Judge rules for photographer challenging gay rights law

Not at all. You're welcome to do or not do that.

 

I agree. No one is forced to be in the wedding business. An individual can decide not to allow Christians in their home. The moment that home becomes a business (Rented for events or housing) we are no longer dealing with an individual; it is a business entity.

A gay photographer may not legally refuse service on the basis of religion.

You ask a good question. I would draw the line that gives one citizen more rights than another. Either protect all from discrimination based on beliefs, etc, or remove all protections. I would be okay with either.

 

Good! Damn glad to see some good rulings on these issues

 

That damn 1st Amendment pisses you off. Don't it?...lol

 

So they could also refuse to do a black wedding? A Jewish one? No one prevents them from hiring someone else

 

Not as much as civil rights seem to piss off some

 

Not legally.

 

Why not? What prevents the religious claim?

 

Businesses may not legally deny goods, services, employment or housing to protected classes.

 

I’m skeptical this scotus will uphold that if they’re given the chance.

 

As much as the first amendment will piss you off with teaching programs at schools...

They're doing more than just talking and sharing.

 

There’s a difference between the issue the judge decided and an out right refusal to serve gays or christians in ones business. A baker would be required to sell any existing product in his inventory on display to a gay person or a florist sell any flowers already arranged in the store. The issue is being compelled to create something new of their own effort to communicate something they don’t believe in / is against their religious beliefs.

 

That does seem to be the end goal of the Brandon regime and blue state Governors.

 

All of these cases in the news are like that. The LGBTQ community singles out and targets known businesses operated by Christians and targets them knowing those that literally believe will refuse and the gays quest for revenge continues by making an example out of them in blue states or blue urban areas.

 

So they protect life, traditional marriage, and parental rights and the religious Liberty of like minded persons.

 

Justice Kennedy promised such protections for religious believers when he imposed gay marriage upon the entire country. There are now enough similar rulings for the present more conservative Supreme Court to affirm them nationally.

 

No. Not the same thing at all.

 

They want to change the law so that gay people can't marry, etc. It's not just about protecting their own 'flock'.

 

I would be surprised. These cases involve cakes and weddings. The precedent will affect much more important transactions in the future.

 

I believe they call around to area service providers until they get a "no".

A search on the line just pulled up 10 wedding photographers in Louisville.

 

School curriculums aren't protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

Like my civil right to own a gun, or practice religion? I dunno, those two things seem to piss you people off like a MF'er.

 

That does complicate the discussion. Photography is an art and artists should never be compelled by government to create a piece against their will. Since they are only capturing an image they did not create, it puts them in the category of a service. They advertising their services to the general public and placed themselves in a position by telling the prospects why the service was being denied. It would have been smart to tell them they were not available and not tell them why.

 

Gay orgs should take out ads in American Bride et al naming and listing all photographers who support this and urging they be boycotted.
Two can play at this

 

Neither are religious agendas.