Unneighborly gays demanding to be served at retailers who are offended by their existence. How pushy!
‘A photographer doesn’t want to photograph my wedding — I’ve got lots of other photographers I could go to, but I’m going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this.’”
That’s the same Republican bullshit this dumfuck was claiming, News anchor wonders what all the fuss is with the anti-gay Arizona bill - Weary commentator explains - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
only she’s not a well respected dumfuck like George Will is.
I wrote about the same a week ago and was overwhelmed with shallow, inappropriate, propagandistic responses. It is more than unneighbourly; there is a zero chance that any florist or photog could financially withstand the costs of a human rights defense or lawsuit. So these dear gays must know that & do it anyway - scorched earth. Alternatively, any halfwit businessperson would know that they are risking their entire business just because some unwelcome customers will not go away and are dying to be offended. So bake the cake is right.
Unneighborly is refusing to serve a legitimate customer, in direct violation of their civil rights.
I’m thrilled that these customers will not simply “go away” when bigots decide to violate their rights.
Does George Will think he can trick people into believing he’s a nice, genteel fellow just because he wears a bowtie?
We’ve made a social decision in this country that, if you are in a public-facing business like retail or service, you are required to serve pretty much every customer unless you can show that they are not a legitimate customer - they’re a deadbeat who won’t pay for the service, or they cause trouble with your other customers, they are unsanitary in a food-related business, or something.
So in business these days it’s risky to refuse to serve someone just because you don’t like them, unless you can prove that your dislike is not based on any of the protected criteria (race, gender, and now sexual orientation I guess).
This is an inroad into the property rights of the business owner, but our society has decided that this is preferable to the alternative, which in the south was Jim Crow. Society has sort of made up these “civil” rights where the customer often has more rights than the business owner. Philosophically I think this is on thin ground. But on a practical level, I think it works. Everyone knows the rules going in, and they don’t have to start to run a business if they don’t want to serve people they object to. Perhaps it skews business ownership away from bigots, which is not altogether a bad thing either.
Now people are trying to bring religion into the mix, to distinguish anti-gay business policies from Jim Crow business policies (presumably, no-one was claiming in those days that God told them that they shouldn’t serve blacks in their businesses). I am glad to see that this approach is not being accepted.
Roddy
It’s odd that you keep saying this when the Elaine Photography case went all the way to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, and for all I know Elaine Photography will appeal again. In case you’ve somehow forgotten, there are anti-gay groups with a lot of money.
It’s hard to understand a mindset that calls asking for equal treatment “scorched earth” - while denying people equal treatment is fine.
Whatever expression you’re trying to use, you got it wrong.
- (presumably, no-one was claiming in those days that God told them that they shouldn’t serve blacks in their businesses)*
Actually, they were claiming that God told them that.
I don’t understand why anyone wants to help a bigot who hates them profit.
In any event, should they have to bake the cake? Sure. Should they have to write on the cake whatever the customer requests.? Not so sure about that.
Similarly, not so sure about forcing photographers to go to gay weddings and photograph them, any more than a liberal/feminist/gay photographer should be forced to go photograph a Mormon or Muslim wedding.
If they’re not allowed to discriminate, how will anybody know they’re bigots?
I can’t speak for feminist or gay, but as a liberal, why wouldn’t I want to photograph a Muslim or Mormon wedding? (I mean, if I were a photographer.) Photographing a wedding doesn’t make me Mormon. Photographing a Mormon wedding doesn’t mean I think the Book of Mormon (book, not musical) is anything but nonsense. Photographing a wedding is nothing but a business proposition.
I’d even photograph a fundamentalist Christian wedding.
I bet these people would be upset if, upon finding the house of their dreams, the owner would not sell to them because they are Christian. There would be “War on Christians” all over Fox News.
Excellent point. We buy very good Afghani Naan, loose tea and rice from a nice Afghan grocery near us. I don’t know what the owner feels about Jews and atheists. The guy does not ask me about such things. Being smarter than the Christians in question, (and a minority) he just sells to everyone. He might be a bigot, he might not. But I don’t care since he makes excellent bread. And he runs his business in the true spirit of America - unlike some people I can mention.
Firstly, what specific actions to be photographed at a gay wedding do you think would be offensive to this notional photographer? That is to say, what, aside from mild displays of same-sex affection such as hand-holding or maybe (gulp) kissing, would be likely to be photographed at a same-sex wedding that wouldn’t be photographed at a hetero wedding?
Secondly, perhaps you could cite an example or two of a self-professed “liberal”, “feminist” or gay photographer (I was unaware that we can now look up wedding photographers in the Yellow Pages by political ideology and/or sexual preference) demanding a right of refusal to photograph a Mormon or Muslim wedding. I only ask because a) it would seem…uncharacteristic, and b) to do so would seem to be in violation of current laws against religious discrimination.
Could it be because they just want to buy a damn cake without having to worry about other peoples’ thoughts?
According to the usual suspects (right wing hate radio) the objection is to two men getting “married” at all, as (they say) this blasphemes one of their most sacred religious ceremonies. It’s as if (they say) you compelled them to attend a Black Sabbath.
I suppose I might find half-an-ounce of sympathy for them, except that they’re trying to extend bigotry into receiving legal protection, and that’s ugly stuff. The Jim Crow comparisons are apt. (Right wing hate radio denies the comparison, of course.)
Zero sympathy over here. It doesn’t make any sense in a religious context, and if you don’t want to provide a service to the public, don’t work in a service industry.
“Most sacred?” Have they ever seen Bridezillas?
Backup quarterback Kirk Cousins of the Washington R------s says he would welcome gay teammates, so that he can show them the error of their ways.
This. When my partner and I are allowed to marry in this state, why should we give our business to a bigot, when there are friendly and affirming people who need the business. I don’t want to accidentally use a baker or florist who will only serve me because the law insists he does. I’d rather reward someone who shares our values. If the bigots don’t want our business, why shouldn’t we take it to someone who can be part of the celebration?
Us gays are just the worst people in the world, expecting to be treated the same as decent straight people. I’m hanging my head in shame.