Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court turns deaf ear on New Mexico gay wedding photo case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 9:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KellyWSmith
Sparks, NV

Whatever happened to "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service," or, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

We as a society are being forced to accommodate a lifestyle that we do not agree with and we are losing our rights in the process. A society that goes that route does not have long to live.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

This is the new cause for gay people and their friends to rally around! With marriage equality becoming a reality, it is now important to expose legislators who will propose bigoted laws that allow business to refuse services to homosexuals in the name of preserving religious freedom.

JoCo Ute
Grants Pass, OR

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is very much alive as are many other Health Department regulations. Discrimination is not an area addressed by Health Departments. Refrigeration standards, employee health and sanitation requirements are all alive and well and have not gone anywhere.

However; "We reserve the right to refuse to service anyone" is a myth. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing to serve "anyone". Businesses cannot refuse service to patrons because of race, color, religion, nation of origin or a "lifestyle" they don't happen to like.

Businesses can still refuse service to disruptive customers, or because a lack of room, customers lacking adequate hygiene, inebriated customers etc. etc.

If people going to complain about a legal matter they should at least have their facts straight

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

You never had that right, Dave, at least in the past 1/2 century. The signs have no legal meaning.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ KellyWSmith

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service," has to do with sanitation standards. Business owners can't discriminate against a protected class of people (such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion)

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

The Supreme Court doesn't want to be the final arbitrator on all things gay. It turns a democracy into a 9 member nanny government.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

KellyWSmith: "We as a society are being forced to accommodate a lifestyle that we do not agree with . . . "

Next thing you know, some of us really religious people are going to find ourselves living in a society that accommodates smoking, drinking, skiing on Sunday, bad movies, body art, birth control, rap music, coffee drinking, interracial dating and novels that tell about people doing stuff. Why, it may get so bad that mothers who are selfish enough to work outside their homes will expect us to accommodate their lifestyle by paying them almost as much as men get. It's enough to make a fellow want to move to, to, to . . . well, somewhere else.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

when Elaine Huguenin opened her business, she got a business license. To get the license she AGREED to follow the laws in place concerning the operation of a business. One of those laws she AGREED to obey was a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation. By denying service to a gay couple, she broke the law she AGREED to obey. She was rightly held accountable for her breach of the law. The Supreme Court was right not to hear the case.

Ariz
Madison, AL

If one is to accept the notion that the 10th amendment trumps other rights such as due process or equal protection then that person should have no issue with the supreme court's action in this case. After all the Supreme Court allowed to stand a law duly enacted by the state of New Mexico.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

I do not understand why this is such a surprise to anyone. Discrimination in the public market is illegal and for some very good reasons - for example - replace the word "Gay" with the word "Mormon" as to who is being discriminated against and how that might feel. That should make it very easy to understand why all discrimination is illegal.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Coercion is a terrible way to resolve this. If you are forced to provide a wedding cake or photography services you have some other, more sinister ways, to decline the business.
Perhaps you simply will not show up at the service and feign that you thought it was nest week.
Or you take the photos and explain to them that your camera was malfunctioning and all the photos were severely overexposed.
Or perhaps your computer malfunctioned and wiped out all the files.
"I'm so sorry about this. There will be no charge."
Of course, to be "legal" you have a disclaimer about the entire sordid mess on your contract.
Forcing people to perform duties they don't want to do leads to creative rebellion.

JimLynch
King George, VA

We're free to discriminate as much as we want in our private lives. If we want to invite our neighbors over for a cook-out but not that gay couple down the street, that's our right. But when we open a restaurant serving barbeque to the public then we're in a whole different arena and we have to respect laws that we the people have put in place, including sanitation, safety and, yes, non-discrimination.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Some religious people seem to think it a virtue to trumpet their “deeply held religious beliefs” at every opportunity, as if they are duty bound to let everyone know who they and their god disapprove of and why. In a business setting, why is this even necessary? Surely we each have enough grace and style to avoid a business transaction we don’t want to be a party to without sticking our personal beliefs in the other person’s face. Doing so isn’t a virtue. It’s just rudeness.

I don’t believe that this photographer’s crusade has been about fighting for religious freedom. I think it has been about trumpeting her religious bona fides. We get it, Ms. Huguenin. You’re pious. Now show us you have some manners too.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

@KellyWSmith:

The standard you cite applies to private organizations/individuals. If the individuals in question had no advertising, had no storefront (real or virtual), or never solicited business, then they would not be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the decision of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

Basically, if you put it 'out there' you want to cater to people's wants and needs in exchange for monetary compensation, you must be willing to provide services to anyone who is willing to meet those monetary demands. Business can refuse to provide services in certain situations so long as the refusal to provide said services is not based upon a discriminatory position. For example, a lawyer can refuse a client because he/she does not feel there is a legal argument (a case) to be made, but that lawyer cannot claim to turn down business because a prospective client is of a certain race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

How irresponsible! This is one of the key examples of people claiming freedom vs freedom that surrounds this issue.

I guess the Supreme Court cares enough to give businesses free speech, but not enough the ownership and control of property and the freedom to choose what one participates in or who one does business with.

Liberals are demanding a world where only Liberals are allowed to do business.

K
Mchenry, IL

Certain Christians have religious conflicts with acts of profiting and participating in the actual wedding of a same sex couple. It's not they aren't taking their pictures or baking them things and selling those products to everyone. It's just the wedding ceremony/celebration they can't participate in. In the baker case they were long time customers. Perfectly happy to sell a cupcake or birthday cake and serve them in their shop before and after it was known they were a couple. It's just the wedding part.

J-TX
Allen, TX

“Nobody believes that people should not have religious freedom,” Wolfson said.

Biggest lie in the article.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Why is this such an issue? I've been in business for decades. If I don't want to serve a particular customer, I just tell them I can't accommodate them. I don't have to say why and usually don't. What's the big deal?

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"With marriage equality becoming a reality, it is now important to expose legislators who will propose bigoted laws that allow business to refuse services to homosexuals in the name of preserving religious freedom."

You need to explain why it is bigoted if a business does not want to accomodate a business?

A few days ago you were saying that it was OK for Mozilla to fire their CEO because they did not agree with his views. Why isn't that bigoted and this is?

People are beginning to talk about "Puritans of Progressivism" and the "Tolerance Taliban" to describe what is happening in America.

I wonder what a PC god would think of the oppression being commited in his name?

Eliot
Genola, UT

A lesbian couple approaches a photographer and asks her to take pictures at their commitment ceremony. The photographer declines. The couple seek photography services elsewhere and easily find them, paying less than what the first photographer charges. All is well and everyone is happy. The first photographer does not have to photograph a ceremony she does not feel comfortable with, the couple get a cheaper rate on their photography and the second photographer gets a gig and makes some money. But all is not so blissful because the couple decides to sue the first photographer for discrimination and the photographer is fined over $6000. When she decides to defend herself, explain why she chose not to photograph the ceremony and seek to overturn the court-imposed fine, she is labeled rude and an in-your-face religious fanatic. This is an unfair characterization of the photographer who has, in fact, behaved with dignity and civility throughout the entire process.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments