Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

[manifold]

Were this photographer being forced to become gay at this wedding, then he might have a valid reason to refuse his services. He's there to take photos, like any other wedding, nothing more. It's not his place to insist that every wedding couple he photographs have the same sexual orientation as himself.

People like him need to worry about how they are abiding by their own morals and let others abide by their own.

Clearly the government is intervening here an not allowing her to abide by her own morals on this one.

Thanks to faux freedom supporters such as yourself.

He/she can abide by it's own morals, if such morals mean refusing to do business with gays, blacks, the handicapped, whoever. But he/she's discriminatory practices will not be tolerated and the community will punish him/her because these are the morals of the community. Tough shit for the asshole photographer.

And what of communities whose morals include believing abortion is murder?

They still don't get to usurp the constitution do they?

 

[Anguille]

Clearly the government is intervening here an not allowing her to abide by her own morals on this one.

Thanks to faux freedom supporters such as yourself.

He/she can abide by it's own morals, if such morals mean refusing to do business with gays, blacks, the handicapped, whoever. But he/she's discriminatory practices will not be tolerated and the community will punish him/her because these are the morals of the community. Tough shit for the asshole photographer.

And what of communities whose morals include believing abortion is murder?

They still don't get to usurp the constitution do they?

Nothing in the Constitution gives that photographer, or any other person providing a service in return for payment, an excuse for discrimination.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

They get the price of the pictures they might order plus a penalty. Plus court costs.

He probably goes out of business.

We get to talk it over.

and everybody is happy.

 

[Anguille]

They get the price of the pictures they might order plus a penalty. Plus court costs.

He probably goes out of business.

We get to talk it over.

and everybody is happy.

I doubt he will go out of business. In fact, he probably did it to get publicity and more clients among the anti gay marriage crowd.

 

[Immanuel]

And....?

So you agree this was a set up?

And the point was that Rodishi does not appear to have read the link having missed the part that the photographer had already turned them down once.

Immie

This is as much as a set up as the Fair Housing commissions' stings from years ago where they would have a couple call to inquire as to a house rental, identify themselves as black and be told there are no vacancies. Have someone else call just a minute later, identify themselves as white and be told there are plenty of vacancies.

I suppose you disapprove of those tactics too? A set up?

Actually, I don't disapprove of either tactic. I thought about using it once myself when I called regarding a job and was told by the employer after a 10 minuted phone conversation, that he was sorry, but he really wanted to hire a woman for this position. I was pissed to say the least.

I thought about calling back a few hours later and telling him I was the Department of Labor and that a sexual discrimination complaint had been made against him. If I could have seen his face when I did, I would have done just that.

And the day before yesterday, I received an email from an employer that I very much wanted to work for. It was a non-profit religious organization that works with children. Perfect for me. Unfortunately, they are Baptist and I am Lutheran and the HR Manager had the nerve to email me and tell me that they wanted a Baptist! What the heck? We're both Christian. In fact, the email made me feel like a second class citizen to be honest with you. But, then, if that is the way they think, do I really want to work there?

I disapprove of this couple's pushing this thing in this manner. So Elaine what's her name did not want them as clients? Big deal, Elaine is not the only photographer in the area and if Elaine is a bigot, why on earth would they want to do business with her in the first place. The couple is simply being spiteful and that makes them ALMOST as wrong as Elaine.

Immie

 

[manifold]

He/she can abide by it's own morals, if such morals mean refusing to do business with gays, blacks, the handicapped, whoever. But he/she's discriminatory practices will not be tolerated and the community will punish him/her because these are the morals of the community. Tough shit for the asshole photographer.

And what of communities whose morals include believing abortion is murder?

They still don't get to usurp the constitution do they?

Nothing in the Constitution gives that photographer, or any other person providing a service in return for payment, an excuse for discrimination.

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

 

[Anguille]

And what of communities whose morals include believing abortion is murder?

They still don't get to usurp the constitution do they?

Nothing in the Constitution gives that photographer, or any other person providing a service in return for payment, an excuse for discrimination.

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

 

[manifold]

Nothing in the Constitution gives that photographer, or any other person providing a service in return for payment, an excuse for discrimination.

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

Except the judge of course.

 

[Immanuel]

Nothing in the Constitution gives that photographer, or any other person providing a service in return for payment, an excuse for discrimination.

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

So, if I am understanding your drift here what you are saying is that the photographer can either capitulate to your will or stop doing business? Did we just flush individual freedoms down the shitter altogether?

Immie

 

[manifold]

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

So, if I am understanding your drift here what you are saying is that the photographer can either capitulate to your will or stop doing business? Did we just flush individual freedoms down the shitter altogether?

Immie

As far as I can tell, Anguille only values two freedoms: Abortion on demand and the right to own vicious animals.

She's more than willing to flush the rest of them down the shitter for sure.

 

[Defiant1]

I have a friend who owns a gun shop. He put a big sign inside the front door. It reads: "If you voted for Obama please leave. You are not welcome here."

 

[manifold]

 

[Immanuel]

I suppose the signs that read:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" are out the window as well.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude? | LegalZoom

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

I must say, that even though I believe discrimination is wrong (and trust that most Americans do as well) I come down on the side that this is a violation of individual freedoms.

Immie

 

[Zander]

Were this photographer being forced to become gay at this wedding, then he might have a valid reason to refuse his services. He's there to take photos, like any other wedding, nothing more. It's not his place to insist that every wedding couple he photographs have the same sexual orientation as himself.

People like him need to worry about how they are abiding by their own morals and let others abide by their own.

What if the Photographer was a devout Muslim? I have a feeling many of the folks that are in favor of this ruling would be saying: "the photographer's religious rights are being trampled! He should not be forced to to participate in an event that goes against his religion."

You do know what Islam does to homosexuals??

 

[manifold]

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

I must say, that even though I believe discrimination is wrong (and trust that most Americans do as well) I come down on the side that this is a violation of individual freedoms.

Immie

I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a violation of individual freedoms. But just like your quote says, many believe that equality trumps freedom. I don't.

 

[Immanuel]

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

I must say, that even though I believe discrimination is wrong (and trust that most Americans do as well) I come down on the side that this is a violation of individual freedoms.

Immie

I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a violation of individual freedoms. But just like your quote says, many believe that equality trumps freedom. I don't.

I think there are several here that do not understand what individual freedoms are and what they cost us.

Immie

 

[manifold]

I must say, that even though I believe discrimination is wrong (and trust that most Americans do as well) I come down on the side that this is a violation of individual freedoms.

Immie

I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a violation of individual freedoms. But just like your quote says, many believe that equality trumps freedom. I don't.

I think there are several here that do not understand what individual freedoms are and what they cost us.

Immie

Here and everywhere.

If you value individual freedom, you must be willing to accept that others may exercise it in ways you personally object to. It's as simple as that.

 

[Immanuel]

I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a violation of individual freedoms. But just like your quote says, many believe that equality trumps freedom. I don't.

I think there are several here that do not understand what individual freedoms are and what they cost us.

Immie

Here and everywhere.

If you value individual freedom, you must be willing to accept that others may exercise it in ways you personally object to. It's as simple as that.

Which is why, I find the abortion arguments very difficult these days as well as the same sex marriage discussions.

I still believe that abortion is wrong and should be stopped completely, but I have come to the realization that outlawing it won't achieve that goal so we need to try other methods.

In this case, I believe that the law is wrong and that the photographer has the right not to serve the couple in question. I can't even imagine why this couple would consider having her at their ceremony.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

Except the judge of course.

Not at all. The judge will probably issue a fine and warn the photographer that if she continues to break the law she will lose the privilege of operating her business.

 

[Anguille]

Nothing in the constitution that gives the government the authority to force people to do business.

No one is forcing the photographer to do business.

So, if I am understanding your drift here what you are saying is that the photographer can either capitulate to your will or stop doing business? Did we just flush individual freedoms down the shitter altogether?

Immie

My will?

The law has nothing to do with my will.

Is the sky falling again, Immie?