- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS declines NM photographer First Amendment case
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:52 pm to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:52 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:Having worked a photographer I agree fully. When shooting wedding you do the job to appeal to the bride, her mom, and her girlfriends. I honestly have no idea what appealing to a male couple.
Sure, I could execute a series of staged photographs, but I would not know how to stage them. At that point I would just be a camera technician, not a photographer.
And I had no desire to 'study up' on how to remove my deficiencies in the area.
1
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:55 pm to Taxing Authority
Is it really any different from a black barber who doesn't do white hair or a white hairstylist who doesn't do black hair??!!
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:24 pm to L.A.
quote:
However, what I think the courts didn't anticipate when the laws were enacted and reinforced through the courts is that the day would arrive when groups would intentionally target businesses who do not want their business. Seriously, what's next? Will a Jewish deli be forced to cater the Hitler birthday bash of a Neo-Nazi group?
I wouldn't go that far. Most consumers don't want to give their money to people who hate them or who they hate, unless there are no other options.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:47 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
fruits
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:48 pm to trackfan
quote:I think you missed the intentional target thing. In that case, it wouldn't be about giving money, it would be more nefarious.
quote:
However, what I think the courts didn't anticipate when the laws were enacted and reinforced through the courts is that the day would arrive when groups would intentionally target businesses who do not want their business. Seriously, what's next? Will a Jewish deli be forced to cater the Hitler birthday bash of a Neo-Nazi group?
I wouldn't go that far. Most consumers don't want to give their money to people who hate them or who they hate, unless there are no other options.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 10:09 pm to Bard
quote:
He's taking issue of you calling folks "hardcore bigots" because they don't condone homosexuality.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, for f*ck's sake.
Really?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?
He's taking issue of you calling folks "hardcore bigots" because they don't condone homosexuality.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 10:31 pm to Diamondawg
quote:Correct. This was my point.
I think you missed the intentional target thing. In that case, it wouldn't be about giving money, it would be more nefarious.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:03 pm to trackfan
quote:Apparently, gays don't share your view unless one believes there are no photographers willing to do gay weddings.
I wouldn't go that far. Most consumers don't want to give their money to people who hate them or who they hate, unless there are no other options.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:33 pm to FalseProphet
I heard someone on TV, a judge Napolitano of Fox news, say that they might can force your services but they can't deny the peoples rights to think as they will nor display their God given free speech rights under the U.S. constitution.
I would show up at these homosexual events with a coat and shirt, plastered with anti-homosexual quotes.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind it is an abomination.
JESUS SAVES HOMOSEXUALS on the hat.
Then they should inform the homosexuals to COME ON IN, every dollar we make from you will be donated to anti-homosexual marriage groups.
THAT'LL STOP THIS SHYT.
I would show up at these homosexual events with a coat and shirt, plastered with anti-homosexual quotes.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind it is an abomination.
JESUS SAVES HOMOSEXUALS on the hat.
Then they should inform the homosexuals to COME ON IN, every dollar we make from you will be donated to anti-homosexual marriage groups.
THAT'LL STOP THIS SHYT.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:50 pm to SettleDown
quote:
Apparently, gays don't share your view unless one believes there are no photographers willing to do gay weddings.
Why do you assume that the plaintiff in the OP is representative of 100% of gay folks?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:52 pm to trackfan
Toddy: does Mississippi have a public accomodations law?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:58 pm to trackfan
quote:The NM situation was strange all around. Terrible decision on part of SCOTUS not to put this thing to bed one way or another. Really bad.
Why do you assume that the plaintiff in the OP is representative of 100% of gay folks?
But why in the world would someone ever force a photographer to cover a personal, precious event the photographer was not motivated to cover?
Bizarre!
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 8:00 am
Posted on 4/8/14 at 5:57 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
If a business is open to the public, it must serve everyone. No discrimination.
So a gay owned bakery should have to bake a "God hates figs" cake for a Christian hate group?
A black catering company should have to serve a white supremacy gathering?
That's a pretty fricked up view you have IMO
Posted on 4/8/14 at 8:59 am to Sentrius
quote:
Sentrius
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:48 am to Toddy
Easy fix, have them sign a form that says not to expect good or great service. Demand payment upfront with an agreement not to sue over any disagreements. Then, take the appropiate amount of pictures of everyone's shoes...problem solved!
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:06 am to ItNeverRains
quote:
So a gay owned bakery should have to bake a "God hates figs" cake for a Christian hate group?
A black catering company should have to serve a white supremacy gathering?
That's a pretty fricked up view you have IMO
These is exactly the scenarios that I thought of, but the constitution gives hate groups the same rights if gives everyone else. That's why the KKK can't be denied permits for parades and rallies.
However, if I were a gay person, I would be afraid to eat food catered by someone who hates gays and vice versa.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:09 am
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:41 am to trackfan
quote:They don't do this shite because they want to eat the cake. They do it because they want to shut the place down. They want to punish "not right" thought.
However, if I were a gay person, I would be afraid to eat food catered by someone who hates gays and vice versa.
As for you asking earlier why I think the NM situation represents the views of gays in general. Well, I can tell you this. I have literally never seen online or met in person a gay person or one of their supporters who supported the PHOTOGRAPHER.
Hence, they clearly support targetting businesses for destruction if they find out said business is run by people with the wrong views.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News