Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don’t think you understand the issue of what discrimination means here.It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?
They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.
A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.
Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.
They are being denied pork due to religious reasons. Any other butcher would have pork.
You say SSM and OSM are equal, these people do not.
Just like Jews say pork isn't beef.
Disfrimination of products offered is different than discrimination on who the product is offered to.
You have no valid argument regardless. You must understand the concept even less. How typical for Right-Wingers who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.
The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.
A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation
If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.
You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.
Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.
Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. Why doesn't the photographer simply work privately from home? Location, location, location is for true Capitalists not false Capitalists.
It’s not that the marriage is different, it’s that your beliefs are that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to have it in your eyes.To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.
It’s an act of selfishness to me.
Imagine if a restaurant cooked a gorgeous meal and decided that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to eat it, replying that this is a (for example) white people meal and not a (for example) black people meal. It’s the same meal, the only thing that’s changed is the recipient.
Our federal Constitution is clear. Right wingers simply prefer to practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) upon the less fortunate.Imagine for a moment that the photographer refused to photograph (etc.) the couple because they were Black. This would, obviously, be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act, because being Black is a protected class. However, if the photographer refused because they were (for example) Raiders fans, that would be fine, because team affiliation isn't protected.
Sexual preference (and, for what it's worth, gender identity) aren't explicitly listed on there, but a lot of states include one or both in their similar state laws. What's more, 'sex' is listed as a protected class, and last June, the Supreme Court ruled that that includes being gay or transgender. Here's a link; sorry in advance for the ghastly white-on-mint-green website design choices: Supreme Court Expands Protected Classes Under Title VI — Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson
I would imagine that the same concept would apply to refusing service. I expect the photographer to lose.
So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.Dear colfax_mThat doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."
To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.
So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.
These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".
As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.
ALL customers are refused that service.
Means nothing. Why does the seller not take religious vows and join a religious community of morals are so, allegedly important to that person?1. Race is genetic and does not changeImagine for a moment that the photographer refused to photograph (etc.) the couple because they were Black. This would, obviously, be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act, because being Black is a protected class. However, if the photographer refused because they were (for example) Raiders fans, that would be fine, because team affiliation isn't protected.
Sexual preference (and, for what it's worth, gender identity) aren't explicitly listed on there, but a lot of states include one or both in their similar state laws. What's more, 'sex' is listed as a protected class, and last June, the Supreme Court ruled that that includes being gay or transgender. Here's a link; sorry in advance for the ghastly white-on-mint-green website design choices: Supreme Court Expands Protected Classes Under Title VI — Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson
I would imagine that the same concept would apply to refusing service. I expect the photographer to lose.
2. LGBT identity and orientation is not genetically proven but is changeable and faith based. So it is more like a spiritual belief, identity or affiliation
3. There is no legal dispute over discriminating against the PERSON "for identifying or affiliating as LGBT" -- that part is clearly against the accommodations policy.
4. The issue is whether businesses can decline a TYPE of SERVICE, where "same sex" weddings/marriages would constitute a different TYPE of service from traditional husband/wife marriages recognized in religions while same sex marriages are not.
5. And this lawsuit takes it further: with govt regulations or fines compelling businesses to force LGBT images/content on their website amd services through their program (and ban other content)
Churches don't operate on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis. Sellers alleging morals should follow that example.I don’t think you understand the issue of what discrimination means here.It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?
They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.
A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.
Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.
They are being denied pork due to religious reasons. Any other butcher would have pork.
You say SSM and OSM are equal, these people do not.
Just like Jews say pork isn't beef.
Disfrimination of products offered is different than discrimination on who the product is offered to.
You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.
Which probably means when you said you don't want to go after Churches to force them to perform SSM ceremonies you were lying.
It's selfish to view a thing which we all agree is good, marriage, as something which can only be possessed by some people. This has nothing to do with who pays, since marriage is not an item which can be purchased.How is it not selfish to use government fiat to force someone to do something they don't want to do, when you can easily get someone to do it who is 100% willing?
lol. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis and should be required to seek to maximize the profit of Lucre (to make a living under Capitalism) over their alleged, moral point of view in public accommodation.You have no valid argument regardless. You must understand the concept even less. How typical for Right-Wingers who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.
The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.
A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation
If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.
You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.
Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.
Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. Why doesn't the photographer simply work privately from home? Location, location, location is for true Capitalists not false Capitalists.
Everyone has a right to make a living, the trappings of law can't change that unless the government has a compelling interest.
The photographer shouldn't have to.
But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.
So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.Dear colfax_mThat doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."
To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.
So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.
These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".
As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.
ALL customers are refused that service.
Churches don't operate on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis. Sellers alleging morals should follow that example.I don’t think you understand the issue of what discrimination means here.It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?
They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.
A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.
Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.
They are being denied pork due to religious reasons. Any other butcher would have pork.
You say SSM and OSM are equal, these people do not.
Just like Jews say pork isn't beef.
Disfrimination of products offered is different than discrimination on who the product is offered to.
You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.
Which probably means when you said you don't want to go after Churches to force them to perform SSM ceremonies you were lying.
It's selfish to view a thing which we all agree is good, marriage, as something which can only be possessed by some people. This has nothing to do with who pays, since marriage is not an item which can be purchased.How is it not selfish to use government fiat to force someone to do something they don't want to do, when you can easily get someone to do it who is 100% willing?
lol. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis and should be required to seek to maximize the profit of Lucre (to make a living under Capitalism) over their alleged, moral point of view in public accommodation.You have no valid argument regardless. You must understand the concept even less. How typical for Right-Wingers who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.
The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.
A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation
If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.
You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.
Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.
Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. Why doesn't the photographer simply work privately from home? Location, location, location is for true Capitalists not false Capitalists.
Everyone has a right to make a living, the trappings of law can't change that unless the government has a compelling interest.
The photographer shouldn't have to.
Upholding the subjective value of morals of the seller would be upholding that person's beliefs over the beliefs of another person. Government is limited by our First Amendment.So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.Dear colfax_mThat doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."
To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.
So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.
These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".
As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.
ALL customers are refused that service.
The first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT actions, not the actions of private citizens.
The only thing people are banned from doing by the Constitution are owning slaves and transporting booze into jurisdictions that ban it.
lol. It is about moral credibility.Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.
But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.
No religion is being treated differently than any other in this instance. The same expectations are being applied to all.
Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.
lol. The seller Chose to operate on a for-profit basis in public accommodation when the seller could have Chosen to operate on a more Moral, not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over Morals basis.lol. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis and should be required to seek to maximize the profit of Lucre (to make a living under Capitalism) over their alleged, moral point of view in public accommodation.You have no valid argument regardless. You must understand the concept even less. How typical for Right-Wingers who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.
The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.
A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation
If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.
You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.
Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.
Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. Why doesn't the photographer simply work privately from home? Location, location, location is for true Capitalists not false Capitalists.
Everyone has a right to make a living, the trappings of law can't change that unless the government has a compelling interest.
The photographer shouldn't have to.
No Constitutional basis for anything you are saying. Again, except for 2 specific cases the Constitution limits what GOVERNMENT can do, not what PEOPLE can do.
Upholding the subjective value of morals of the seller would be upholding that person's beliefs over the beliefs of another person. Government is limited by our First Amendment.So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.Dear colfax_mThat doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."
To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.
So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.
These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".
As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.
ALL customers are refused that service.
The first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT actions, not the actions of private citizens.
The only thing people are banned from doing by the Constitution are owning slaves and transporting booze into jurisdictions that ban it.
