Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination (page 3)

wearewatchingyouman

I don't think anyone is saying it's acceptable DJS. Just that freedom has consequences.

Freedom has consequences, yes. Just how do you think that applies in this instance? A gay person and a black person are both born that way. How is a gay person being gay or a black person being black supposed to have consequences? Am I missing something?

lambsbottom

The gay rights bandwagon is a cult in of itself. It pushes its agenda onto others 'personal' lives and businesses. I uninsalled all Mozilla programs from my PC because of the Mozilla CEO resignation from gay marriage pressure. I am proud to be anti-gay marriage. However, I am not against the gay person themselves. I love them as much as I do a straight person. I just don't agree the definition of marriage should be changed.

And I am proud, proud, proud to write this!

Viviane

No business is 'open to the public'. It is a private and case-by-case undertaking.

Even if that were true, the rules are that there are certain things you can't discriminate on.

No violence? Just what do you think is the bottom line when the government is involved? That is what the government is - organized violence.

Simply claiming that because the government COULD use force means everything they do is by force is the intellctual silliness of saying all men are rapist because they have the equipment to be a rapist, or that all women are prostitutes because they have the ability to be so.

IOW, it's not true and intellectually vapid.

Anytime the government involves itself violence is involved. Violence is use, or the threat of, physical force or power. This is the business of government. make people fall in line under the threat of violence for not falling in line.

Absolutely untrue, see above. I highly doubt the threat of violence is there when you check a book out of the library or pay your car taxes.

Viviane

I just don't agree the definition of marriage should be changed.

Actually, the definition of a marriage as one man and one woman is the new thing. It meant and does mean many other things to many other cultures, even Christian cultures, throughout history.

tootired2care

So let me get this right, If I don't like someone (for any reason) and don't want to do work for the them, the government is now saying that it is illegal and forcing me to do it? How is that not like slavery? This is complete nonsense!

Viviane

So let me get this right, If I don't like someone (for any reason) and don't want to do work for the them, the government is now saying that is illegal and forcing me to do it? How is that not like slavery? This is complete nonsense.

That's not what they are saying and yes, if it were, it WOULD be non-sense.

wearewatchingyouman

DJS- I was born naaked. I prefer to be naked. Is a business "discriminating" against me if they refuse business to my naked self?

Viviane

I was born naaked. I prefer to be naked. Is a business "discriminating" against me if they refuse business to my naked self?

Of course not. The key word there is "preference".

redvip2000

Are there laws preventing me from entering into the bar next door - which is glad to accept black men?

You are missing the point here. This is not about whether you can choose a different photographer, or bar. This is about whether a business can refuse service based on color, sexual orientation, sex, etc etc. What really matters is the precedent that this could create.

A business that serves the public cannot behave this way. This photographer can shun and refuse to associate with gays in her private life as she wants, those views are private and protected by the law, but business are a different story.

Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination

Share this