SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

For example, if someone came to me to ask me to tailor a MAN'S suit, I would say no, I am not qualified. But I can sew you a woman's vest and skirt, because I am experienced in that.
So I am not refusing someone based on GENDER, but cannot deliver the service they ask which is different between a man and a woman's clothes.

To someone who doesn't see there is a difference, that sewing is sewing,
is that why they took it to be about them personally?

Could this be corrected by offering services that the person can provide professionally?

What if a photographer says no I cannot go and shoot your wedding because I would not do a good job with that. I would feel uncomfortable and out of place, and make your guests feel uneasy, which is the opposite of what a good photographer is supposed to do.

However, I could take photos in the studio of individual or couple portraits, or with your pet. I could take photos of your family if they come in for a group photo.

So the photographer is still offering to serve the person, but may not be able to serve the purpose they were looking for.

Is that where this case and others went wrong?

Why aren't people making a distinction between not providing *THAT service,* vs. refusing the PERSON because of orientation.

If you asked me to tutor you on a paper about your beliefs in Japanese Buddhism as opposed to American Buddhism or Christianity, I might refuse the topic if I am not qualified or "don't feel comfortable" with that subject. That doesn't mean I am discriminating against you by religion or denomination, it is based on what I can do or cannot do with equal professional standards.

What went wrong in these cases to make it where the discrimination was against the person for orientation, and wasn't about declining one service where something else could be offered instead?

Can't this be corrected without suing, fining or harassing each other?

That reminds me, the photographer also asked the court to allow her to refuse based on artistic reasons. The court also turned her down on that as well.

It still all comes down to the fact that the lesbo couple just wouldn't show any respect at all to ones religious beliefs. They simply forced themselves on this business, instead of seeking other choices.
 
It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

For example, if someone came to me to ask me to tailor a MAN'S suit, I would say no, I am not qualified. But I can sew you a woman's vest and skirt, because I am experienced in that.
So I am not refusing someone based on GENDER, but cannot deliver the service they ask which is different between a man and a woman's clothes.

To someone who doesn't see there is a difference, that sewing is sewing,
is that why they took it to be about them personally?

Could this be corrected by offering services that the person can provide professionally?

What if a photographer says no I cannot go and shoot your wedding because I would not do a good job with that. I would feel uncomfortable and out of place, and make your guests feel uneasy, which is the opposite of what a good photographer is supposed to do.

However, I could take photos in the studio of individual or couple portraits, or with your pet. I could take photos of your family if they come in for a group photo.

So the photographer is still offering to serve the person, but may not be able to serve the purpose they were looking for.

Is that where this case and others went wrong?

Why aren't people making a distinction between not providing *THAT service,* vs. refusing the PERSON because of orientation.

If you asked me to tutor you on a paper about your beliefs in Japanese Buddhism as opposed to American Buddhism or Christianity, I might refuse the topic if I am not qualified or "don't feel comfortable" with that subject. That doesn't mean I am discriminating against you by religion or denomination, it is based on what I can do or cannot do with equal professional standards.

What went wrong in these cases to make it where the discrimination was against the person for orientation, and wasn't about declining one service where something else could be offered instead?

Can't this be corrected without suing, fining or harassing each other?


Obviously not.
They same sex couple went to court...game over.
Maybe the photographer will take blurred/poor lighting photos, accidentally of course.

Poetic justice.
 
I'll just leave this here. Let the casualties fall where they may:

10172858_10152358398281178_100768646222773277_n.jpg

You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.

When you say you believe marriage "is the union between a man and a woman", that's pretty much saying that you do not believe in same sex couples marrying. But you'll just try and weasel out of him saying this.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - April 17, 2008,

Read more: Obama gay marriage quotes - POLITICO.com
 
You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.
Obama grew as a personal person right after winning the election? Gotta love liblogic. I had a guy come into my shop wearing a Bush in crosshairs teeshirt back in the liberal glory days. If I refused service to him, would that be my right?

I think it was just Obama being Obama. When it was politically favorable in one state to be a follower of Jeremiah Wright, then he was a follower of Jeremiah Wright.
When it was politically favorable on a national level to throw Wright under the bus, he threw Wright under the bus.

When it was politically favorable to be against gay marriage, he was against it. Once the balance tipped in favor of being for gay marriage, he's for it.

We know he's a liar, and we sure know he's a politician.
 
Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.

Excuse me? Jillian? I dare you to get into a case law debate with me. I've studied the law a lot longer than you have, granted. Your lack of an argument tells me all I need to know. Nobody cares that your argument is inferior, jillian. Your lack of understanding on free expression and religious freedom is limited only to that which the liberal elite in Washington tell you.

a paralegal student and a longtime lawyer

TK, stop it for your sake please

Oh, so being a lawyer makes somebody all of a sudden the superior authority on the subject? For your sake, making that known doesn't really help them.
 
Last edited:
Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

Political belief is not protected, only political speech.

Political belief and political speech are one in the same. Without the belief there is no speech. Without speech there is no belief.
 
Last edited:
No.

The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.

It doesn't have to be FEAR or Hatred of gay Americans, FOR MOST it has to do with the Bible.
just sayin'......

What a load of shit.

Do you really think that anyone buys that?

Yeah I do....not from the left wing fringe though. You and that other poster hasn't a clue on how the right thinks about gays. I don't fear them nor do I hate them.
Something you don't have a clue with. :eusa_whistle:
 
Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

Political belief is not protected, only political speech.

Political belief and political speech are one in the same. Without the belief there is no speech. Without speech there is no belief.

You couldn't be more wrong. People aren't persecuted for their political beliefs until they open their mouths.
 
You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.
Obama grew as a personal person right after winning the election? Gotta love liblogic. I had a guy come into my shop wearing a Bush in crosshairs teeshirt back in the liberal glory days. If I refused service to him, would that be my right?

I see you had nothing to counter that my point with. No it wouldn't be your right unless it was given to you. You keep forgetting that.
 
I'll just leave this here. Let the casualties fall where they may:

10172858_10152358398281178_100768646222773277_n.jpg

You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.

When you say you believe marriage "is the union between a man and a woman", that's pretty much saying that you do not believe in same sex couples marrying. But you'll just try and weasel out of him saying this.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - April 17, 2008,

Read more: Obama gay marriage quotes - POLITICO.com

I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.
 
It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.

It amazes normal people that rightwingnuts think they can claim a religious exemption to equal protection

its amazing to be that liberals claim they are against slavery when they would force a person to work for someone they don't want to under penalty of law handed down by their big government masters. That's slavery and liberal democrats still support it. They always have been the party of slavery. Liberty? not in their vocabulary.:cuckoo:

Whats more amazing is that you think slavery and forcing business owners to treat everyone equally have something to do with each other.....like at all.
 
You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.
Obama grew as a personal person right after winning the election? Gotta love liblogic. I had a guy come into my shop wearing a Bush in crosshairs teeshirt back in the liberal glory days. If I refused service to him, would that be my right?

I think it was just Obama being Obama. When it was politically favorable in one state to be a follower of Jeremiah Wright, then he was a follower of Jeremiah Wright.
When it was politically favorable on a national level to throw Wright under the bus, he threw Wright under the bus.

When it was politically favorable to be against gay marriage, he was against it. Once the balance tipped in favor of being for gay marriage, he's for it.

We know he's a liar, and we sure know he's a politician.

The problem is that you have shown your thinking is suspect to put it politely. People actually change their minds once they receive better information. Again this is only when they are intelligent enough to know that becoming stagnant in your thinking is the sign of an idiot.
 
Political belief is not protected, only political speech.

Political belief and political speech are one in the same. Without the belief there is no speech. Without speech there is no belief.

You couldn't be more wrong. People aren't persecuted for their political beliefs until they open their mouths.

Hence my point. You can tell people what you believe without uttering a word, remember, this day and age, money talks; just ask Brendan Eich.

Man, when you liberals open your mouths, you more often than not start making my points for me. Keep it up!
 
Last edited:
You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.

When you say you believe marriage "is the union between a man and a woman", that's pretty much saying that you do not believe in same sex couples marrying. But you'll just try and weasel out of him saying this.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - April 17, 2008,

Read more: Obama gay marriage quotes - POLITICO.com

I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.

Intelligent people don't spend their time subverting the beliefs of others. Gay or Christian. So, what does that make you?
 
When you say you believe marriage "is the union between a man and a woman", that's pretty much saying that you do not believe in same sex couples marrying. But you'll just try and weasel out of him saying this.

I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.

Intelligent people don't spend their time subverting the beliefs of others. Gay or Christian. So, what does that make you?

You are quite wrong and naive to boot. Who do you think invented your politics? Intelligent people have convinced you of many things. Thats why you have a computer for instance.
 
Obama grew as a personal person right after winning the election? Gotta love liblogic. I had a guy come into my shop wearing a Bush in crosshairs teeshirt back in the liberal glory days. If I refused service to him, would that be my right?

I think it was just Obama being Obama. When it was politically favorable in one state to be a follower of Jeremiah Wright, then he was a follower of Jeremiah Wright.
When it was politically favorable on a national level to throw Wright under the bus, he threw Wright under the bus.

When it was politically favorable to be against gay marriage, he was against it. Once the balance tipped in favor of being for gay marriage, he's for it.

We know he's a liar, and we sure know he's a politician.

The problem is that you have shown your thinking is suspect to put it politely. People actually change their minds once they receive better information. Again this is only when they are intelligent enough to know that becoming stagnant in your thinking is the sign of an idiot.

And people such as yourself believe whatever it is that comes out of the mouth a Liberal pundit or politician. People who actually think for themselves can change their minds by being informed. People like you change your mind because you're instructed to.
 
I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.

Intelligent people don't spend their time subverting the beliefs of others. Gay or Christian. So, what does that make you?

You are quite wrong and naive to boot. Who do you think invented your politics? Intelligent people have convinced you of many things. Thats why you have a computer for instance.

The Sumerian peoples are the first known practitioners of politics. But then again, what does me having a computer have to do with politics? Take your strawman argument and go.
 
Last edited:
I think it was just Obama being Obama. When it was politically favorable in one state to be a follower of Jeremiah Wright, then he was a follower of Jeremiah Wright.
When it was politically favorable on a national level to throw Wright under the bus, he threw Wright under the bus.

When it was politically favorable to be against gay marriage, he was against it. Once the balance tipped in favor of being for gay marriage, he's for it.

We know he's a liar, and we sure know he's a politician.

The problem is that you have shown your thinking is suspect to put it politely. People actually change their minds once they receive better information. Again this is only when they are intelligent enough to know that becoming stagnant in your thinking is the sign of an idiot.

And people such as yourself believe whatever it is that comes out of the mouth a Liberal pundit or politician. People who actually think for themselves can change their minds by being informed. People like you change your mind because you're instructed to.

Rarely do people actually think for themselves. They borrow the thoughts of others and put them together in a coherent pattern that they call their belief. In your case the pattern is not actually coherent but nonetheless it is your belief.
 
Intelligent people don't spend their time subverting the beliefs of others. Gay or Christian. So, what does that make you?

You are quite wrong and naive to boot. Who do you think invented your politics? Intelligent people have convinced you of many things. Thats why you have a computer for instance.

The Sumerian peoples are the first known practitioners of politics. But then again, what does me having a computer have to do with politics? Take your strawman argument and go.

You are wrong again like you frequently are. Politics was invented long before Sumer was even on the map. The fact you have a computer was used to illustrate the fact someone convinced you that you wanted one.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that you have shown your thinking is suspect to put it politely. People actually change their minds once they receive better information. Again this is only when they are intelligent enough to know that becoming stagnant in your thinking is the sign of an idiot.

And people such as yourself believe whatever it is that comes out of the mouth a Liberal pundit or politician. People who actually think for themselves can change their minds by being informed. People like you change your mind because you're instructed to.

Rarely do people actually think for themselves. They borrow the thoughts of others and put them together in a coherent pattern that they call their belief. In your case the pattern is not actually coherent but nonetheless it is your belief.

"Rarely do people actually think for themselves?" Is that not what our founders did when they stood up to the British?

Now your argument is a red herring. Borrowing thoughts from others and reiterating them to the public is a form of plagiarism. People who think for themselves don't usually go repeating talking points they hear from either party.

Are you posting simply to make yourself sound smart? You're embarrassing yourself, Asclepias.
 

Forum List

Back
Top