Comments about ‘George F. Will: Dealing with the tangled web of conflicting rights’

I believe that individuals have the right to act in accordance with their own beliefs.

I believe that business operations must operate in accordance with the civil law.

If a person chooses to operate a business, the civil law that applies to business is supreme for the operation of that business.

A business operation is not an individual even if there is only one person in the business operation.

If I understand you correctly, Ultra Bob, I may believe whatever I want, and act in accordance with my beliefs, unless I'm engaged in a business, in which case I must choose between believing and eating.

When you are in business, you operate under the law or you don't operate at all.

Asking GLBT Americans to "find someone else" who will do just as good a job, is akin to restaurants, water fountains, etc. for black people prior to the Civil Rights era. They could get just as good food at the restaurant around the corner that served "their kind". They could get the exact same water from the fountain labeled "blacks" as from the one labeled "whites only". They got to the same location riding at the back of the bus as those riding at the front.

That this attitude persists today, albeit directed at GLBT Americans, is truly sad. Will we never grow up as a nation? As people?

George F. Will, shame on you for promoting such discriminatory practices.

bengel.

I really didn’t mean to limit the notion of conflicting rules to just business. There are other things we choose to do that require us to obey the rules of that activity.

If you wish to drive a car, you must accept the rules of that activity.

If you don’t believe in the killing of animals, you probably won’t buy a hunting or fishing license.

If you don’t believe in eating meat, you probably won’t join the Beefeaters club.

Like the business example, if you choose to join those groups you will have to accept their rules or be denied participation.

2nd try. Moderators, this IS an appropriate comment.

When you are in business, you operate under the law or you don't operate at all.

Asking GLBT Americans to "find someone else" who will do just as good a job, is akin to restaurants, water fountains, etc. for black people prior to the Civil Rights era. They could get just as good food at the restaurant around the corner that served "their kind". They could get the exact same water from the fountain labeled "blacks" as from the one labeled "whites only". They got to the same location riding at the back of the bus as those riding at the front.

That this attitude persists today, albeit directed at GLBT Americans, is truly sad. Will we never grow up as a nation? As people?

George F. Will, shame on you for promoting such discriminatory practices.

This is an honest question--I'm not stumping for either side. My understanding of laws regulating business practice is pretty limited, but I know that any company that obtains a business license is required to serve the public without discriminating for reasons of color, gender, religion, attraction, etc...

But if you have a photographer who, say, only does baby shots, can an adult customer complain he is being treated unfairly because the company turns him away? Can he claim age discrimination? Can a Jewish photographer who works bar-mitzvahs be sued for not photographing another religion's ceremony?

Can you legally establish a business on the grounds that you only photograph traditional weddings? Obviously there's more money to be made if you're more flexible, but will you be denied a business license if only because your product is specialized? Maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges; I just want to understand more clearly how the law would deal with this.

Please feel free to (politely) enlighten me.

@Danny Chipman;

If you have a business photographing babies, you could decline to photograph adults, as your business is specifically for babies. You could not, however, decline to photo black babies, or Muslim babies, or Green babies from Mars. That would be discrimination.

If you have a business photographing "weddings" you can't discriminate against Muslim weddings, White weddings, Black weddings, and, Oh My Goodness, Gay weddings. A wedding is a wedding is a wedding; even if your "faith" says otherwise.

Christ said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He didn't add a caveat; "unless your conscience says otherwise". He said ALL others.

Elaine definately has the right to adhere to her religion. However if she insists on discrimination against a group of people because of her religion, then others have the right to insist that she follow her entire religion and not pick and choose.

Does Elaine also refuse to photograph weddings of divorced women who remarry, for this too is against the Bible.

Does she refuse to photograph families whose children are disrespectful against the parent and the parents refuse to have them killed. This also is against the teachings of the Bible.

This is another in a long, long series of LGBT oppression of straights. It will continue as long as we allow it.

By deranged liberal dictates, from both legislative and judicial branches, we've created a body of law based on the laughable proposition that our founding fathers intended to foster, protect, even advance, what they would have called "the infamous crime against nature."

We've handed LGBT a big stick, now we're surprised when they beat us with it.

Above all, they ache for validation of their abnormal lifestyle. They want, more than anything, to force us to "confess" they're normal, erroneously assuming if we do so, it'll calm the dissonance they feel.

It won't.

But that hope is the basis of these illegal and oppressive acts against normal, decent folks, just trying to live their lives the best they know how.

Today would not be too soon to re-examine the torqued, mutilated legal landscape we've allowed liberals to create, and re-establish some sense in the law.

RanchHand your answer is contradicting. You say that if you are in business to shoot "weddings" you can't discriminate against gay weddings. Since "same-sex unions" are not recognized as marriages in New Mexico there is no "wedding" discrimination taking place.