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
Ariz
Madison, AL

@zabivka
"I think we probably need to separate businesses into two classes: those that provide needs-based services, such as a medical treatment center, a restaurant, grocery store, etc., and those that provide non-essential services,"

Who gets to make the distinction? The problem is what one person considers perfunctory another person may consider essential, important, expressive, or spiritual. That goes for both customers and providers. The guy that works on cars may feel as strongly about his work as a photographer. Having the government make such personal distinctions has no place in a free society. It would be much more damaging than occasionally having to be involved in a business transaction with someone with whom you disagree.

K
Mchenry, IL

I think the bakery case in another state is a better test to take to the Supreme Court. In that situation the couple had been customers of the bakery and served no problem, the religious objection was just for the wedding cake they were asked to make. Cupcake, birthday cake, loaf of bread fine. It was just participating as vendors to the celebration. A wedding a public event. All present are witnesses and participants. Some religions just can't participate and profit from that ceremony/celebration.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Nimocks argued that a court that upholds the right to anti-Semitic or racist speech would be oddly positioned if it allowed a state to coerce speech from an artist."

That is an incredibly simple and logical argument.

And, of course, the pro-homosexual crowd reguses to see it.

To those on the left, don't blame me, I'm merely saying what is true; it IS a clear argument and your side refuses to acklnowledge it."

Yeah. Except it isn't true. And it's a bad argument. And it's not logical. And I acknowledge that it's wrong.

The state is NOT coercing speech from an "artist", or anybody else. The photographer, whether she thinks herself an "artist", or not, is NOT functioning as an artist. She is functioning as a business person. When she hung her tile out saying she would accept business from the general public she became a business person running a wedding photography business. A business cannot discriminate.

If she wanted to be an artist then she needed to get her art in a gallery and try to sell there. Then nobody would be able to tell her what her subject is.

Samuel L.
Murray, UT

"When the photographer opens her business, she should obey the law."
If the law is unjust, then it should be changed. Surely the advocates for redefining marriage can appreciate that. I would rather live in a society where my feelings sometimes get hurt than one in which we force people to violate their deeply held moral convictions at gunpoint.

"She just hates gays"
Really? Suppose she had a deep moral objection to softball games, for whatever reason. She has softball playing clients, but declines to photograph a game. Do we logically conclude "she hates softball players?" Of course not. But somehow the advocates of SSM can't (or won't) see the distinction. Instead the thought police drum up accusations of animus.

Samuel L.
Murray, UT

"There is no difference between straight weddings and gay weddings. Must be hate"
This is willful blindness. There are obvious differences with respect to the photographer's convictions. We may not personally think those differences are important but they are to her, and we should respect that. Perhaps I don't see why a hindu who serves other meat should refuse to serve me beef. Is it just to force him to do it or go out of business? Should I take personal offense, accuse him of hate, and sue him if he refuses?

BusStopRatBag
Layton, UT

What if...

She agreed to take the job and committed to doing her level best in providing value for money but made it clear up front she will donate all proceeds to an organization to which the customer is vehemently opposed.

The customer could then spread the word and possibly, given enough like-minded individuals, effect a reduction of business to the point she has to close the doors.

However it would turn out, no lawyers were paid which nearly everyone would agree is a win-win.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Samuel L, who are you quoting? I don't remember any of those quotes in the comments. Oh! You're quoting a straw man. Ah well. . .

"Perhaps I don't see why a hindu who serves other meat should refuse to serve me beef. Is it just to force him to do it or go out of business? Should I take personal offense, accuse him of hate, and sue him if he refuses?"

Uh. . . No.

Do I really need to explain this?

Okay, yeah, I guess I do.

Someone that runs a restaraunt gets to choose what is on the menu. If you walk into a Mexican restaraunt and order Chinese you don't get to sue them when they don't serve you egg rolls. You understand that, right? Pretty easy to get. No straw men needed.

Now, on the other hand, if they refuse you service because of your race, religion, sexual preference, etc, then sue away. (Do people really not understand how the law works?)

----

On another note:

No one in the U.S. ever has the authority to decide that the laws of THEIR god outrank the laws of the state.

BryceDeMann
Murray, UT

Further proof that this is all about forcing your way down others throats. If all you wanted was a wedding and a photographer then just find somone else. If she wants to lose business for moral reasons then it's her loss right? It's not about equality, it's about spite. What if she took the job and exercised her free speech rights to say she was against the wedding? Would she be able sue them when they fired her?

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

@mark
"No one in the U.S. ever has the authority to decide that the laws of THEIR god outrank the laws of the state."

Our country was built upon this, we escaped tyranny to be able to have the laws of God out rank the laws of the state. This sounds more like Communism than "One Nation Under God".

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Further proof that this is all about forcing your way down others throats. If all you wanted was a wedding and a photographer then just find somone else."

Yeah that's right. And Mr. Samual Tucker should have just found another library, and those four freshmen in Greensboro should have just found another place to get a sandwich.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@
LovelyDeseret 11:40 p.m. April 10, 2014

@mark
"No one in the U.S. ever has the authority to decide that the laws of THEIR god outrank the laws of the state."

Our country was built upon this, we escaped tyranny to be able to have the laws of God out rank the laws of the state. This sounds more like Communism than "One Nation Under God".

-----------------

Actually you got that backward. The First Amendment to Constitution specifically provides that the government cannot create an establishment of (i.e., an act of establishing) religion. Your suggestion that the governmkent should be constituted "to have the laws of God out rank the laws of the state" is the establishment of religion, and is prohibited by the Constitution. That's not Communism. That's Constitutional Law, and is the law of the land.

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

As much as it pains me, as much as it forces me to suppress my emotional knee-jerk reactions, and as much as I look like I'm sucking a lemon while typing this, I can't support prosecution of this lady's business. Would I support widespread ridicule, demonstrations, and word-of-mouth driving her out of business? Yes; yes I would. I would stand up and applaud, doing the rainbird dance and throwing in a series of fist pumps for good measure.

However, the free market should decide her fate. From a practical POV, forcing a business owner to do work for a client they don't want just begs for poor work anyway. Insisting that someone who really objects to your existence do work for you doesn't seem right. Were the photog's actions illegal? Probably so. Should they be? No, they shouldn't.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Our country was built upon this, we escaped tyranny to be able to have the laws of God out rank the laws of the state. This sounds more like Communism than "One Nation Under God"."

You need to learn your history. The Founders of this country in no way expected the "laws of god" to "outrank" the laws of the state. If you think they did show me in the Constitution where they stipulated this. Also the tyranny you are talking about WAS the laws of god outranking the laws of the State.

This concept is not communism, rather it IS the basis of the United States Constitution. As Furry points out, it is Constitutional law. What you suggest, though, sounds like sharia law. Actually, not just sounds like it but is.

Oh, and "one nation under god", if you can find that phrase in ANY founding documents I'll buy you lunch.

Chessermesser
West Valley City, UT

To avoid all this, simply say, "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on vacation that week." You don't have such a big legal hurdle to defend that stance. Wouldn't even be a lawsuit.

Samuel L.
Murray, UT

@mark "Samuel L, who are you quoting? I don't remember any of those quotes in the comments. Oh! You're quoting a straw man. Ah well. . ."

The first one is copy-and-paste from a comment. The other two are one sentence summaries of other's arguments (I only get 200 words). Read all the comments. You'll see that this is what people are saying.

"If you walk into a Mexican restaraunt and order Chinese you don't get to sue them when they don't serve you egg rolls. You understand that, right?"

My point exactly. If same-sex weddings are not on the menu, you don't get to sue.

AmPatriot
Taylorsville, UT

Maybe some judges of the Supreme Court are coming to their senses and realizing the error of their ways and judgement calls on civil law issues as not the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but is the direct jurisdiction of the states and their Constitution just like the US Constitution says it is.

The Supreme court decided wisely to be deaf once, maybe they need to be deaf for all unconstitutional claims driven by civil law enforcment authority of states. These troublesome intolerant civil disorders by groups that are neither defined or legally recognized and defined as a race or species.

The only reality of this so called gay + rights issue is financially motivated to contradict laws and taxation to avoid paying their "fair" share to the rest of socialist party members. Tax fraud and tax evasion are their only cause and reason to declare they do not want to pay shier share. The homosexuals are not required to prove they are gay to benefit from financial gains like heterosexual marriages are. Bigoted intolerance is their is their only assets which they deny because it proves that they are acting on criminal intent for tax evasion and financial fraud.

jffteach
Show Low, AZ

What baffles me is the absolute hypocritical intolerance of the lgbt agenda. They cry intolerance when they claim to be discriminated against but when Christians are panned or not allowed to practice according to their religious freedoms there is nowhere near the uproar. No tolerance going on there. They will sure tolerate as long as we agree with them.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

“Rauch said, 'I have no significant doubt about the outcome. In a few years there will be very few places that will discriminate against gays.'”
---------------
And more and more places that will discriminate against those who hold for traditional marriage.

Seems like a very unjust balancing act.

xert
Santa Monica, CA

This is a tough one for me. I used to work as a voice talent and I was booked for a job without having to audition and with the producers only hearing my demo tape. My agent told me who the candidate was and I said that although I needed the money, I didn't want to do the job because I didn't want to do anything to support this particular candidate. Now, neither I or my agency made a big deal of this and the producers were simply told that I was unavailable. No harm done and those producers used me on another occasion. So while I think that this young lady is discriminating, I know I've done the same thing and felt no remorse about having not used my talents to support the candicacy of a certain Republican candidate. I now think that it would have been more fair if I would have said, "I don't want to do any voice overs for either party." And it might be fair for this young lady to say, "I don't do wedding photos."

Dr. Thom
Long Beach, CA

I would like to know specifically where in the issuance of a business permit in Utah does it equivocally state in writing that a business owner cannot refuse service to someone based on their activities. Bars can refuse service to a drunk patron, movies can refuse service to underaged customers, and most restaurants require everyone (homosexual or not) to wear shoes and shirts. I just checked my local (city, county and state) license and it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.

to comment

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