Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...

[John Galt]

the law is clearly against what you're talking about, at least the constitution anyway. there's really no point in continuing. i'll mark this to come back to in three years so i can bask in the glory of the ussc explicitly saying you are wrong

[exploited]

[exploited]

[lil bit]

[exploited]

In lieu of payment for the free Constitutional Law class I gave, I ask everybody who just had their argument demolished to make a donation to Political Crossfire. Thank you.

[John Galt]

[lil bit]

[quote]

The fact that people have a constitutional right to engage in writing, singing,
photography, and the like also responds to the argument that people who do not
want to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies should just stop photographing weddings. Creating expressive works such as photographs (unlike delivering food, driving limousines, or renting out ballrooms) is a constitutional right.
People who want to preserve their First Amendment rights to be free from compelled artistic expression cannot be required to surrender their First Amendment
rights to engage in artistic expression in the first place.

They can certainly engage in it, but if they want to sell what they produce to people, then they can't discriminate.

Surely even in the USA, uninvited people cannot gatecrash a wedding and start snapping away? So... how do photographers have a constitutional right to private ceremonies, such as weddings - and what would be the point?


the [religious] objectors – I’d support a law spelling this out – that they have a right to clearly state that they oppose same-sex unions and would “prefer to step aside” (borrowing and repurposing language from Professor Wilson here) for religious reasons. There might even be standard, respectful language suggested (not mandated, but perhaps bulletproof), making clear that the proprietor’s objection is based on religion, not animosity. What same-sex couple wouldn’t respect that, and go somewhere else – if they could?

Why the bloody hell should they?

If they couldn’t – the dreaded one-florist town! – the couple could, under my proposal: (1) forego flowers (gasp!); (2) if botanically feasible, order some from out-of-town, or (3) fail to respect the wishes of the religiously objecting florist and use their services anyway. Wilson et al. would achieve that result through a “hardship exception” (only in a wedding-obsessed culture could the possibility of having no flowers at a wedding be thought of as a “hardship,” by the way), but then we might find ourselves litigating the issue of hardship. “We had a hardship.” “No, you didn’t.” Please, stop. Let’s not invent laws we hardly need

What an arsehole.

1. Why?
2. Why?
3. Damn' right they should.

Activists and human rights groups bust their arses to get sexual orientation included in anti discrimination laws, so use 'em or lose 'em.

[John Galt]

it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. sure homosexuals are more inclined to participate in same sex marriage, just as heterosexuals are more inclined to participate in marriage, but they are not precluded from being in either

[exploited]

[The Tooth]

I'm tickled pink (no pun intended) that Galt is still trying to pretend that the reason this person is refusing to serve homosexuals is not related to their sexual orientation. I wonder what he would argue the basis for discrimination is.