Patrick Walberg wrote:

It's been the few where I've felt my life or physical well being was in danger.  A wedding can be a volatile event with so many people coming together and emotions ... there are more fights, and other unexpected things that happen at weddings than most might expect.  I've seen a lot of interesting things that I could write a book about!

You should write that book. That will be hilarious !

Paul AI wrote:
So, penalties enforced by the government for refusing service is not the same as compelling someone under duress of potential penalty?

Yup. It is entirely different, because the latter is merely a bogus argument. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

And I do take a stand.  I have no problem talking about what I think is right or wrong.

If someone said they wouldn't shoot my wedding because I'm white and my girlfriend is Vietnamese, I'd find someone that would.  And if sufficiently pissed off, I'd make sure others know that the photographers I originally sought are shitty discriminating people.  That way, others can choose to do or NOT do business with them based on that knowledge.

But would you feel the same way if you had had to wait for much of your life before they would even allow you to marry a Vietnamese person?

kickfight wrote:

The current ruling (the one the Supreme Court declined to address on appeal) isn't about FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING "against their will".

It does not compel anyone, at government gunpoint or under duress of potential penalty, to provide a service against their will.

It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

Note that at no time during this matter has the photographer in question been actually compelled to provide a service to the aggrieved couple, nor has such an idea even been suggested.

So once again, a ton of lawyers get rich, a legal precedent gets set and affects absolutely nobody.

kickfight wrote:
It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

What are the penalties and remedies then? My idea of remedies is to find someone who would shoot the wedding.

My way of thinking is I do not want to hire someone who doesn't want to do the job. I just don't have a power trip to force someone to do something they do not want to do and then take them to court about it.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
So once again, a ton of lawyers get rich, a legal precedent gets set and affects absolutely nobody.

Right. The law is just a conspiracy to make lawyers rich.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Excuse me?  It IS about freedom to choose.  If I want Freedom from religion, then I demand it!  Why can't I have Freedom from religion?  You tell me.

Because you do not have the right to pass by a church and tell them to block all their symbolism, phrases, etc so that you won't be polluted by their message.

You do not have the right to prevent the person proclaiming their faith on the street corner in order to be free of their religion.

Sometimes...we have to put up with other people's shit...otherwise stay home.

kickfight wrote:
It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

JonPhoto wrote:
What are the penalties and remedies then?

Huh? The penalties and remedies are an aspect of this issue.

JonPhoto wrote:
My idea of remedies is to find someone who would shoot the wedding.

Well, duh. That's incidental to the issue. You still have a need for a service.

JonPhoto wrote:
My way of thinking is I do not want to hire someone who doesn't want to do the job. I just don't have a power trip to force someone to do something they do not want to do and then take them to court about it.

Again, nobody was being forced to do anything. This is about upholding the letter of New Mexico law.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
you keep using those terms...not sure you really know what they mean.
There are far too many people here advocating extremes. It's not good for anyone. It means that 99% of a population is forced to conform to something they don't believe in. When there are thousands of businesses out there who perform the same services, I see no reason to turn a molehill into a mountain...but then again my money isn't wasted on fighting a ridiculous argument all the way to the SCOTUS.

Don't know why you think I don't understand those terms. You don't know me, my race or my skin color. FYI,  not only do I know those terms, I encounter racism, bigotry and discrimination aplenty in my life. So, FYI, I am very well versed and have first hand experience of those "terms".
I don't know you and what your background is, so I don't know how much racism, bigotry and discrimination you experience in your dealings with the world.
Racism, bigotry and discrimination are not "ridiculous arguments" but  soul crushing experiences for people who face it.
You are fortunate that you don't have to "waste" your money and spend your time and effort fighting them.

kickfight wrote:

Yup. It is entirely different, because the latter is merely a bogus argument. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

Gee, that is so nice. You don't have to do something, but if you don't do it there are government sanctioned penalties. That is so much better.

kickfight wrote:

Yup. It is entirely different, because the latter is merely a bogus argument. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

+1

kickfight wrote:
Huh? The penalties and remedies are an aspect of this issue.

What are the penalties for not following the law?

Xpat John wrote:

Unfortunately, yes.  That is what our personal choice is limited to when we choose to have a public business. 

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

I prefer open discrimination vs hidden discrimination.  It's easier of me to know who the shitbags are.

kickfight wrote:
Yup. It is entirely different, because the latter is merely a bogus argument. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

JonPhoto wrote:
Gee, that is so nice. You don't have to do something, but if you don't do it there are government sanctioned penalties. That is so much better.

If you don't do it FOR SPECIFIC REASONS, yes, there are penalties.

Lohkee wrote:
Yes, indeed we do. If we allow discrimination against same sex couples in the name of personal beliefs then where do we draw the line? Slippery slope anyone?

There's a balance somewhere...but where, I don't know yet.

Be a lot easier if people would stop being dicks.

Vector One Photography wrote:
Just what "freedom" did we lose ?  The "freedom" to pick and choose who we want as a client ?  I don't remember the freedom to pick one's clients in the Bill of Rights.

I find it unfortunate that it was about a photographer, would have been better for us if it was the band or the florist.

AND, it has only to do with Arizona as they were found to violate the provisions of a state law.

Ummm, I think you mean New Mexico? Also, others (such as a bakery in Oregon) have tried the same argument and, surprise, surprise, got shot down as well.

kickfight wrote:

kickfight wrote:
Yup. It is entirely different, because the latter is merely a bogus argument. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

If you don't do it FOR SPECIFIC REASONS, yes, there are penalties.

What are those penalties for not following the law?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So you're ok with discrimination then?  As long as it's done secretly?

I am not okay with discrimination.  But, I am also a realist.  If someone doesn't like me, for whatever reason, they aren't going to do as good a job as someone who does like me (skill levels being equivalent).  This is human nature.

If someone's personal beliefs are SO strong that they risk breaking the law every day in the process of running a business, then they need to run their business in a way that isn't illegal.

ALL people dislike certain things.  It isn't nice.  It isn't fair.  But it is human nature.

Discrimination is bad.  But, you have to balance it with personal freedom.

To put it in photography terms, have you ever had a potential client say "I only let X type of people take my photo because they are the only ones who know how to do it properly"  Is that discrimination?  Yes.  Is it illegal?  No.

But, if you turn the tables, the suddenly it becomes both discriminatory and illegal.

kickfight wrote:
Huh? The penalties and remedies are an aspect of this issue.

JonPhoto wrote:
What are the penalties for not following the law?

They are described in the New Mexico statute.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

There's a balance somewhere...but where, I don't know yet.

Be a lot easier if people would stop being dicks.

If there is it will be damned difficult to find. If you can discriminate based on personal beliefs then, well, the sky's the limit (literally).

Vector One Photography wrote:
Just what "freedom" did we lose ?  The "freedom" to pick and choose who we want as a client ?  I don't remember the freedom to pick one's clients in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment's guarantee that the government can not prohibit the free exercise of one's religious beliefs?

Vector One Photography wrote:
Just what "freedom" did we lose ?  The "freedom" to pick and choose who we want as a client ?  I don't remember the freedom to pick one's clients in the Bill of Rights.

Paul AI wrote:
The First Amendment's guarantee that the government can not prohibit the free exercise of one's religious beliefs?

Apparently not everyone agrees that this is legitimate free exercise of one's religious beliefs.

MMDesign wrote:

But would you feel the same way if you had had to wait for much of your life before they would even allow you to marry a Vietnamese person?

Who is making me wait?  The gov't...that's DIFFERENT.  But if the gov't wasn't preventing me, but all the churches and other whatever people hire to get married...if all of them said no...then I'd say fuck it and create our own ceremony and get it done.

Bobby C wrote:

Don't know why you think I don't understand those terms. You don't know me, my race or my skin color. FYI,  not only do I know those terms, I encounter racism, bigotry and discrimination aplenty in my life. So, FYI, I am very well versed and have first hand experience of those "terms".
I don't know you and what your background is, so I don't know how much racism, bigotry and discrimination you experience in your dealings with the world.
Racism, bigotry and discrimination are not "ridiculous arguments" but  soul crushing experiences for people who face it.
You are fortunate that you don't have to "waste" your money and spend your time and effort fighting them.

lets hope if you're not married and you decide to choose a photographer for your wedding, that you don't decide to choose someone who you'll sue and force to shoot your wedding. Likely your money will be wasted. This is a ridiculous argument as there is no enforceable action other than the couple will end up with shitty photography.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Who is making me wait?  The gov't...that's DIFFERENT.  But if the gov't wasn't preventing me, but all the churches and other whatever people hire to get married...if all of them said no...then I'd say fuck it and create our own ceremony and get it done.

And forego all of the legal benefits that most married couples routinely enjoy.

kickfight wrote:

Vector One Photography wrote:
Just what "freedom" did we lose ?  The "freedom" to pick and choose who we want as a client ?  I don't remember the freedom to pick one's clients in the Bill of Rights.

Apparently not everyone agrees that this is legitimate free exercise of one's religious beliefs.

So if the majority think it's legitimate, then that makes it right?

Katsung wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 … -same-sex/


I'm sure this decision will be supported by most people on MM.  However, I find it terrible.

Americans are losing more freedom and liberty everyday.

I'm curious about what freedoms and liberties you feel Americans have lost.