Americans forced to take pictures of gays getting married

[Kidlicious]

Because it's never that simple, and a quick glance at history should tell you that. What happens when you're born gay in an area where no businesses want to provide services to gay people? Do you not also think that kind of environment might go some long way to feeding into a culture of discrimination and hate against homosexuals? Hell it did with blacks for long enough.

Homosexuals are not treated like blacks were or are today. If they can't get someone to take pictures at their wedding I really don't care enough to violate the princple of personal freedom.

[Kidlicious]

In other words, much as you might find this case unfair on the face of it, Kid, it is foolish and callous to dismiss the context of the unfairness it attempts to address. That context was not invented by Al Gore to make money.

Fair is a place where pigs compete for medals.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Cute. That doesn't mean anything and you can do better.

[Sava]

Cute. That doesn't mean anything and you can do better.

I really don't think he can.

[Kidlicious]

Cute. That doesn't mean anything and you can do better.

It certainly does mean something. It means that just because you say something is unfair doesn't make it so. Discrimination against blacks is clearly unfair. Having to take your own pictures because no one wants to because of their religion is not. Do you know that refusing to take pictures has nothing to do with hate?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

It depends on your motivation, doesn't it? I'm not comfortable with making providing a service 'mandatory' either, but you have to recognize that it's all a complicated balance of people's rights. Discrimination is bad, and not to be continenced by decent people, yes?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because restricting your consumer base to an extreme minority... that's business 101

Oh, right. Sava seems to believe that the majority believe as he does. Seems to be working out ok for Duck Dynasty.

[Sava]

continence

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not comfortable with making providing a service 'mandatory' either, but you have to recognize that it's all a complicated balance of people's rights.

So you believe that if someone is offended that their right not to be offended should trump the 1st?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

That's a reasonably civil question, so I'll dignify it with an answer. No.

People getting outraged on behalf of third parties is a sore issue of mine from when I was still in my angry young white man phase. I have no more use for those people than I do the bigots. Screw the self-appointed thought police. The First Amendment is an absolute protection of everyone being entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid, and that goes for NAMBLA, actual Neo Nazis, liberals and angry young white men alike.

However, it's not what I was talking about; again, our right to our own opinion, and expression of same, ends when it infringes on someone else's rights in an important way. NAMBLA can hold rallies, make speeches and generally disgust the non-perverted rest of us, but they MAY NOT practice their beliefs on boys.

The rest of us, in turn, are within our rights to vociferously object. We have a moral obligation to do so, in fact, just as we do in the face of hate speech.

When you dismiss discrimination that actually does go on everywhere, you're ignoring that homos actually still get bashed to death; if you deny them any of the rights the rest of us enjoy, where does it end? They can't get married like full citizens; obviously, they're not under the protection of law.

The First Amendment also has something to say about this country not being a theocracy, ever. -So why is it okay to codify people's religious objections into law? That's unconstitutional on the face of it.

[Felch]

The First Amendment also has something to say about this country not being a theocracy, ever. -So why is it okay to codify people's religious objections into law? That's unconstitutional on the face of it.

No one is codifying religious objections. No one is trying to impose a theocracy. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The dispute is between one person's right to freely exercise their religion, versus another person's right to get their picture taken.

[Sava]

No one is codifying religious objections. No one is trying to impose a theocracy. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The dispute is between one person's right to freely exercise their religion, versus another person's right to get their picture taken.

Wrong. This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

It's all part of the same thing, isn't it?

(I've read Anthem and I've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and I didn't buy the ideology of either, although the latter IS an excellent yarn. I don't know why I argue with a Libertarian - they're more fun than Republicans, but even harder to convince of anything.)

[Kidlicious]

It depends on your motivation, doesn't it? I'm not comfortable with making providing a service 'mandatory' either, but you have to recognize that it's all a complicated balance of people's rights. Discrimination is bad, and not to be continenced by decent people, yes?

Again. It's not discrimination. That really is the point. It's refusing to participate in what you don't believe in. If they were refusing to feed homosexuals then that would be discrimination. Did you ever ask yourself why they are refusing to help with a gay wedding, not refusing to sell them food or rent them shelter.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I don't think about this much, honestly, but it is too about discrimination - that's the whole reason.

If I was a baker, I'd bake the KKKake and take the KKKash, as long as they didn't require me to put any offensive statements on the KKKake. Takes all kinds, man. -I've actually invited a few conservatives to my forum specifically because they were conservative and the few already in place were so outnumbered; we're a bunch of commies, by and large. Diversity is good.