Justices may decide if vendors can sn...

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

There are 2815 comments on the Daily Press & Argus story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings. In it, Daily Press & Argus reports that:

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Press & Argus.

hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#204 Mar 23, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Same Dan here.
If someone walks in the door and says "I want a wedding cake, date is X and it needs to be X feet high, X layers and chocolate with raspberry filling", then the baker bakes the cake. No baker on Earth could possibly divine that the customer is gay, nor would it be germane, andn you cannot discriminate against the PERSON. Bake the cake.
If some guy walks in the door and says "I want a wedding cake, its for me and my fiance Bill, and it needs to be X feet high......etc." Then this situation changes *marginally*. Now, your baking the cake *can be* construed as your endorsement of the event in question. Certainly, when someone eats the cake, likes it and asks "who made this-it's awesome and I'm getting one for my upcoming same-sex marriage", your business' name will be broadcast as a potential 'bakery for gay wedding cakes'.
If the baker is some sort of devout Christian or something and thinks "Geez, I have an objection to this gay marriage thing and I don't want to be "the gay wedding cake guy" or whatever, the SMART devout Christian baker says "I'm booked, let me refer you to Baker Y on Main Street-lets' call them" and declines the business in that manner.
BTW, as soon as someone threw the Bible (and just the Bible) up as their defense for NOT baking the gay wedding cake, I'd tell them "sorry Charlie, the Bible doesn't say a damn thing about gay weddings nor cakes for them". A Catholic, for instance, could, ostensibly, demonstrate that they have a religious objection as the teachings are well-documented, et. al., but someone simply throwing the Bible up would have a tough time showing me where it codifies an objection to participation in a gay wedding.
Turning away money is stupid, but people can be stupid.
Dunno. Tough one, but I'm uncomfortable with the government getting into forcing people to contract for things. It's not housing, or things like that. It's cake and flowers.
How do you draw a distinction between the bible as a book and "well-documented teachings"? am genuinely curious; I am thinking you have touched upon a nuance I was unaware of. I am openly curious about this distinction.(In other words, I am not asking just to argue.)

Also, I say the solution is allow discrimination against *anyone* for *any* reason.

Anyone whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever.

It will either make things fair for everyone or cause such outrage that saner thought processes may begin to prevail.

Someone else, in this thread or another, has also suggested signs in windows that openly declare people's discrimination(s). The free market would then sort itself out.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#205 Mar 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't trying to get a "gay wedding cake".
They just wanted a wedding cake.
The baker refused because the wedding cake happened to be for a same-sex couple.
That's discrimination no matter how you try to spin it.
See, you say discrimination, the baker says religious freedom.
They can both be right. There are no winners here.
Funides R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#206 Mar 23, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>The discussion was whether it is in the best interest for the couple to make a big deal out of forcing a business to provide product
That is expressly not what the litigation is about. You are dissembling.

The litigation has nothing to do with the intent of the same sex couple or whether you think they're well advised in pursing their rights or not or going into a certain business or not.

The issue under discussion is expressly whether some business owner's "religious" beliefs should permit that owner to refuse service on the basis of some protected, group characteristic.

You seem to say they can or should be able to or that we should permit them to do so. The logical result of that would be...exactly what it says: That business owners could freely segregate their businesses on the basis of any group trait, protected or not, due to "religious" beliefs.

Now, patronizing known bigoted businesses would not be my first choice as a consumer. That is different from a Chick fil A throwing me out, and any jackazz can follow all of this. It's entirely basic.
Funides R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#207 Mar 23, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How about a simple compromise? Instead of telling the couple that you won't serve them because they're heading down the road to hell, just refuse the engagement.
In the cake case and the photographer case the businesses did not realize they were dealing with same sex couples until after the businesses had agreed to provide the services, and this would happen all the time in the future...because there should be no need to even discuss whether it's a same sex couple or gay marriage or not.
Funides R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#208 Mar 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you say discrimination, the baker says religious freedom.
They can both be right. There are no winners here.
Wrong, the bigot baker's religion is not impinged and the bigot baker may still be a bigot in his house of worship of hate and in his private life.

A nightclub can't discriminate. Neither can any other place of public accommodations. This is not a theocracy. One particular religion's beliefs - which are completely hypocritically applied, anyway - does not trump secular law or secular rights.

Otherwise muslim and pagan businesses could toss xstains out at will. And xstains certainly aren't going to argue that's okay, your lying about it to the contrary.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#209 Mar 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you say discrimination, the baker says religious freedom.
They can both be right. There are no winners here.
Agreed. The baker is WRONG. Baking a cake is NOT a religious practice and he cannot use religion as an excuse to violate State law. This has already been adjudicated. The baker LOST with a summary judgment against him.

The bigger question here is where did this baker get the stupid idea that he is above the law?
Funides R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#210 Mar 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. The baker is WRONG. Baking a cake is NOT a religious practice and he cannot use religion as an excuse to violate State law. This has already been adjudicated. The baker LOST with a summary judgment against him.
The bigger question here is where did this baker get the stupid idea that he is above the law?
Except the Supreme Court is about to rule on more than just this case which all revolve around this intersection or interjection of "religious" belief into places of public accommodation.

It's scary. Depends on Kennedy, likely, and you can't always predict him. He's quite conservative in many contexts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#211 Mar 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you say discrimination, the baker says religious freedom.
They can both be right. There are no winners here.
Actually one party is going to win, the other is going to lose.

And the courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws take precedent over the minor imposition on someone's religious freedom caused by baking a cake.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#212 Mar 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And the courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws take precedent over the minor imposition on someone's religious freedom caused by baking a cake.
Ironically, the court found that there was no imposition on their free exercise of religion.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#214 Mar 23, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How about a simple compromise? Instead of telling the couple that you won't serve them because they're heading down the road to hell, just refuse the engagement. Businesses are not required to give a reason. Oh, I'm sorry. We're replacing the oven that day. I have other functions and just can't add another wedding that weekend.
Of course, once these vendors accept the engagement and then want to back out, it becomes quite awkward. And that brings us right back to the market functioning unencubbered by irrelevant prejudices. If you offer goods and services to the general public, that includes everyone. If not, it's up to you to determine whether the customer is the right kind before you accept the engagement. It's not up to the customer to ask about your various likes and dislikes and then say, oh I'm sorry we're offensive to you. Sorry to have wasted your time.
That's why Sheeple's idea of a disclaimer on the door and web site is a good idea. Keep those nasty sinners from walking in in the first place.
I think we agree that any such compromise should not be necessary. These idiots are, well, idiots. Wouldn't it be funny if they were denied service because of their religious beliefs and actions?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#215 Mar 23, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, the slippery slope. Just like the Hobby Lobby federal suit. Today it's birth control for women, they don't object to paying for Viagra or clipping for sperm production, then next they want to deny HIV medications because it's for "those people". Slip, slip, slip.
The "slippery slope" is very much the tactic being used by the evangelical community. They've successfully employed it with respect to abortion rights, which they've virtually (if not actually) eliminated in several states. Now that they've turned back the clock on abortion as far as they can, they're trying to do it with birth control.(Back when I was in college, abortion was a serious debate. But nobody expected a woman's right to choose to be curtailed. Birth control wasn't a debate. If anyone had told us back then that it would be 30 years later, we'd have thought they were raving lunatics!)

That is also the problem with making exceptions to public accommodations for weddings. Next it will be anniversary dinners. Then it will be Valentine's Day. Then it will be even serving a same-sex couple because, after all, serving dinner to a same-sex couple is an endorsement of their life-style.

Once they've established the right to refuse restaurant service to same-sex couples, there is no doubt that would be expanded to any business for exactly the same reason. Of course, if same-sex couples can be excluded for religions reasons, why not interracial couples? How about interfaith couples? Remarried couples?

That's the whole problem with what every proponent of the marriage exception has proposed: They provide no guidance when it is or is not tolerable to discriminate. The logic that baking a cake is any more an endorsement of homosexuality than preparing Valentine's dinner is preposterous.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#216 Mar 23, 2014
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to say they can or should be able to or that we should permit them to do so.[QUOTE] I say no such thing. Are you ever going to provide any quote of mine to support your dishonesty? Obviously, you can't.
[QUOTE who="Funides R Mentally illin"]<quoted text>
The logical result of that would be...exactly what it says: That business owners could freely segregate their businesses on the basis of any group trait, protected or not, due to "religious" beliefs.
Now, patronizing known bigoted businesses would not be my first choice as a consumer. That is different from a Chick fil A throwing me out, and any jackazz can follow all of this. It's entirely basic.
As always, you are wrong and are again making stuff up (i.e., lying) to satisfy your obsessive hate. Logic escapes you being overpowered by said hate. Your own irrational hate is every bit as bad as that of the fundies.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#217 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, the court found that there was no imposition on their free exercise of religion.
Might that be because there was, indeed, no restriction of, nor imposition on, their free exercise of there religion? Just wondering.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#218 Mar 23, 2014
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
In the cake case and the photographer case the businesses did not realize they were dealing with same sex couples until after the businesses had agreed to provide the services, and this would happen all the time in the future...because there should be no need to even discuss whether it's a same sex couple or gay marriage or not.
That's why, if we allow this type of discrimination, it is the responsibility of the vendor to clearly state whom he's willing to server. If he's not willing to server all-comers, then he should make that clear before customers enter the store, and he should perform due diligence before agreeing to anything.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#219 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
And although you correctly point out that a baker could claim to be booked for the time in question, it wouldn't take much to place several innocuous orders for the same period, and raise the issue that only one order had been denied to to being "fully booked" for the time period.
It's difficult to anticipate the time when wedding vendors refusing same-sex couples becomes so pervasive that sting operations become necessary to enforce the law. It has been quite different with respect to blacks--particularly in areas like real estate. Since gays are overrepresented in entertainment, hospitality, decorations, floral shops, etc., it's hard to imagine that, in this particular case, the free market would not sort itself out without overbearing intervention.

Nevertheless, it's helpful to have laws making non-discrimination clear. Otherwise, people get the impression that their bigoted actions are righteous.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#220 Mar 23, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
Might that be because there was, indeed, no restriction of, nor imposition on, their free exercise of there religion? Just wondering.
The baker's rights were never even threatened. If anything, the baker's denial of service violates the potential customer's free exercise, by forcing them to abide by the baker's religious moral views in order to obtain service.

The court, rightly, ruled that the baker's free exercise was never in question, and that providing a service to someone with differing views does not constitute infringement of free exercise of the baker.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#221 Mar 23, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> No reason to weep. You claimed Glen Beck makes your brain rot. He doesn't. Apparently he used a trick. Not cool. No one's brain rotted.
Your prejudice stands. P.S., I don't watch him.(I may have watched a few minutes one time. He's not my cup of tea. Too strident.) Either you do or your prejudice is just invented from what some other bigot told you to believe which compounds your dishonesty. If you watched him (to formulate your own opinion), did your brain rot? Or did it rot before you watched him?
Read and weep.
Actually, I have watched the hysterical, phoney clown a few times. After about 5 or 10 minutes you have to either try to believe what he's spewing or change channels. Yes, I can actually feel IQ points draining away, too much of him can cause permanent brain damage. Far too many of his "facts" have turned out to be unsubstantiated opinions. However there are those who watch him and cite his as gospel. That's what I call brain rot.

Moreover, anyone who cites him as a legit source immediately sends up a red flag on my own BS-o-meter.

Prejudice? I don't think so. I've checked him out personally, he's consistently idiotic.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#222 Mar 23, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Same Dan here.
If someone walks in the door and says "I want a wedding cake, date is X and it needs to be X feet high, X layers and chocolate with raspberry filling", then the baker bakes the cake. No baker on Earth could possibly divine that the customer is gay, nor would it be germane, andn you cannot discriminate against the PERSON. Bake the cake.
If some guy walks in the door and says "I want a wedding cake, its for me and my fiance Bill, and it needs to be X feet high......etc." Then this situation changes *marginally*. Now, your baking the cake *can be* construed as your endorsement of the event in question. Certainly, when someone eats the cake, likes it and asks "who made this-it's awesome and I'm getting one for my upcoming same-sex marriage", your business' name will be broadcast as a potential 'bakery for gay wedding cakes'.
If the baker is some sort of devout Christian or something and thinks "Geez, I have an objection to this gay marriage thing and I don't want to be "the gay wedding cake guy" or whatever, the SMART devout Christian baker says "I'm booked, let me refer you to Baker Y on Main Street-lets' call them" and declines the business in that manner.
BTW, as soon as someone threw the Bible (and just the Bible) up as their defense for NOT baking the gay wedding cake, I'd tell them "sorry Charlie, the Bible doesn't say a damn thing about gay weddings nor cakes for them". A Catholic, for instance, could, ostensibly, demonstrate that they have a religious objection as the teachings are well-documented, et. al., but someone simply throwing the Bible up would have a tough time showing me where it codifies an objection to participation in a gay wedding.
Turning away money is stupid, but people can be stupid.
Dunno. Tough one, but I'm uncomfortable with the government getting into forcing people to contract for things. It's not housing, or things like that. It's cake and flowers.
I
I can see your point, and it is the "smart" way to avoid a situation. A wishy washy way to avoid the situation, but when you provide a service to the general public a little compromise goes a long way.

I don't have your problem with legal interference, however, if discrimination is being practiced then it needs to be stopped. If human nature were better than it is, then these laws wouldn't be needed. I'm afraid we don't qualify for Utopia just yet.

Cakes and flowers ARE a minor thing, yes. So was the seat on the bus that Rosa Parks refused to give up. Since I'm not a part of the GLBT Community (and I doubt you are either) I feel we're not the ones who have the final say that "enough is enough".

I know gays who have told me that it's not worth it, and I know others that agree with the couple who sued. I also know that bigotry against blacks still flourishes under the type of little ruse you proposed above.

I'm backing the couple who sued. Sooner or later someone has to push back, the gay couple didn't choose the time or place, the baker and florist provided it. Their bad.
Funides R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#223 Mar 23, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> As always, you are wrong and are again making stuff up (i.e., lying) to satisfy your obsessive hate. Logic escapes you being overpowered by said hate. Your own irrational hate is every bit as bad as that of the fundies.
As usual it is more content less horsesht from you.

The result of any support for these "religious" exceptions is clearly segregated businesses...where bigot business owners wish them.

And that's _exactly_ the segregated lunch counter scenario I invoked.

And the litigation has nothing to do with whether it is "wise" for these same sex couples to have wandered into the "wrong" (bigoted) businesses or not.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#224 Mar 23, 2014
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual it is more content less horsesht from you.
True. It is always more content and less horsh!t from me.
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
The result of any support for these "religious" exceptions is clearly segregated businesses...where bigot business owners wish them.
Who do you fantasize supports the bigot businesses? Again, if you claim that I do, yet again I challenge you to provide quotes to support your lying. Clearly I will not hold my breath for any such substantiation.
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text> And that's _exactly_ the segregated lunch counter scenario I invoked.
An old scenario. Are you always decades behind the times?
Funides R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
And the litigation has nothing to do with whether it is "wise" for these same sex couples to have wandered into the "wrong" (bigoted) businesses or not.
What tjhe hell are you babbling about now!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Too many plotters sink a conspiracy, researcher... Feb 6 action 1
News Halton Hills Camera Club hosting special evenin... Jan 30 Wellington 1
News Guest Blog: Cardiff through art, by Katie Brown (Jul '13) Jan 30 Ricky 2
News A new perspective: 10 years as a domestic helpe... Jan 25 Culture 10
News Are photographers really a threat? (Jun '08) Jan '16 James 3
Travel photography Dec '15 Alan1 1
Amazing new photo-graphic novel Dec '15 Clive1 1
More from around the web