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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1958 Apr 7, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? You will NOT like their decision.
They will uphold the constitution, not your warped version of it.
In my view, they violated the constitution. Just keep suing, it seems to be working for the homosexuals.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1959 Apr 7, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
And what makes you think the GLBT Community "counts" the indifferent???
It's obvious. Not to mention the questions asked in the polls are carefully worded to favor the outcome for gays. If I were asked if gays should have equal rights I'd say yes. If I were asked if gays should be allowed to marry I'd say no.

When polls asked if gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions marriage always came in last. Polls can and are designed to produce a predetermined outcome. Do your own personal poll and ask people you know if they think two men having sex is normal. Ask them how they feel about gay marriage. To the sex, you will get a no. To the marriage you will get an I don't care what they do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1960 Apr 7, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
It was pushed through by the ever hysterical fundies, and it is crumbling as we speak.
a vote of 34267 in the House
a vote of 8514 in the Senate
overwhelming approval.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1961 Apr 7, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
And now you spend EVERY DAY on gay chatboards telling gays that everything would be okay if they just go back in the close. That's not indifferent.
Actually, I said if everyone just minded their own business.
I would like to return to being indifferent.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1962 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, DOMA. It was overwhelmingly passed and in full force at the time.
I know that you don't like that but it's reality.
Hmmm, and just what part of DOMA do you think Massachusetts violated when they allowed same-sex couples to marry?

Here, I'll even post the federal DOMA law to help you out:

Section 1- Short Title
This act may be referred to and the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2- Powers Reserved to the States
No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian Tribe shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3- Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband an wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

NOWHERE does is say a state can't allow same-sex couples to marry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1963 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on how you define anti-gay. You have the indifferent and the sympathizers. The indifferent aren't really your supporters even though you count them. They actually don't care and they don't support everything gay. They must be haters and bigots in disguise.
I define 'anti-gay' as anyone opposed to equal rights for gays & lesbians, including those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.

According to every poll done over the past few years, the anti-gays are now a minority in this country.

For evidence of this, I can cite the last four statewide votes on the issue.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1964 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious. Not to mention the questions asked in the polls are carefully worded to favor the outcome for gays. If I were asked if gays should have equal rights I'd say yes. If I were asked if gays should be allowed to marry I'd say no.
When polls asked if gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions marriage always came in last. Polls can and are designed to produce a predetermined outcome. Do your own personal poll and ask people you know if they think two men having sex is normal. Ask them how they feel about gay marriage. To the sex, you will get a no. To the marriage you will get an I don't care what they do.
And yet even the anti-gays can't come up with a single poll of their own which shows a majority of American are opposed to same-sex couples marrying.

Not a single poll.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1965 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I said if everyone just minded their own business.
I would like to return to being indifferent.
Actually, I said it correctly: If gays would just go back into the closet, you would go return to indifference.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1966 Apr 7, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I said it correctly: If gays would just go back into the closet, you would go return to indifference.
If that's what it takes for gays to mind their own business I'm all for it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1967 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what it takes for gays to mind their own business I'm all for it.
The SCOTUS just denied the photographer case, thereby upholding the New Mexico ruling that businesses can't refuse to service "gay weddings".

Happy now?

Of course you're not.

TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1968 Apr 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet even the anti-gays can't come up with a single poll of their own which shows a majority of American are opposed to same-sex couples marrying.
Not a single poll.
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php...
Dan

United States

#1969 Apr 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And the baker retains all his constitutional protections.
Appears not.
Dan

United States

#1970 Apr 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, you are playing semantics because you have no valid argument.
A county clerk is in no way comparable to a place of public accommodation.
You made a stupid argument.
It's not "semantics" when I reply based upon a premise you present yourself.

"A county clerk is in no way comparable to a place of public accommodation. "

I think I'll let that stunning piece of sophistry stand on it's own.

A public office, funded by the public, to serve the public, that somehow isn't a place of public accommodation.
Dan

United States

#1971 Apr 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
The Amish already get out of paying into social security because it's supposedly against their religion. They also tried to get out of laws requiring their kids attend school or get vaccinations or put safety triangles on their buggies, etc.
The Quakers & other groups tried to get out of the draft based on their religion.
Polygamists have tried to say their religion requires them to marry multiple women & children at once.
This isn't just speculation, it's already been tried with all sorts of laws in the past. If religion is an excuse to violate a law, everyone with any beef over any law will suddenly develop a "sincerely held religious belief" against it.
Um, you do recall CO status in the draft?

Granted.

I'm assuming that even YOU believe that armed defense of the country in time of war is of a higher degree of compelling state interest than provision of a wedding cake.
Dan

United States

#1972 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope these cases get to the supreme court, let them decide.
IMO, the Hobby Lobby case could have some bearing on this, as the crux of the complaint is that HL doesn't believe it can be compelled by law to contract for goods/services that violate its religious beliefs.

Same deal here-being forced by law to enter into contractual arrangements.

We'll see, I guess

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1973 Apr 7, 2014
Dan wrote:
A public office, funded by the public, to serve the public, that somehow isn't a place of public accommodation.
No, Dan. It is a place to administer law. They do not provide a good. They do provide a service, but as their title of clerk implies, it is to provide the administrative service of dealing with legal contracts & licenses.

Getting a dog license, marriage license, or a transfer station (dump) sticker, is a far cry from baking a cake, shooting photography, catering, running a restaurant, etc. Only a fool would claim otherwise.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1974 Apr 7, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, the Hobby Lobby case could have some bearing on this, as the crux of the complaint is that HL doesn't believe it can be compelled by law to contract for goods/services that violate its religious beliefs.
Same deal here-being forced by law to enter into contractual arrangements.
We'll see, I guess
Yes, we saw the SCOTUS today REFUSE the case, thereby upholding state anti-discrimination laws in public accommodation.

I guess the bakers and photographers and florists are either going to have to suck it up or get out of the wedding business.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1975 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what it takes for gays to mind their own business I'm all for it.
You have a strange concept of "mind your own business." Telling others to shut up is not minding your own business. It's more like clapping your ears and shouting Naaaaaaaahhhhh! It also takes away the rights of the person you want to silence.

Here's an example of minding your own business: There is a parade in town and you stay home. Here's an example of imposing your preferences others: You express objections to the very existence of the parade.

Is this becoming a little clearer to you?

Here's another example: My boss asks me if I'll be available this weekend to support a customer installation. I reply that I have already planned to help my husband with his CPA work. Respecting that, whatever his personal feelings about my marriage, would be minding his own business. Denigrating my marriage would be imposing his views on others.

Until that latter possibility no longer exists, expect to hear a lot from us.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1976 Apr 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what it takes for gays to mind their own business I'm all for it.
What would it take for anti-gay heteros to mind their own business?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1977 Apr 7, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
When they get to the Supreme Court it brings more attention to the fact that gays enjoy violating other people's rights and in fact insist they have a right to do so. I want gays to have equal rights but gays hate equality for others and want more rights than other people have. I can't force you to bake me a cake but gays can.
Right..... gays hate equality for others and want more rights than other people have. Sure they do......

more hysterical, unsupportable whining from Rev Anal replete with logical fallacies.

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 Local Brides Say Photographer Owes Them Wedding... (Aug '08) May 19 Meethead 619
News Stunning images capture hidden caves across the... May 16 No doubt 1
News Party on the Bridge kicks off Maplewood Rose We... (Jun '10) May 13 IescapedNY 20
News Indigenous artist Shelley Niro wins $50,000 Sco... May 9 bc votes last nite 1
News A life in portraits: Camera changes Mooreville ... May 9 Lost 1
News On Valentine's Day, couple celebrates romance b... (Feb '14) May 5 Simon 16
News Postmedia newspapers honoured with 21 Ontario N... Apr 30 Meg 1
More from around the web