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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#285 Mar 25, 2014
lides wrote:
You heartless beast! How will the sushi makers ever earn an income if people know they are about to ingest raw fish?!
My quarter-Japanese partner and I will compensate them with extra visits, of course!
Dan

United States

#286 Mar 25, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The Klan is not a protected group.
Abortion clinic protestors are not a protected group.
I know that-

That's why I said specifically that the person requesting the cake was in a protected class.

i.e. a gay person or other protected individual requests the baking of the cake or donuts.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#287 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
If someone in a protected class would ask me or you to make a cake for a Klan rally, or make donuts for the protestors outside an abortion clinic, for instance, we may have an objection to our work being utilized for something we object to.
Of course, being in the Klan, or supporting abortion are personal choices. Being gay is not.

Further, even if I didn't support the free speech either of those organizations, I would still provide those cakes. Do you know why? Because a bakery is a business in existence for the generation of a profit, it does not exist as a mouthpiece to further the speech, ideals, religion, or morality of the proprietor.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#288 Mar 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because a bakery is a business in existence for the generation of a profit, it does not exist as a mouthpiece to further the speech, ideals, religion, or morality of the proprietor.
Of course, he didn't use it as any of these things. He was saying that he personally couldn't support a gay wedding on religious grounds. He was not trying to 'further' anything. Supplying a cake for the wedding would make him a participant. Why are you so against freedom and choice? Why do you hate the 1st amendment?
Dan

United States

#289 Mar 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, being in the Klan, or supporting abortion are personal choices. Being gay is not.
Further, even if I didn't support the free speech either of those organizations, I would still provide those cakes. Do you know why? Because a bakery is a business in existence for the generation of a profit, it does not exist as a mouthpiece to further the speech, ideals, religion, or morality of the proprietor.
I think deciding to get married is a personal choice.

I'm with you RE: gay people's money spends like everyone else's.

I also know that many Christian business folks see their operations as an ersatz form of ministry or glorification of God. I'm not sure that either your nor I are in position to tell them they aren't. They can think they are, right?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#290 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
I think deciding to get married is a personal choice.
And? Why would same sex couples not be allowed the same right to make that choice as anyone else?
Dan wrote:
I'm with you RE: gay people's money spends like everyone else's.
Well, that's just reality. These people are poor businessmen. If they wish to use their business to further their personal views, they shouldn't be in business.
Dan wrote:
I also know that many Christian business folks see their operations as an ersatz form of ministry or glorification of God.
They can see them as a purple oak tree if they like, that doesn't make it so.
Dan wrote:
I'm not sure that either your nor I are in position to tell them they aren't. They can think they are, right?
Actually, the law is in a perfect position to tell them that they are wrong, that they are bigoted, and that they are acting illegally. In the several cases where this has come up, the law has done just that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#291 Mar 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. And? Why would same sex couples not be allowed the same right to make that choice as anyone else?
<quoted text>
2. Well, that's just reality. These people are poor businessmen. If they wish to use their business to further their personal views, they shouldn't be in business.
3. Actually, the law is in a perfect position to tell them that they are wrong, that they are bigoted, and that they are acting illegally. In the several cases where this has come up, the law has done just that.
1. Not if they are employed by a church.
2. Irrelevant opinion.
3. Bad law.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#292 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Supplying a cake for the wedding would make him a participant.
That seems like a pretty broad definition of "participant". Is a plumber a participant in your shower? Will your dentist be a participant in your next meal? If I hire a company to come put down new carpets in my house, are they participants in every subsequent event which takes place on that carpet?

I would reserve the word "participant" for people like the maid of honor, the bridesmaids, the groomsmen, the officiant. But the service personnel? Not so much.
Dan

United States

#293 Mar 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Why would same sex couples not be allowed the same right to make that choice as anyone else?
<quoted text>
Well, that's just reality. These people are poor businessmen. If they wish to use their business to further their personal views, they shouldn't be in business.
<quoted text>
They can see them as a purple oak tree if they like, that doesn't make it so.
<quoted text>
Actually, the law is in a perfect position to tell them that they are wrong, that they are bigoted, and that they are acting illegally. In the several cases where this has come up, the law has done just that.
I don't recall qualifying anyone's right to particpate in a gay wedding.

People can BE poor businessmen, by the way. Nothing illegal about that. You don't get to decide why someone goies into business.

The law you support forces business people to contract with gay couples for wedding services. Period. They can refuse me, but not a gay person nor the prospect of participating in a gay wedding, I guess. If a gay couple selects Bakery X for their wedding cake, Bakery X MUST bake it for them, under penalty of law.

That sounds like crap to me-being forced by law to particpate in anything that's typically an at-will arrangement.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#294 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You can put whatever you want in your window. Jews often label their products kosher.
You fought in WWII? The only thing you ever fought with was trying to reach your shoes so you could tie them.
What does kashrut have to do with it, numbnuts?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#295 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, he didn't use it as any of these things. He was saying that he personally couldn't support a gay wedding on religious grounds. He was not trying to 'further' anything. Supplying a cake for the wedding would make him a participant. Why are you so against freedom and choice? Why do you hate the 1st amendment?
Why do you think the first amendment gives him the right to ignore the law?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#296 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that-
That's why I said specifically that the person requesting the cake was in a protected class.
i.e. a gay person or other protected individual requests the baking of the cake or donuts.
yeah.... that could happen.... a gay person asking for a cake for a Klan rally.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#297 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think deciding to get married is a personal choice.
I'm with you RE: gay people's money spends like everyone else's.
I also know that many Christian business folks see their operations as an ersatz form of ministry or glorification of God. I'm not sure that either your nor I are in position to tell them they aren't. They can think they are, right?
They may think anything the wish, it's when they attempt to impose their individual choices on others it becomes the problem.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#298 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
I also know that many Christian business folks see their operations as an ersatz form of ministry or glorification of God. I'm not sure that either your nor I are in position to tell them they aren't. They can think they are, right?
White supremacists also think they are right. But we do not make laws based on their beliefs (anymore).

Dan: Where do you think Christian folks obtain the notion that their business is a form of ministry or glorification? It certainly doesn't come from any of the teachings of the Bible. Could it be they just made it up to rationalize the behavior that they know deep down is wrong?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#299 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays are bigots, haven't you been reading these posts?
Anyone that doesn't support every aspect of homosexuality is a hater and a bigot.
How about we change your comment just a little.
'Someone may offer the best product on the planet, but if I know they are gay I wouldn't shop there- neither would many other people.'
Can you see that happening? Your whole sign idea is ridiculous on its face.
And I have no problem with someone refusing to shop at a gay owned store; that's their choice.

I would expect a gay or lesbian owned business to put up signs indicating what customers they don't want to serve as well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#300 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If the business is DADT, how would I know? I already told you what I'd do if a business refused to serve me, I'd find one that would.
Putting up signs isn't the answer. What that might do is take a very minor problem and make it a large problem.
That's the whole point- would you still buy a product from a company which you KNEW would discriminate against a family member of yours?

Allowing businesses to discriminate against entire classes of customers isn't the answer either.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#301 Mar 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, he didn't use it as any of these things. He was saying that he personally couldn't support a gay wedding on religious grounds. He was not trying to 'further' anything. Supplying a cake for the wedding would make him a participant. Why are you so against freedom and choice? Why do you hate the 1st amendment?
Why are you so afraid of the 1st amendment?

Wouldn't it have been helpful had the customer known even before entering the bakery that he wouldn't provide products for a wedding of a same-sex couple?

Why doesn't the baker want EVERYONE to know he doesn't provide certain services to certain customers?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#302 Mar 25, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't recall qualifying anyone's right to particpate in a gay wedding.
People can BE poor businessmen, by the way. Nothing illegal about that. You don't get to decide why someone goies into business.
The law you support forces business people to contract with gay couples for wedding services. Period. They can refuse me, but not a gay person nor the prospect of participating in a gay wedding, I guess. If a gay couple selects Bakery X for their wedding cake, Bakery X MUST bake it for them, under penalty of law.
That sounds like crap to me-being forced by law to particpate in anything that's typically an at-will arrangement.
The baker has the option of not providing services for ANY wedding, but he/she doesn't have the option of refusing the customer based on a particular classification.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#303 Mar 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems like a pretty broad definition of "participant". Is a plumber a participant in your shower? Will your dentist be a participant in your next meal? If I hire a company to come put down new carpets in my house, are they participants in every subsequent event which takes place on that carpet?
I would reserve the word "participant" for people like the maid of honor, the bridesmaids, the groomsmen, the officiant. But the service personnel? Not so much.
Edmond

I wouldn't term them an active particpant in the way the wedding party is.

Guests are particpants, yes?

Florists and bakers are artisans aren't quite plumbers and carpet layers, and the flowers and cakes are comissioned singularly for this event and don't outlive the event. It's their calling card, if you will, and perhaps some of these artisans do not want to be known as "the gay wedding florist" or "the gay wedding baker" for financial reasons-they don't want any adverse effect either way.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#304 Mar 25, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker has the option of not providing services for ANY wedding, but he/she doesn't have the option of refusing the customer based on a particular classification.
You're staying what I said in another way.

They are compelled to do ALL weddings or do NO weddings.

Either way, their action or inaction is compelled by the state.

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 Happy Birthday, Walt Disney, Creator of Mickey ... May 14 Slips 1
News Rush Limbaugh advises bakery owners who disappr... May 14 Vote UKIP 3
News Young Halton board artists displaying their wor... Apr '15 Halton Region Museum 1
News Tornado photos provide a different look Apr '15 Poverty 1
News Palm Beach Cuban Photo Exhibit Much More Than C... Apr '15 Alexander Skarsgard 1
News Hedgecock Wins WV Images Competition Apr '15 True 2
News John Sommer juried art show begins today; award... (Apr '10) Apr '15 Art Odyssey returns 2
More from around the web