Well, no - because clergy rent out their services. When I got married, it was $150 – friend discount.
Clergy have to make money, too, and some exist soley in the wedding biz.
Are you serious? Because like I said 10,000,000 times, the photographer does not have a policy of not doing business with gay people. HAD THE WOMAN ASKED FOR A PORTRAIT SESSION AND WAS REFUSED BECAUSE SHE WAS A LESBIAN, THEN IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
Sorry for the immature caps, but I am getting tired of repeating myself. Gay people do other things besides get married and have sex.
You are not making sense. Only women need abortion pills. I also am wondering if you believe that Catholic hospitals and docs should be forced to perform abortions for non-life saving purposes.
And there are clergy-for-hires.
Like in the NJ case, the church owned a property and lost their tax exempt status when they refused to rent it to a gay couple for their wedding.
To add: I know that in Jewish synagogues, they have ‘member rates’ and ‘non member rates’. Or “if you are a member, it is included, but if you are not, the fee is $500”.
You said “only pro-choicers have abortions,” and that’s what I was responding to. Given the proliferation of hypocrites out there, it is plainly not true. But the point is that refusing to give the pills to anybody (regardless of their stated political beliefs) is not discriminating against pro-choicers. Refusing to give them to women is a more on-point example even though the results harm men and women.
And these will marry anybody who can pony up irrespective of religion? Or do they perform a particular type of service for believers in exchange for money?
I’m not familiar with this case, but I would assume that the court decided that the Church hall was a public accommodation because they ran it as a business that offered rental services to the public, rather than as a church building that was only open for their congregation to rent.
This is the nub of the issue - does someone offer a service to the public at large? Or do they restrict the service to their own selected group of individuals. This will define whether or not they are a public accommodation, and if they must follow the laws about offering the service to EVERY member of the public, including defined classes.
I don’t think your legal rights should include compelling a wholly private business to accept you as customer. A government agency, yes they are suppose to be there for all the people, but an independent, privately-owned business should have the right to pick and choose who its customers and clients are. If that business makes bad choices and it generates bad publicity that leads to a boycott, they have no grounds to complain either.
The photography comment was sarcasm, proportional in my opinion to the poster who questioned what should someone do if no professional photographer will agree to take their photographs (a scenario I find extremely impossible).
IIR that case C, it was NOT a church hall or church. It was a beachfront gazebo that the church owned and rented out to the general public for weddings and such all the time. Which was why it was determined to be a public accommodation.
This is a “no” answer on the public accomodation question. They’re not hanging out signs that say “Pay me $300 and I’ll marry you.” They marry people of a particular faith, at least according to their own determination. A friend of mine couldn’t get married in a Catholic church because her husband isn’t Catholic, but she didn’t file a discrimination lawsuit because everybody understands that a clergyman can refuse to marry you in his or her church on religious grounds.
This line of logic is the exact defense bigots have used though our history.
If threat of boycott from blacks was insufficient motivation to allow blacks into private businesses, why do you do you think gays who represent an even smaller percentage fair a better chance of gaining equality without the force of law.
No, it’s not, not even in Iowa. The issue of gay marriage has been politicized, but that doesn’t mean that every individual gay union is political. The vast majority of gays who are (or want to get) married aren’t doing so to make a political statement, they’re doing it because they’re in love.
You’re going to have to unpack that one, because that doesn’t make any sense.
To the extent of my knowledge, at no point in the history of civil rights legislation has there ever been a distinction drawn between businesses that provide only services, and businesses that provide accommodations.
That’s because “people who use birth control” are not (if you’ll pardon the pun) a protected class.
So what? You can’t use a prejudiced stereotype to justify unequal treatment. If I own a produce store, I can’t forbid black people from entering because I’m afraid they’re going to steal all my watermelons.
Fondly, but I fail to see the relevance.
You don’t think the government can do that? Funny, it seems to me that the government’s been doing that for the last fifty years, as far as race and religion go. The laws granting protections to gays are consciously modeled on the legislation that protects the rights of blacks. Personally, I think those laws have worked pretty well. So, I guess, my question to you is, do you think that racial minorities should not have the level of protection they currently enjoy? Or do you think that there’s some reason sexual minorities should not be protected to the same extent as race and religion?
I greatly enjoy the implication that we haven’t really thought about the subject before! Always fun to hear that from a dilettante. As it happens, we have thought “really, really hard” about this. In fact, we’ve got fifty years of philosophy, jurisprudence, and practical experience with the current formulation of how civil rights should be created and protected. The only thing novel about this particular situation is the persecuted minority to which the laws are being applied. Nothing else has changed - including, as it happens, the arguments you’ve been using to defend and justify bigotry.
Yeah, this doesn’t work. The magical market fairy doesn’t fix everything.
In the real world there are two options: We can use the power of the government to force bigots to serve everyone equally. Or we can let just the injustice fester indefinitely.
Personally, I don’t give a crap about upholding some arbitrary libertarian idea of “freedom” where minorities are “free” to spend their entire lives being treated like second-class citizens just to prove an ideological point.
I am against the plan to turn all Christians into wedding photographers.
But seriously folks - in my province, the legislation states as follows:
Though I suppose there may in some cases be reasons why equal treatment can’t or shouldn’t be extended (the legislation goes on to note “equal” means subject to all requirements, qualifications and considerations that are not a prohibited ground of discrimination"), I have so far not heard any principled reasons why offering wedding photography services should be treated any differently than any other “services, goods and facilities”. Either freedom of contract should trump in all cases, or in none, and I think the “none” have the better argument.
Not to mention that for the idiotic libertarian babbling about the magic of the marketplace, very often it was “the market” that caused this. The owners of plenty of restaurants, diners, boarding houses, and hotels regularly insisted that if they allowed blacks to eat or sleep there, they’d lose their white customers.
In fact, my father found out in the 70s that many clothing stores in the South wouldn’t let black men try on suits without first buying them, because the owners believed that none of their white customers would wear a suit that had been worn, even for a few minutes, by a black man.
Well, birth control (sans vasectomy) is not an option for men.
Nor is same sex marriage in New Mexico.
I’m not arguing because I think the photographer was morally right here. I’m arguing because of the law as I see/understand it. Now, if you’d like to amend the Constitution or advocate for a federal bill extending these protections to gay couples, then that’s fine.
And if it comes to be that the courts agree with the couple, then I’ll respect that. I may be nervous because I don’t like the government legislating religion, but I’ll respect it.
edit: I think a better way to phrase it would be, “It’s only a violation if he extends it to a married woman but not a single one.”
