You hate me, but I want you to photgraph my wedding

[G.T.]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

I am curious to know why you think asking to be treated exactly the same as everyone else is asking for preferential treatment.

If a black person asked to be served at the same lunch counter where you eat, is that asking for preferential treatment? Or has the white person who is provided a lunch service not provided to blacks been receiving preferential treatment?

Obviously the white person is the one who has been receiving preferential treatment.

It is the loss of preferential treatment which angers you so.

Is a straight couple who are provided a service not provided to gay couples receiving preferential treatment?

Yes. Yes indeed.

actually good ponts to consider.

 

[hjmick]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

I am curious to know why you think asking to be treated exactly the same as everyone else is asking for preferential treatment.

If a black person asked to be served at the same lunch counter where you eat, is that asking for preferential treatment? Or has the white person who is provided a lunch service not provided to blacks been receiving preferential treatment?

Obviously the white person is the one who has been receiving preferential treatment.

It is the loss of preferential treatment which angers you so.

Is a straight couple who are provided a service not provided to gay couples receiving preferential treatment?

Yes. Yes indeed.

What of a church that refuses to perform a same sex marriage?

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

Have you never fought for something out of principle, even though it might personally cost you?

Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

Actually, I might move to New Mexico and advertise a photography business that excludes gays and and straights, and dare people to sue me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, let me state I have no problem with same -sex whatever. None of my concern what twp others do.

However, forcing someone to do the photography for a same-sex ceremony is ridiculous. photography is a form of expression, and forcing someone to create a work of expression that they do not agree with is an infringement on their rights.

Accepting cash to photograph a wedding is not a "work of expression". It is a job. It is no more a work of expression than a baker writing "Happy Birthday" on a cake.

According to the New Mexican court, a professional photographer refusing to serve gay customers is the same as a lunch counter refusing to serve black customers.

That is what they mean by a "public accommodation". The photographer and the lunch counter offer services to the public.

Go tell a photographer he is not an artist and ask him to photograph your wedding. Don't be surprised if all your pictures end up looking like this.

 

[dblack]

If she was the only photographer in this town, that would be one thing...

an irrelevant thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

Have you never fought for something out of principle, even though it might personally cost you?

More often than you have, which is why I know this has nothing to do with principle.

 

[bripat9643]

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

If you don't like it then change the Constitution. The First Amednment protects your right of free association. If you don't want to associate with gays, that's your right.

 

[dblack]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

I am curious to know why you think asking to be treated exactly the same as everyone else is asking for preferential treatment.

If a black person asked to be served at the same lunch counter where you eat, is that asking for preferential treatment? Or has the white person who is provided a lunch service not provided to blacks been receiving preferential treatment?

Obviously the white person is the one who has been receiving preferential treatment.

It is the loss of preferential treatment which angers you so.

Is a straight couple who are provided a service not provided to gay couples receiving preferential treatment?

Yes. Yes indeed.

Good points. It's not a question of preferential vs. equal treatment. The question is whether we have an obligation to treat everyone equally. The idea that we do, or that a person who operates a business places themselves under such an obligation, is a perversion of the concept of equal rights. Equal rights means we are treated equally under the law. It means government can't give some people special privileges and punish others without justifiable cause. It doesn't mean that all our neighbors must do the same. The idea that we can, or should, use the government to force others to "like" us, or abstain from showing any preference in who they associate with, is insane.

 

[McDowell's]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

I am curious to know why you think asking to be treated exactly the same as everyone else is asking for preferential treatment.

If a black person asked to be served at the same lunch counter where you eat, is that asking for preferential treatment? Or has the white person who is provided a lunch service not provided to blacks been receiving preferential treatment?

Obviously the white person is the one who has been receiving preferential treatment.

It is the loss of preferential treatment which angers you so.

Is a straight couple who are provided a service not provided to gay couples receiving preferential treatment?

Yes. Yes indeed.

Good points. It's not a question of preferential vs. equal treatment. The question is whether we have an obligation to treat everyone equally. The idea that we do, or that a person who operates a business places themselves under such an obligation, is a perversion of the concept of equal rights. Equal rights means we are treated equally under the law. It means government can't give some people special privileges and punish others without justifiable cause. It doesn't mean that all our neighbors must do the same. The idea that we can, or should, use the government to force others to "like" us, or abstain from showing any preference in who they associate with, is insane.

That's my question. Why does a private citizen become a public servant as soon as they open a business?

 

[Katzndogz]

You go to a photographer and tell him you are planning a wedding, he tellls you he does not do same sex weddings, so you sue him to force him to take your wedding photos.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

This is why libertarians will win in the end, only an idiot who is too stupid to breathe would think it is a good idea to force people who don't want to be there to take pictures of their wedding.

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

I once got sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. That time they lost. They had a gay lawyer too! They lost on the business of public accommodation issue.

What SHOULD happen is that professionals will withdraw from being public accommodation businesses. I know a photographer who did just that, now he only photographs what he wants to and doesn't have to photograph committment ceremonies on pain of liability.

What SHOULD happen, is that some photographer will specialize in committment ceremonies, advertise in gay publications and make a fortune!

 

[Katzndogz]

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

Have you never fought for something out of principle, even though it might personally cost you?

The principle is nonsense. It's about forcing someone to do what they do not want to do. The photographer could take their money, take terrible pictures of the floor, the ceiling, someone yawning, then return their money. They got principle. They got their money back. What they don't have is wedding pictures. Then they would be terribly sorry they didn't get a more accommodating photographer. The photographer spends an afternoon and gets publicity among the local gays that he or she takes awful pictures. Pretty soon, no gay couple in town would be asking that photographer to take wedding or committment ceremony pictures.

Eveyone wins. That's principle. If you intend to stand on principle, don't you think someone else will also stand on principle?

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole argument is nonsense. A photographer is providing a personal service it's not a job. The standard is not objective but subjective meaning the person receiving the service has to like it. If they don't personally like it, they don't have to pay for it.

Plenty of people go around trying to force themselves where they aren't wanted and don't belong thinking they can force someone to accept them. Gays do it all the time. They send their kids to Catholic school, then complain when their education is religious. They get hurt feelings when the Church won't have their ceremomies. Find another Church! Become an Espisopal. Find another photographer, or artist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

Which is the real problem, what are commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation Laws" where the government mandates to private entities be it business or a non-profit organization (religious or non-religious) what customers must be served. Public Accommodation laws mandate that legal entities cannot discriminate based on (varies by location) race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc.

I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.

With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:

1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would not apply to elective procedures.

2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from entities that discriminate (which is the governments choice).


*******************************

If a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim. Fine.

If a Bakery doesn't want to sell cupcakes to Asians. Fine.

If a Photographer doesn't want to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. Fine.

If a non-profit organization commits to making a pavilion open to the public in return for special property tax breaks and then looses those tax breaks because they don't allow members of the public to use the facility as they agreed to. Fine.


The problem is some on the right want to use the threat of Public Accommodation laws as a means for discriminating against some, and those on the left have used such laws in the past which lends some credence to the claims of those on the right.

Private legal entities should be able to discriminate against whomever they want, whether it be by race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc. - and if they choose not to be eligible for government contracts, that's their choice.

Freedom can sometimes be messy.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah it was only a matter of time when a thread like this would pop up and fly in the face of the State right's Meme...

Fun times

Funny, the only person in this thread who mentioned states rights is you. I think that makes you an idiot.

 

[Katzndogz]

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

Which is the real problem, what are commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation Laws" where the government mandates to private entities be it business or a non-profit organization (religious or non-religious) what customers must be served. Public Accommodation laws mandate that legal entities cannot discriminate based on (varies by location) race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc.

I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.

With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:

1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would not apply to elective procedures.

2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from entities that discriminate (which is the governments choice).


*******************************

If a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim. Fine.

If a Bakery doesn't want to sell cupcakes to Asians. Fine.

If a Photographer doesn't want to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. Fine.

If a non-profit organization commits to making a pavilion open to the public in return for special property tax breaks and then looses those tax breaks because they don't allow members of the public to use the facility as they agreed to. Fine.


The problem is some on the right want to use the threat of Public Accommodation laws as a means for discriminating against some, and those on the left have used such laws in the past which lends some credence to the claims of those on the right.

Private legal entities should be able to discriminate against whomever they want, whether it be by race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc. - and if they choose not to be eligible for government contracts, that's their choice.

Freedom can sometimes be messy.


>>>>

That makes too much sense!

What will happen is what is slowly happening now. There will be fewer places of public accommodation. To get the service you want, you will have to know someone who provides that service, or at least know someone who can recommend you to the service provider.

I know a photographer who has withdrawn from providing services to the public, my mechanic doesn't like working for black people. They have caused him too much trouble. He no longer provides public accommodation. My school is by invitation only. I certainly paint only what I choose and always have which protects me from such nonsense lawsuits.

 

[Conservative]

First, let me state I have no problem with same -sex whatever. None of my concern what twp others do.

However, forcing someone to do the photography for a same-sex ceremony is ridiculous. photography is a form of expression, and forcing someone to create a work of expression that they do not agree with is an infringement on their rights.

Accepting cash to photograph a wedding is not a "work of expression". It is a job. It is no more a work of expression than a baker writing "Happy Birthday" on a cake.

According to the New Mexican court, a professional photographer refusing to serve gay customers is the same as a lunch counter refusing to serve black customers.

That is what they mean by a "public accommodation". The photographer and the lunch counter offer services to the public.

in my opinion, both you and the court are incorrect.

Accepting the money to do the job is not a work of expression, but taking the photograph is. You're trying to compare a work of Ansel Adams with a work of a baker writing Happy Birthday... ridiculous argument. You're comparing a Picasso to a ham sandwich, even more ridiculous.

What does the couple do if they don't like the pictures taken? Sue the photographer again?