Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Mar 20, 2014 Full story: Daily Press & Argus 2,815

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

Full Story

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#688 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Events aren't people.
Precisely the point.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#689 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The people in question are refusing service neither a group nor individuals-they're refusing to service a singular event.
The government doesn't have an interest in wedding receptions.
If your silly, semantic distinction meant anything the case never would have proceeded to the Supreme Court. No lawyer arguing this case on either side is going to mention your absurdist koan. A certain group of customers is being turned away. That's clear.

You failed so far as I've seen to acknowledge the fact of the many other limitations on businesses's "religious" beliefs [sic], such as the Amish having to pay into Social Security, the illegality of peyote ceremonies. that businesses cannot bar women who don't wear burkas or headscarves, etc.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#690 Mar 27, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
A certain group of customers is being turned away. That's clear.
They were regular customers.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#691 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
" The religious tried to use it during integration, in public schools, in stores, restaurants, hotels, in real estate dealings and the list goes on and on..."
Against INDIVIDUALS.
A wedding isn't an individual.
It's an event.
They sell cakes for weddings, but not same sex weddings, that an individual group or class. Stop being silly.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#692 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
" The religious tried to use it during integration, in public schools, in stores, restaurants, hotels, in real estate dealings and the list goes on and on..."
Against INDIVIDUALS.
A wedding isn't an individual.
It's an event.
The discrimination was based on the PEOPLE in the event, not the event itself.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#693 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Weddings are events, regardless of the participants.
They don't get extended civil rights protected class status unless gay people are particpants, I guess.
I can't demand that someone me a cake for my son's graduation party. Unless I said I was gay, and "quallified" myself Then, there'd be a distinction without a difference. Right? Then, they can't refuse me.
I can't demand that someone make me a cake for my daughter's graduation party either.

So we're both treated equally.

But the baker can't refuse to bake a cake for my daughter's graduation just because she has 2 dads.

Just as the baker can't refuse to bake a cake for your son's graduation party just because he has (I presume) a mom and a dad.

That would be illegal discrimination.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#694 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he refused because the wedding was gay. He did not want to be a participant.
BTW, many bakeries sell coffee and you can buy and eat their products right there, just like a restaurant..
No, he refused because the PEOPLE in the wedding were gay.

THAT'S where the discrimination occurred.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#695 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
What percentage of the particpants have to be gay, and of what gender, for the event itself to have protected class status conferred unto it?
The event doesn't; the PEOPLE do.

Because he was discriminating against the PEOPLE in the event, not the event.

He wasn't opposed to a marriage event.

He was opposed to GAY PEOPLE being in the marriage event.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#696 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Events aren't people.
Then why did you give the event a sexual orientation?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#697 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I am making a distinction.
The baker wouldn't make them a cake for their specific ceremony. He didn't refuse them a donut or pastry.
He didn't want his product involved in their EVENT. A wedding's an EVENT.
The law doesn't make the distinction.

He denied them a service based on their sexual orientation in violation of the law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#698 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
They are in CO, apparently.
The baker has to make wedding cakes for gay weddings on that very premise that you posted.
Other posters here agree. If gays are in the wedding, then the wedding is protected from discrimination inasmuch as the individuals are. In CO, anyway.
No, the baker has to make wedding cake regardless of the gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation of the PEOPLE getting married.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#699 Mar 27, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Because he was discriminating against the PEOPLE in the event, not the event.
There is no question it was the event.
There is no question that these gay men were regular customers.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#700 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the wedding itself is accorded the civil protections against discrimination that the individuals are.
'
Just finish the thought.
Nope, but the PEOPLE being married in the wedding DO have civil protections against discrimination, which is why the baker was convicted in court of violating the anti-discrimination law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#701 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help it that you don't know what it means.
"Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another."
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/involuntary-...
If I'm a dentist, someone cannot approach me and command my services. I'm still a dentist and that's my job, but someone cannot force me to do dental work for them.
Unless that someone is gay, and I'm in Colorado, and he's throwing a dental-themed wedding reception. Then, I have to provide my dental services.
Awwwww, poor widdle victim......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#702 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They were regular customers.
It only takes one time to break the law, regardless of how many times they were served in the past.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#703 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no question it was the event.
There is no question that these gay men were regular customers.
The event was a wedding.

The baker provided cakes for weddings for other people.

The only difference was the PEOPLE involved in this event.

The judge didn't buy your lame reasoning when the baker tried it in court either. He called it a "distinction without a difference".
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#704 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They were regular customers.
Again, dissembling cretin, a class of "regular customers" were not refused service.

A same sex couple was refused service - after verbally contracting to obtain the service - on the basis of being a same sex couple. A hetero couple wanting a cake would not have been turned away.

Again, you crazy and uninformed "reasoning" will play exactly no part in any of the arguments.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#705 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
There is no question it was the event.
There is no question that these gay men were regular customers.
There is no question that the baker violated a constitutionally valid law when he refused his services for this couple's reception.

There is no question that the couple was ALREADY legally married and even blessed by God before they came into this bakery where they had shopped for without the bakery or its owner violating their civil rights under the law.

There is no question that he deliberately discriminated against them by refusing them a service available to anyone else who ordered a wedding cake.

There is no question that anti-discrimination laws do not violate anyone's right to freedom of religious beliefs now, any more than they did when the issue was God blessed racial discrimination.

There is no question, that if the Supremes take up the case of the good Christian photographer from New Mexico, you and your fellow believers in this cause are going to get the hell that she told the lesbian couple they were going to get. I'd suggest praying that that they don't hear it, she ain't the horse you want to ride in on. You'll lose.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#706 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The government says he has to bake the cake, or be subject to legal threat.
That's the fact here.
It's involuntary servitude. Plain and simple.
Hardly. It's his business to bake cakes for people, that's how he makes his living. Her serves the general public and profits from it. Gays are part of the general public and they are paying customers just like the rest.

Making a profit is not involuntary servitude in any shape, form or fashion.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#707 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The people in question are refusing service neither a group nor individuals-they're refusing to service a singular event.
The government doesn't have an interest in wedding receptions.
It DOES have an interest in unlawful business practices, which is what the case was about. Discrimination is not legal, therefor the baker committed a criminal action.

So in a twisted way you are right, wedding receptions are OK, breaking the law is not OK.

Got it?

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
How could a hunter shoot a red-tailed hawk? (Jan '09) 8 hr Minpin Man 14
Make Plans to Attend 32nd Annual McLean Holiday... Tue Judy 1
Photography exhibit highlights neighborhood heros Nov 22 Denise 3
Fine Art America's Best Photo Artist Nov 22 Denise 6
Rediscovering Lost Photos From a Long-Ago West End Nov 20 Niemand 4
Unseen WW1 photos uncovered Nov 18 benedict123 2
Former BGSU faculty to exhibit work Nov 17 Marla K Smith- Br... 1

Photography People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE