Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

[Immanuel]

you democwats love to piss down our backs and call it rain,, you defeat every single solitary attempt made to identiy illegals and deport them, and then you want to blame it on the employer... bulllshitttttttte

If the employers did not hire them, most of them would have no jobs and no reason to be here. So, the initial problem is the illegals coming here. The continuation of the problem is the employer continuing to hire them.

Do you rid your house of ants in the summer by stepping on each and every single one? Or do you try to clean up the juice that happened to spill under the fridge?

That's just a stupid statement. You want to make it harder for the employer to identify the illegals, and then shut them down if you find that they have hired illegals? I work for a company that employs a HUGE percentage of Hispanic and Somali employees. Are there illegals working for us? I'm sure there are, but when we are not allowed by law to ask for anything other than a SSN and they have what looks to be a legitimate social security card, how do you propose that we go about not hiring them?

The fact of the matter is, you can't have it both ways. Either give us the right/authority to MAKE SURE that we aren't hiring illegals, and then punish us for hiring them; or don't give us the right/authority to make sure we aren't hiring illegals, and then punish the illegals when they are found out to be illegal.

Rick

I don't know what state you work in, but here in Florida, we have to fill out an I-9 form AND we have to go online and notify the state of all new hires including their SSN's. I am under the belief that the state checks the SSN and if it is invalid or a different name they notify the employer.

The FEDERAL I-9 form requires you to verify that the new employee has a valid SSN and picture ID or a passport, birth certificate etc.

So, I am not certain what you mean by not being able to verify whether or not your hires are legal or not.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So if I go to a vegetarian restaurant... they have to serve me meat or I can sue?

As a smoker, I can smoke in a restaurant?

You libs restrict way more freedoms than do conservatives.

The right are the main ones pushing the no smoking rules in my state.
and if you go in a veggie restaurant and demand to be served meat....
Well I can understand how you might do that but most people would not.

You go into a lawn mower repair shop and demand a hamburger?

Why does a gay couple go to a Christian photographer to get their photos done?

Oh wait.. thats right.. the government will make them take the photos.

And probably free of charge too.

Immie

 

[Baruch Menachem]

If I made the photographer this mad at me that he is willing to go to court to avoid dealing with me, I would not want to see what he did with the photographs.

This day and age, just have your cousin do it
Or your mom. She will definilty do a better job than some guy who is pissed

 

[Immanuel]

insert black wedding in place of same sex wedding.

still think the photographer can do whatever he wants?

how about a jewish wedding?

a christian wedding?

a muslim wedding?

have a restaurant? only want white people?

think you have the right to do that?

that arguement circles the drain and is flushed away with the fact that we have a congressional black caucus that forbids white membership, the whole arguement is racist and hypocritical.

Are you saying that if a white congressperson wanted to join the congressional black caucus, they would be denied? Do you have proof of that ever happening?

At least three times racism has raised its head in the new administration of President Obama, and now his chief spokesman has cited "membership policies" as an explanation for the all-whites-are-banned practice of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Racism of the Congressional Black Caucus

Here is one from the state of Tennessee:

Tennessee Guerilla Women: White GOP Lawmaker Wants to be Black (Not Santorum!)

State Rep. Stacey Campfield wants to join the Black Caucus.

The ultra rightwing Republican is white (very), and, as his behavior indicates, he seems to suffer from a brain deficit.

The East Tennessee Republican says that when he was told that he could not join the Black Caucus because he is white, he thought, “What? Whoa!”

It’s not clear what part of “Black” the lawmaker doesn’t understand.

Emphasis added

And from Answers.com this gem:

Congressional Black Caucus: Information from Answers.com

White membership

Over the years, the question has arisen, "Does the Caucus allow only black members?" Pete Stark, D-Ca., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC.[5] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black." Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in."

Clay issued an official statement from his office:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."[6]

Yes, there is proof of that happening.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

get this guy to do your wedding

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0]YouTube - JK Wedding Entrance Dance[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

Photographer should have just said no I have other plans for that day. It would be a very cold day in hell before anyone would tell me as an artist where or how I will do my work.

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If a person wishes to set up a business in a community, they must respect the laws of that community including those which prohibit discrimination of protected groups.

To operate a business is a privilege granted by that community. It is not something that anyone has an automatic right to do.

People who claim their religion puts them above the laws of the community are delusional. It's their own fault for choosing a religion that makes it impossible to behave like a decent citizen.

I agree that they have to obey the law.

However, that does not make the law right and I think that is what is being discussed here.

I have to obey the mandate that I get health insurance now even though right now I can't afford it, but that does not mean that I cannot voice my opinion on how shitty the law is.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

insert black wedding in place of same sex wedding.

still think the photographer can do whatever he wants?

how about a jewish wedding?

a christian wedding?

a muslim wedding?

have a restaurant? only want white people?

think you have the right to do that?

As much as I agree with you that it is wrong to discriminate against a person or persons, I believe it is the right of any business owner to decide who he or she will take on as a customer.

You are an attorney. Suppose someone came to you with a case that you did not believe in and simply did not want to represent them as clients. You make no public judgment about them, but decide you are not comfortable representing them. Should you have the right to tell them that you do not want to represent them and that they need to find another attorney?

Even restaurant owners should have the right to cater to the type of clientele they want to serve although if I knew of a particular restaurant that discriminated against people of a different race or creed, I would not frequent their establishment, but in my opinion (which I fully realize counts for absolutely nothing) the government does not have the right to tell me who I do business with.

Immie

Bullshit. I am allowed to believe what I want. Or so the Constitution says. The Dem's have made a joke of THAT.

Point is, I can pick and choose who I want to work for and who I want working for me and Big Brother can go piss in the wind.

Isn't that what I said?

Immie

 

[bodecea]

Photographer should have just said no I have other plans for that day. It would be a very cold day in hell before anyone would tell me as an artist where or how I will do my work.

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

And....?

 

[Immanuel]

Photographer should have just said no I have other plans for that day. It would be a very cold day in hell before anyone would tell me as an artist where or how I will do my work.

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

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

 

[William Joyce]

You don't solve discrimination by force, you solve it by education. Being such a smart bunch and such believers in edumacation, you'd think they'd know that.

So all this photographer needs is a re-education camp for a few weeks, eh? What makes you think his stand needs to change?

That's the problem with the so-called "right." They're basically on the same side as the left -- they just have slightly different ways of getting there.

 

[manifold]

Photographer should have just said no I have other plans for that day. It would be a very cold day in hell before anyone would tell me as an artist where or how I will do my work.

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

And....?

And they're giving queers a bad name.

 

[bodecea]

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

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?

 

[bodecea]

The link says the photographer said no to one of the individuals. This one identified herself as preparing for a same sex marriage. The next day the other individual contacted the photographer asking about doing her "wedding" and did not identify it as same sex. The photographer agreed to do it this time around.

The SS couple was setting up the photographer.

Immie

And....?

And they're giving queers a bad name.

And. That concerns you.

 

[manifold]

And....?

And they're giving queers a bad name.

And. That concerns you.

Exactly as much as everything else we discuss here concerns me.

 

[Anguille]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And the left complains that we conservatives tell them what they can do and not do.... the libs will come out defending this decision... the decision of a judge telling a photographer what they can photograph and not photograph.


Liberal hypocisy on display in 5...... 4.... 3.....2......

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

insert black wedding in place of same sex wedding.

still think the photographer can do whatever he wants?

how about a jewish wedding?

a christian wedding?

a muslim wedding?

have a restaurant? only want white people?

think you have the right to do that?

The better question is - Why would any gay couple want a person who is opposed to gay marriage photographing their wedding?

Cause weddings are boring with out some drama.

 

[Anguille]

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.