discrimination against women customers and violate equal accommodation or protection laws against discrimination by gender or class.

3. Third we disagree about website content.
As in 2B above, you equate the website content of a business with either public accommodation or unlawful discrimination.

I'm saying it has to respect ALL laws.
The website can still state their beliefs, as long as they serve the advertised goods or services to any and all customers. (No customers get anything to do with "same sex partnerships or references." So all Customers ARE treated the same, and it is the SERVICES that are either offered or refused "consistently for all customers")

Again you see weddings services as all the same. But not all people do.

Thus it makes sense to me, if businesses do not see these the same, they should very well be responsible for spelling out what they offer or what they don't. So Customers have informed choice to shop elsewhere if they need something not offered.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

colfax_m
Do you really want to go there?
Can a film producer be forced to film adult sex parties with BDSM.
Can legal prostitutes in Nevada be forced to have sex with a client and not be able to refuse?
Can a Hindu, Muslim or Vegan business owner be forced to serve beef, pork or animal products against their beliefs?
Where does this end if Govt can force a business to provide content or services against their beliefs will or consent????

 

[colfax_m]

Do you really want to go there?

Sure, let's do it.

Can a film producer be forced to film adult sex parties with BDSM.

If someone doesn't film sex parties, the law doesn't force them to do so. The photographer in question here photographs weddings.

Can legal prostitutes in Nevada be forced to have sex with a client and not be able to refuse?

No clue, I don't have good understanding of the laws surrounding prostitution.

Can a Hindu, Muslim or Vegan business owner be forced to serve beef, pork or animal products against their beliefs?

No, because they don't serve beef or pork to anyone, therefore that is not a service they offer.

Where does this end if Govt can force a business to provide content or services against their beliefs will or consent????

The problem isn't offering a service, it's who they offer the service too. The photographer photographs weddings, but discriminates against the marriages of people based on their sexual orientation.

And that kind of discrimination is not legal.

 

[dblack]

Do you really want to go there?

Sure, let's do it.

Can a film producer be forced to film adult sex parties with BDSM.

If someone doesn't film sex parties, the law doesn't force them to do so. The photographer in question here photographs weddings.

Can legal prostitutes in Nevada be forced to have sex with a client and not be able to refuse?

No clue, I don't have good understanding of the laws surrounding prostitution.

Can a Hindu, Muslim or Vegan business owner be forced to serve beef, pork or animal products against their beliefs?

No, because they don't serve beef or pork to anyone, therefore that is not a service they offer.

Where does this end if Govt can force a business to provide content or services against their beliefs will or consent????

The problem isn't offering a service, it's who they offer the service too. The photographer photographs weddings, but discriminates against the marriages of people based on their sexual orientation.

And that kind of discrimination is not legal.

You could at least address her points, instead of steering around them.

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

It does if we have to distinguish. The seller was and is always free to operate on a not-for-profit basis if they allege to feel that strongly about their morals instead of their bottom line.

Profit or not for profit has only to do with taxes, not with one's right to free exercise or to engage in commerce.

Link? Nobody takes right wingers seriously about Any Thing serious or the law.

It's common knowledge, no link needed.

It's all part of the tax code at both the State and Federal level.

How about this?

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

A photographer is not a PA.

Yes, especially if renting or leasing, etc., any commercial space.

No, it's not. People don't walk in and expect point of sale services like food, furniture, a movie or a hotel room.

 

[martybegan]

The choice is being forced on them by the government, against the Constitution.

No one is forcing the seller to operate in public accommodation instead of private accommodation on a for-profit basis. The seller made that rational choice under our form of Capitalism not social moralism.

The government is forcing them to accept working a SSM ceremony or stop doing business.

Massive fines = force.

The seller can operate on a not-for-profit basis and advertise their religious beliefs. For example, specializing in Christian events.

There is no reason for them to do that. Making a profit does not negate your constitutional rights.

 

[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.

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.

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

Yep, the "public accommodation" conceit is the problem

I know we disagree on this. to me the expansion of the PA concept to every transaction is the issue.

 

[martybegan]

Do you really want to go there?

Sure, let's do it.

Can a film producer be forced to film adult sex parties with BDSM.

If someone doesn't film sex parties, the law doesn't force them to do so. The photographer in question here photographs weddings.

Can legal prostitutes in Nevada be forced to have sex with a client and not be able to refuse?

No clue, I don't have good understanding of the laws surrounding prostitution.

Can a Hindu, Muslim or Vegan business owner be forced to serve beef, pork or animal products against their beliefs?

No, because they don't serve beef or pork to anyone, therefore that is not a service they offer.

Where does this end if Govt can force a business to provide content or services against their beliefs will or consent????

The problem isn't offering a service, it's who they offer the service too. The photographer photographs weddings, but discriminates against the marriages of people based on their sexual orientation.

And that kind of discrimination is not legal.

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

 

[colfax_m]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

 

[progressive hunter]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

thats a fascist attitude there buzz,, what if a black man doesnt want to offer their services to white people?? what would you do?? put them in jail for it??

we have bars in KC where white people cant go or they get the shit kicked out of them,,

 

[martybegan]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it's not. People don't walk in and expect point of sale services like food, furniture, a movie or a hotel room.

Simply operating in a commercial building could qualify; can anyone go into that photography studio and ask for photography services?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no reason for them to do that. Making a profit does not negate your constitutional rights.

Yes, it does. It means the profit of Lucre is the bottom line not the greater glory of our immortal souls.

 

[danielpalos]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

Does the photographer advertise, "kosher" photography?

 

[martybegan]

No, it's not. People don't walk in and expect point of sale services like food, furniture, a movie or a hotel room.

Simply operating in a commercial building could qualify; can anyone go into that photography studio and ask for photography services?

photography isn't point of sale. if you want to quibble they can call themselves by appointment only, which many do.

 

[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.

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

Yep, the "public accommodation" conceit is the problem

I know we disagree on this. to me the expansion of the PA concept to every transaction is the issue.

Foot in the door. You've already lost, you're just negotiating terms of surrender.