The costs of gay marriage

[One Brow]

So you think it is ok for a private photographer to decline to shoot a lesbian wedding based on their religious beliefs, be sued and be forced to shoot the wedding anyway?

I do not.

I'm confused. Why would two lesbians insist on hiring a photographer who, due to moral standards, would likely be doing inferior work? Why would the police handcuff someone and drag them to a wedding to do a shoot?

Now, if by "decline", you mean 'renege on an already-signed contract', and if by "forced", you mean 'given a choice between doing the work and paying a hefty for reneging on a contract', then yes, I think it would be OK if a photographer tried to be break a contract and was given the choice between completing it and paying a hefty penalty. You think that's bad?

 

[moevillini]

DOMA is goin' down, folks.

I think I like babe's comment the best

 

[One Brow]

(Yes there are some exceptions but where do we draw the line?)

Currently, the line is drawn at advertising yourself to the general public as serving the general public, versus advertising yourself privately as serving privately. What line do you suggest?

 

[One Brow]

I take that as a compliment as I would expect people who are irrational to disagree with me and agree with each other.

Why would irrational people tend to agree with each other?

 

[One Brow]

Say Catholic adoption agencies refusing to place children in the homes of gay couples.

If they don't take government money or handle government cases, they are allowed to refuse.

Or a Muslim lecturer refusing to do a speech at BYU.

Again, allowed.

 

[Stoked]

I'm confused. Why would two lesbians insist on hiring a photographer who, due to moral standards, would likely be doing inferior work? Why would the police handcuff someone and drag them to a wedding to do a shoot?

Now, if by "decline", you mean 'renege on an already-signed contract', and if by "forced", you mean 'given a choice between doing the work and paying a hefty for reneging on a contract', then yes, I think it would be OK if a photographer tried to be break a contract and was given the choice between completing it and paying a hefty penalty. You think that's bad?

I have seen nothing indicating they had a contract. Just that the photog refused to shoot the pictures. Not even the Huffington Post and CNN articles I have seen mention anything about a contract.

So are you just spinning, as usual, or do you bring up a contract based off soemthing you have read?

 

[Stoked]

If they don't take government money or handle government cases, they are allowed to refuse.



Again, allowed.

Not surprised you missed the point. Again.

 

[Hartsock]

I'm confused. Why would two lesbians insist on hiring a photographer who, due to moral standards, would likely be doing inferior work? Why would the police handcuff someone and drag them to a wedding to do a shoot?

Now, if by "decline", you mean 'renege on an already-signed contract', and if by "forced", you mean 'given a choice between doing the work and paying a hefty for reneging on a contract', then yes, I think it would be OK if a photographer tried to be break a contract and was given the choice between completing it and paying a hefty penalty. You think that's bad?

It sounds like they sued out of principle. They knew the photographer violated the law and knew it would be an easy way to make headlines.

 

[One Brow]

Gays absolutely have the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. And some do. That's why this is absolutely NOT a discrimination issue, to me.

A white person would have the right to marry a white person, and a non-white person to marry a non-white person, so laws forbidding white people from marrying non-white people are not discrimination?

 

[Stoked]

It sounds like they sued out of principle. They knew the photographer violated the law and knew it would be an easy way to make headlines.

That is exactly what I have seen in the articles I have read.

 

[Stoked]

A white person would have the right to marry a white person, and a non-white person to marry a non-white person, so laws forbidding white people from marrying non-white people are not discrimination?

Do you ever get friction burns?

 

[One Brow]

Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

The idea that "Natural law, tradition, religion" come down on the side of reason, or are compatible with "intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry" is side-splittingly funny.