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

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1054 Mar 31, 2014
Are anti-discrimination laws unconstitutional? The Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the highest courts in every state have said no, frequently, repeatedly and often over the last five plus decades. So much for the esteemed opinion of the readership of DebateDotOrg,.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#1055 Mar 31, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that Sheepie was smarter than Dianne Feinstein. She is the Senator from California who supported the NSA spying on us and keep copies of all our posts here in Topix and etc. Then she finds that the CIA is spying on her personal computer and she goes all Liberal on us speaking out against this outrage. She was fine when it was done to us, but when it was done to her she would not tolerate it. Typical politician.
I said Sheepie was becoming more rational because he was repeating what I had posted to him as if he had written it.
I am well aware of who Sen. Feinstein is. She is very intelligent and is is said to be very good at building consensus. Sheeple has no chance of being smarter than her. None at all. Not even close.

That said, I disagree with her 99% of the time. But there is no way that Sheeple, on his best day, could even come close to Feinstien's on her worst.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1056 Mar 31, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I fully acknowledge that with out laws you and sheepie would be out raping young boys. And murdering their parents so you could get to them. You do not have to convince me of that, I already know it.
Ah. Now I understand. You are for laws that protect against your own paranoid fantasies about others. But laws that protect real people from real harms are infringements of your imagined rights.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1057 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay Rainbow Wedding cakes were not on the menu. The gay couple violated the rights of the baker not the other way around. You see reality backwards.
...and yet in REALITY, the baker admitted to the facts of the case and a summary judgment was made against him.

Do you even realize that there is a difference between your wishful thinking and what really happened? Evidently, you don't see reality.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1058 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Are anti-discrimination laws unconstitutional?
64% Say Yes
36% Say No
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-anti-discr...
Did you learn the appeal to popularity fallacy at MENSA?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1059 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are your sex organs located? Right below your nose?
Non responsive and irrelevant.

Surely you aren't stupid enough to think a cake has a sexual orientation...... oh wait.... sure you are..... you're the very same idiot that blamed Abraham Lincoln for the poor treatment of blacks because he didn't offer to buy all the slaves.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1060 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I said but I was also thinking in his azz hole.
Do you think about my "azz hole" often Rev. Anal? That's a curious activity for a "straight" man. Yeah... you're straight..... straight to the next dick.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1061 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I fully acknowledge that with out laws you and sheepie would be out raping young boys. And murdering their parents so you could get to them. You do not have to convince me of that, I already know it.
Rev. Anal and his pro-gay pronouncements.

You poor, twisted soul.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1062 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, that explains why if you have less than 15 employees you do not have to obey them.
Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass laws to make us serve customers we do not want to serve?
The 14th amendment is an amendment and is an example of Congress passing laws the Constitution does not allow it to pass.
Correct, anti-discrimination laws regarding employment apply equally to every business. Every business with 15 or more employees must comply; every business with less than 15 employees are exempt. Just as tax laws apply equally to everyone, but it's dependent on your income.

More to the point of this topic, public accommodation laws apply to all businesses open to the general public regardless of their size.

How can a duly passed & ratified amendment to the Constitution following constitutional procedures be an example of Congress passing laws the Constitution doesn't allow it to pass?

The commerce clause & the 14th amendment gives Congress the ability to regulate private business. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)- a unanimous SCOTUS decision upholding the Civil Rights Act; specifically affirming a business can't refuse customers based on their race.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1063 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay Rainbow Wedding cakes were not on the menu. The gay couple violated the rights of the baker not the other way around. You see reality backwards.
They weren't asking for a "gay rainbow wedding cake".

They were simply asking for a wedding cake.

The baker refused based solely on the couples sexual orientation.

The court disagreed with your assessment of the situation; no big shocker there.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1064 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a gay wedding cake. And those were not two men, they were figurines. Two men on a wedding cake? I swear, that must have been one huge cake! The Baker does not make gay wedding cakes. He offered to make them brownies for their reception. He does not make gay wedding cakes.
Nope, still no such thing as a gay wedding cake, since cakes don't have a sexual orientation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1065 Apr 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Are anti-discrimination laws unconstitutional?
64% Say Yes
36% Say No
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-anti-discr...
Same lame fake poll from the Rev Anarchist Al...

The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld anti-discrimination laws as being constitutional under the commerce clause & the 14th amendment.
Dan

United States

#1066 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, still no such thing as a gay wedding cake, since cakes don't have a sexual orientation.
...and neither do events.

But, you happily agree with the judge's extension of the rights of the person to the event they contract the good or service for.

Why?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1068 Apr 1, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
...and neither do events.
But, you happily agree with the judge's extension of the rights of the person to the event they contract the good or service for.
Why?
Nope, the rights apply to the people, not the event.
Dan

United States

#1069 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, still no such thing as a gay wedding cake, since cakes don't have a sexual orientation.
If there isn't such thing as a "gay wedding cake", then there logically isn't such thing as a "gay wedding".

So, by your logic, the judge erred, right? The judge extended personal civil rights to the event-he gave the event an orientation to which the personal discrimination statutes could be applied.
Dan

United States

#1070 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't asking for a "gay rainbow wedding cake".
They were simply asking for a wedding cake.
The baker refused based solely on the couples sexual orientation.
The court disagreed with your assessment of the situation; no big shocker there.
The baker didn't say he refused them because they were gay.

The judge concluded that himself, as the couple were to be married in a ceremony they wanted to contract the baker in service to.

To support that conclusion, the judge extended the personal civil rights protections against discrimination against sexual orientation FROM the couple TO the event they were particpating in. The ruling says as much. "distinction without a difference" was how it was put. The people and the event were equated by the judge. "without a difference".

He had to, else he'd have had to rule in the baker's favor as there wasn't evidence (that I read or was profferred in the ruling) that this baker engaged in habitual discrimination against gay individuals.
Dan

United States

#1071 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the rights apply to the people, not the event.
The ruling says as much. "distinction without a difference" was how it was put. The people and the event were equated by the judge. "without a difference".

What does "without a difference" mean?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1072 Apr 1, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Are anti-discrimination laws unconstitutional?
Is preventing a person from freely practicing their religion unconstitutional?
Let the justices decide.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1073 Apr 1, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, anti-discrimination laws regarding employment apply equally to every business.
Unless that business is a church. Freedom of religion applies to everyone.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1074 Apr 1, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If there isn't such thing as a "gay wedding cake", then there logically isn't such thing as a "gay wedding".
So, by your logic, the judge erred, right? The judge extended personal civil rights to the event-he gave the event an orientation to which the personal discrimination statutes could be applied.
Correct, there is no such thing as a "gay wedding" either, anymore than there is a "black wedding" or a "left-handed wedding" or "fat wedding" or a "tall wedding" etc, etc, etc. There are just weddings.

The judge ruled that the baker was pretending to be opposed to the event rather than the PEOPLE in the event. If the baker was opposed to the event- i.e. weddings- then he wouldn't do ANY weddings. Since he only opposed the wedding when it involved a same-sex couple, then obviously his problem is not with the event, but rather the PEOPLE involved in the event.

It's like saying you're not violating the civil rights act because you're not opposed to black people, but just black voting.

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
Photos by L.M. Montgomery go on display at Spar... 3 hr Sam 1
Cameraman Mar 1 be very careful o... 1
Joseph Arthur Photography Exhibit Opens 3/13 at... Feb 28 amyli 1
The Evening Blues - 2-9-15 Feb 25 Russian music 2
Happy Birthday, Walt Disney, Creator of Mickey ... Feb 24 bob 1
The Evening Blues - 9-4-14 Feb 22 last fall 1
The Evening Blues - 12-29-14 Feb 22 freethinkradio do... 1
More from around the web