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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#163 Mar 22, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me say more. If you contract with a Hospital to work in the ER and the Hospital receives government funding you will sign a non-discrimination contract. This means if Sheepie comes in and you do not like it that his shoes and purse do not match you can not refuse to stop his bleeding.
However if you buy a building and open a bakery and you don't like the idea of gay weddings, and Sheepie swishes in with shoes that don't match his purse and you are offended you have every right in the world to send him on his way. Of course if you can't pay the rent that would be pretty stupid now wouldn't it.
And let us not gloss over the fact that laws were passed forcing you to serve people you do not want to serve. How is that fair? How is that equality?
But many small towns- including my own- have a single catholic owned private hospital. They are free to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They just recently decided they won't be offering hysterectomies for any reason- not even in an emergency.

If businesses are free to discriminate as you support, then there is no reason a private hospital can't turn away gays or blacks or jews or athiests or anyone else, even if they're bleeding to death.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#164 Mar 22, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, isn't the net result that either baker IS compelled under threat pf penalty to bake a cake?
I know why they were prosecuted, but the result of the case(s) now mean that someone would indeed be forced to provide services.
Nope, they STILL have the choice to provide services or not. NO ONE is forced to run a business. It's a CHOICE.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#166 Mar 22, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. That's why the libertarian side of me often gets overruled by my progressive side.
I live in a small town (pop 2500) surround by other small towns about the same size, so I know from personal experience what happens when the only hardware store or other business in town refuses to do business with you.
The great boogeyman of libertarian debates is the constant resort to "free market." Unfortunately, the free market is no more real than other gods that humans worship.

One of the tenets of the free market is that there are always alternative suppliers, and that switching suppliers is as easy as navigating to a different web page. Nothing in the real world works that way, although people who live in big cities experience something a lot closer to that in their everyday lives. Even they are constrained, however, where they can obtain certain items. Or how they negotiate the cost of a taxi ride.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#167 Mar 22, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, isn't the net result that either baker IS compelled under threat pf penalty to bake a cake?
I know why they were prosecuted, but the result of the case(s) now mean that someone would indeed be forced to provide services.
No, "someone" was forced to do anything - a business was required to follow the laws that govern the business.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#168 Mar 22, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
No, "someone" was forced to do anything - a business was required to follow the laws that govern the business.
and you call yourself 'just think'

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#169 Mar 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
and you call yourself 'just think'
In this instance, I call myself "correct."
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#170 Mar 22, 2014
For the most part, this has been a very interesting discussion. I'm not sure -- again as in I'm really not sure -- there are any definitive right or wrong answers... except for the obvious crackpots desperate for attention.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#171 Mar 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Scratch the
You stupid pos, you avoided the content that was in my post about differing environments yielding different outcomes...all of which you attribute solely to race, none to racism.

You sick bigot.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#172 Mar 22, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
For the most part, this has been a very interesting discussion. I'm not sure -- again as in I'm really not sure -- there are any definitive right or wrong answers... except for the obvious crackpots desperate for attention.
Okay, you're on record as favoring segregated lunch counters, or more like whole restaurants. Or rather, the right to officially, openly segregate restaurants.

Because racism was "justified" by the buybull, too. Deeply held "religious" beliefs and all that....
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#173 Mar 22, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>but you know that people can covertly discriminate rather easily
Allowing bigotry openly and in the law is an entirely different matter. And with the law's disapproval of open bigotry and theocracy then we have a chance to limit other instances of it the fundies are trying for...whether they can go on discriminating covertly or not.

Again, in these cases the business owners directly stated their "religious" beliefs prohibited them from serving known sinners. Oh wait, not sinners. Same sex couples only. All the other sinners are okay....
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#174 Mar 22, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're on record as favoring segregated lunch counters, or more like whole restaurants. Or rather, the right to officially, openly segregate restaurants.
Because racism was "justified" by the buybull, too. Deeply held "religious" beliefs and all that....
No, I'm not.(Care to provide a quote?) You're lying... again. Anyway, I'm a heathen and have no time for the bible or most any "deeply held religious beliefs."

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#175 Mar 22, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> No it won't, but your prejudice is clearly noted. How proud you must be in your self righteous bigotry. How do you like it when some moron makes stupid and dishonest claims about gays?


Watch and weep.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Hockessin, DE

#176 Mar 22, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=MGmYjVoFF2sXX

Watch and weep.
Watch and weep yourself, you cretin trailer trash.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#177 Mar 22, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound very reasonable, logical and rational. That is sorely lacking when people don't like the idea that someone might say no, and offend a gay person.
The bigots do single out gay people. That is pure insanity. But there are better ways of dealing with it that threatening them with prison and turning them from people who do not like you into people who hate you.
It is my experience that gay owned businesses are better businesses.
I think one is likely to see a spectrum of reactions. There are people who are outraged by this discrimination and others who are simply miffed. Reactions in action follow these reactions in thought processes.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#178 Mar 22, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have drank 3 margaritas before you read them if you found them enjoyable. I'd rather have a root canal.
I like reading what people have to say.:D
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#179 Mar 22, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
But he is right, tryants do come to power claiming they are going to bring fairness and equality and everyone believes them until it is too late to stop them. That is exactly what Hitler did to the German people before WW2. He took a nation of Christians and turned them into a killing machine.
Why is no one, or very few, interested in freedom and liberty?
I think you missed the point. Do fairness and equality exist? Have you ever been to a gay bar? The unfairness of inequality is so obvious and no government law can fix it. I used to go to gay dance clubs with my gay cousin and I really didn't like any of the guys who would hit on me. They felt special because they were good looking and just assumed I would dance with them and I have heard some really cruel things said to gay men who were not all that attractive. Gays would get their feathers ruffled because someone less attractive than themselves would ask them to dance and they took it as an insult, an offense. None of these less attractive gays would ask me to dance because they were afraid I would treat them like the more attractive gays treated them. I never did treat them badly. I would only dance with the less attractive gays just because I didn't like the good looking ones saying mean things to them. One time this guy told my cousin how lucky he was to have me as a boyfriend. LOL. Anyway, my experience is that gays are the most discriminating people on earth, are your experiences different?
Being very honest, I don't understand this post very well. The previous poster had stated, in essence, that "fairness and equality" seemed to be code words, in their view, for something very "evil." I was disagreeing. After all, in the current cases re: gay rights, what the hell *IS* fairness and equality, if not marriage equality? It certainly isn't the INequality the antigay violently want.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#180 Mar 22, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =MGmYjVoFF2sXX
Watch and weep.
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.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#181 Mar 22, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> No, I'm not.(Care to provide a quote?) You're lying... again. Anyway, I'm a heathen and have no time for the bible or most any "deeply held religious beliefs."
Segregated businesses (segregated by whatever protected group characteristic impinges on the owner's "religious" beliefs) are precisely what you support by saying...that same thing:

That business owners should, in your view, be able to refuse service to some member of a protected group solely on that basis due to "religious" beliefs.

If that's not what is under discussion - it is - then you can explain what you think is under discussion.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#182 Mar 23, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Segregated businesses (segregated by whatever protected group characteristic impinges on the owner's "religious" beliefs) are precisely what you support by saying...that same thing:
That business owners should, in your view, be able to refuse service to some member of a protected group solely on that basis due to "religious" beliefs.
If that's not what is under discussion - it is - then you can explain what you think is under discussion.
I supported no such thing. Again, you lied and failed to provide even one substantiating quote of mine since there were none.

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 or service for a same sex wedding before the fact. As I said, there are no real wrong answers here. Some might opt to make the big stink before the event. I wondered if the nut jobs were worth ceding so much power to re one's wedding which, I would guess, would. be more important than some born again hypocrites. My question was, assuming the actual wedding (and one's intended) to be more important, might it be a better choice secure a gay-owned, or at least a gay friendly vendor for the event, not cede any power to the born-again hypocrites, have a wildly successful and happy wedding/event/whatever, gather your evidence, and nail the jerks after the fact.

Services can be messed with to lessen the joy of the event.(Oops, my camera malfunctioned so now there are pictures of the hopefully once in a lifetime event. Oops,they didn't deliver the good wine so we served your guests the cheap, watered down crap.) Did some prefer that risk to having a fabulous wedding/event/whatever and causing the nut jobs grief so that the damage is done to the nut jobs (after the wedding/event/whatever), not the same sex couple who only wanted the best for their wedding. Either option might work for those who chose such options, and I clearly did not claim to have a definitive answer.

Note that once again, your claims about what I said were fabricated (bullsh!t for those who need simpler terms) and you again were not able to cite any quotes of mine to substantiate your fabrications (bullsh!t for the aforementioned who require simpler terms).
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#183 Mar 23, 2014
P.S. You will never beat me because you are dishonest and obsessed with beating me even though you never have and never will, especially when there's no basic disagreement to begin with.

Also note that I did, in fact, say, "I don't know -- as in I really don't know...." If you need me to cite the quote (used in two different posts), I can. With confidence. And if once again you re-read what I actually wrote, and retract your silly nonsense, I will accept such a retraction without snideness as I did the last time you wisely, and may I add graciously, retracted.

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 Photo of "ghost" at scene of fatal motorcycle w... Jul 22 concern 1
News A push to help gay couples find wedding joy - w... Jul 20 lides 8
News Couture Paper Doll Photography - Ajax Lee Reima... Jul 19 TW_sugar_daddio 1
News Fiery "mushroom clouds": apparent Independence ... Jul 5 use vid in a movie 1
News French Art Colony doles out numerous art honors - Jul 3 Big Johnson 1
Bangkok: Call Waiting Jun 30 Clive Jones 1
News 100-year-old images from Toronto photographer r... May '16 GTA 1
More from around the web