Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Once again, you can't use your company to moralize stuff   ( reuters.com) divider line
    More: Cool, free speech zone, U.S., Human Rights Act, justices  
•       •       •

5212 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Apr 2014 at 11:57 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-07 10:29:49 AM  
SCOTUS isn't going to rule against a Civil Rights Act of 1964 style ban on discrimination and they're not going to take a piecemeal approach to gay marriage. The next gay marriage case they take will be one of the cases currently working their way through the Federal Court system that address whether bans are Constitutional or not.
 
2014-04-07 10:30:36 AM  
Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?
 
2014-04-07 10:44:36 AM  

Theaetetus: Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?


could you imagine if they found in favor of Hobby Lobby? *shudder*

The Roberts Court: Great for civil rights, especially the rights of corporations in politics

maybe Roberts is really trying to get Congress to fix this shiat by making the unpopular rulings and trolling Scalia at the same time?

or he just really loves money, one or the other I'm sure
 
2014-04-07 10:48:35 AM  

Theaetetus: Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?


Not really. Without having seen the statute being challenged, it's almost certainly written like the federal anti-discrimination statutes that were challenged and unanimously upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. And it's a state statute that impacts intrastate commerce, an area where the states clearly have the power to regulate industry. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases still present an opportunity to drive a Mack truck through those anti-discrimination statutes regardless of whether SCOTUS wanted to hear this case.
 
2014-04-07 11:36:11 AM  

somedude210: could you imagine if they found in favor of Hobby Lobby? *shudder*


As much as I think some members of The Court would love to give Hobby Lobby free reign to do whatever they want I really don't think they would pull the teeth out of anti-discrimination law like that especially not if they have to rewrite the very foundations of corporate law in order to do it. Either way, we'll see in a few weeks.
 
2014-04-07 11:48:21 AM  

Serious Black: Theaetetus: Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?

Not really. Without having seen the statute being challenged, it's almost certainly written like the federal anti-discrimination statutes that were challenged and unanimously upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. And it's a state statute that impacts intrastate commerce, an area where the states clearly have the power to regulate industry. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases still present an opportunity to drive a Mack truck through those anti-discrimination statutes regardless of whether SCOTUS wanted to hear this case.


The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in the early 1990s) basically allows lots of shiatty, shiatty corporate actions so long as they have the thinnest veneer of "sincerely-held religious belief".

Which is why I'm looking forward to all business in America falling into one of several religious groups:
-Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't have to pay for blood transfusions (or birthday cards/gifts, or bonuses, or holiday parties of any type...);
-Christian Scientists, who don't have to pay for any medical treatments other than prayer; or
-Buddhists, who don't even see your pain as real.

I also wouldn't put it past an enterprising corporation to claim "sincerely-held beliefs" on such other topics as company scrip ("We believe that we are the only moral entity, and that using another entity's currency is immoral"), minimum wage ("Economic hardship is proof of god's love"), a 40-hour work week ("Exhaustiveness is next to godliness"), child labor laws ("Idle hands spend time at the genitals, and you know how god hates that"), or anything farking else they could get their lawyers to stick.

I don't trust SCOTUS to say "Get rid of that farking abomination of a law", and even if they did, I wouldn't trust Congress to do that. So companies will keep the religious freedom to make sure we don't do anything that offends their delicate farking sensibilities.

// in a very shiat-burny mood today...
 
2014-04-07 11:52:28 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: Theaetetus: Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?

Not really. Without having seen the statute being challenged, it's almost certainly written like the federal anti-discrimination statutes that were challenged and unanimously upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. And it's a state statute that impacts intrastate commerce, an area where the states clearly have the power to regulate industry. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases still present an opportunity to drive a Mack truck through those anti-discrimination statutes regardless of whether SCOTUS wanted to hear this case.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in the early 1990s) basically allows lots of shiatty, shiatty corporate actions so long as they have the thinnest veneer of "sincerely-held religious belief".

Which is why I'm looking forward to all business in America falling into one of several religious groups:
-Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't have to pay for blood transfusions (or birthday cards/gifts, or bonuses, or holiday parties of any type...);
-Christian Scientists, who don't have to pay for any medical treatments other than prayer; or
-Buddhists, who don't even see your pain as real.

I also wouldn't put it past an enterprising corporation to claim "sincerely-held beliefs" on such other topics as company scrip ("We believe that we are the only moral entity, and that using another entity's currency is immoral"), minimum wage ("Economic hardship is proof of god's love"), a 40-hour work week ("Exhaustiveness is next to godliness"), child labor laws ("Idle hands spend time at the genitals, and you know how god hates that"), or anything farking else they could get their lawyers to stick.

I don't trust SCOTUS to say "Get rid of that farking abomination of a law", and even if they did, I wouldn't trust Congress to do that. So companies will keep the religious freedom to make sure we don't do anything that offends their delicate farking sensibilities.

// in a very shiat-bur ...


You raise an interesting question. What's to stop somebody from saying that Objectivism is their religion? If they could successfully do that, they could argue that their religion says doing things that hinder one from pursuing their own happiness are immoral and, therefore, they shouldn't have to follow any of the many state and federal commercial regulations that they sincerely believe require them to engage in immoral actions?
 
2014-04-07 12:00:32 PM  

Serious Black: You raise an interesting question. What's to stop somebody from saying that Objectivism is their religion? If they could successfully do that, they could argue that their religion says doing things that hinder one from pursuing their own happiness are immoral and, therefore, they shouldn't have to follow any of the many state and federal commercial regulations that they sincerely believe require them to engage in immoral actions?


That is the slippery slope that the government is considering in Hobby Lobby... From the transcript:
Kagan: Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard.  So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws.  And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative.
 
2014-04-07 12:11:38 PM  

Serious Black: What's to stop somebody from saying that Objectivism is their religion?


In the future? The government not agreeing to stipulate that [insane thing] is a "sincerely-held belief". I think this case was lost when the Solicitor (Clement?) declined to make HL prove the belief.

Though I'm not even sure that'd work - if a company had shot itself in the foot, even once, in furtherance of that "belief" (they'd refused an investment from Bob's 'Bortions or whatever), SCOTUS'd probably find that the only reason the company was not made Pope of Va-Takin' City was 1960s liberal activists.
 
2014-04-07 12:12:04 PM  
Theaetetus:
That is the slippery slope that the government is considering in Hobby Lobby... From the transcript:
Kagan: Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard.  So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws.  And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative.


I'm guessing that right now, that religion needs to at least be recognized by the IRS. That should at least be part of the litmus test. I hope Hobby Lobby loses their case, but with Citizens United hanging in the background, I'm not as optimistic as I should be.
 
2014-04-07 12:12:48 PM  
The way an idiot photographer refuses to provide service to a gay couple: "My religion/morals/beliefs prohibit my assisting you in your sinful ways".

The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Personally, I would happily shoot the commitment ceremony at my normal rate without any question or second thought.
 
2014-04-07 12:15:13 PM  

Dr Dreidel: In the future? The government not agreeing to stipulate that [insane thing] is a "sincerely-held belief".


But that's a huge change, with the potential for future problems: what's the stop the government from saying that Scientology, or Mormonism, or Islamism isn't a sincerely-held belief and forcing adherents to prove their sincerity? And how?
 
2014-04-07 12:16:24 PM  

plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.


Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.
 
2014-04-07 12:16:24 PM  

plc5_250: The way an idiot photographer refuses to provide service to a gay couple: "My religion/morals/beliefs prohibit my assisting you in your sinful ways".

The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Personally, I would happily shoot the commitment ceremony at my normal rate without any question or second thought.


Oh sure, be a money grubbing capitalist with no moral why don't you

/agree 100%
//making money to pay the bills > religious derp
 
2014-04-07 12:18:22 PM  
I know that when I got married, I really wanted to find a photographer who hated me and wanted to see me burn in hell.
 
2014-04-07 12:18:24 PM  

somedude210: could you imagine if they found in favor of Hobby Lobby? *shudder*


^^  This.

If corporations can now have religion, then I'd be interested in knowing Hobby Lobby's faith journey.  When did Hobby Lobby first accept Jesus into his/her/its heart?  Did Hobby Lobby have an overwhelming emotional experience?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but no worries.  I'll ask Hobby Lobby next time I see him/her/it in Sunday School.
 
2014-04-07 12:19:31 PM  

Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.


Easy to justify - insurance in case of encounter with protestors or WBC.
 
2014-04-07 12:20:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: What's to stop somebody from saying that Objectivism is their religion?

In the future? The government not agreeing to stipulate that [insane thing] is a "sincerely-held belief". I think this case was lost when the Solicitor (Clement?) declined to make HL prove the belief.

Though I'm not even sure that'd work - if a company had shot itself in the foot, even once, in furtherance of that "belief" (they'd refused an investment from Bob's 'Bortions or whatever), SCOTUS'd probably find that the only reason the company was not made Pope of Va-Takin' City was 1960s liberal activists.


I think it would be very hard to argue that Objectivists who consistently cite Ayn Rand as a hero and use her books as a philosophical guide do not satisfy the definition of a religion. Hell, SCOTUS has upheld beliefs like those espoused by the I AM Activity as acceptable for First Amendment protection. Ayn Rand's books have touched many more people than those guys did.
 
2014-04-07 12:20:49 PM  

BMFPitt: I know that when I got married, I really wanted to find a photographer who hated me and wanted to see me burn in hell.


If he took the best shots and had the best rates I would hire the "I want jst3p to die in a bowl of dicks fire Studio"
 
2014-04-07 12:21:26 PM  

plc5_250: Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.

Easy to justify - insurance in case of encounter with protestors or WBC.


Yeah, because judges are stupid. Good luck!
 
2014-04-07 12:23:14 PM  

Theaetetus: Dr Dreidel: In the future? The government not agreeing to stipulate that [insane thing] is a "sincerely-held belief".

But that's a huge change, with the potential for future problems: what's the stop the government from saying that Scientology, or Mormonism, or Islamism isn't a sincerely-held belief and forcing adherents to prove their sincerity? And how?


As I understand it (IANAL), the entity merely has to prove that they hold the belief and that it is "sincere" (they usually prove sincerity by citing an action that was done in furtherance of the belief, like refusing an investment from a person or entity that does violate the belief). They don't have to prove that their religion is correct, or even that the belief stems from observation of that faith.

HL believes that IUDs and Plan B are "abortifacents", and the Solicitor declined to argue that fact. So the only legal avenue left for the government is to argue that the contraception mandate (which includes IUDs and Plan B) is the least restrictive means the government has available to it to further the goal of "public health".

And to me (again, IANAL), it looks like they (we) HAVE to lose, since there are 16 other methods of BC that HL would happily cover - the government being restricted from mandating that IUDs and Plan B be covered does not materially alter the contraception mandate enough that it would be meaningless without those two.

// perfectly clear?
// as mud
 
2014-04-07 12:25:21 PM  

jst3p: BMFPitt: I know that when I got married, I really wanted to find a photographer who hated me and wanted to see me burn in hell.

If he took the best shots and had the best rates I would hire the "I want jst3p to die in a bowl of dicks fire Studio"


Maybe that's why your album had all those flaming bowls of dicks photoshopped in.
 
2014-04-07 12:26:11 PM  

BMFPitt: jst3p: BMFPitt: I know that when I got married, I really wanted to find a photographer who hated me and wanted to see me burn in hell.

If he took the best shots and had the best rates I would hire the "I want jst3p to die in a bowl of dicks fire Studio"

Maybe that's why your album had all those flaming bowls of dicks photoshopped in.


But the lighting was stunning!
 
2014-04-07 12:43:09 PM  
Apparently they didn't donate enough money to the Justices. Try adding a few more zeros to the checks and bring the case again
 
2014-04-07 12:53:59 PM  

Theaetetus: forcing adherents to prove their sincerity? And how?


Jews? Im going to need you to wander 40 years in the desert.

Christians? Either spend a weekend nailed to a cross, or move a mountain with no tools but your own faith. (We'll wait, the Jews will be a while anyway)

Islam's easy, I'm going to need you to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.. and if you slaughter some infidels along the way, we can really speed up the process..

Lets see how sincere they are!
 
2014-04-07 12:54:58 PM  
Why didn't this photographer take the easy way out?  Take the pictures and royally fark them up with terrible white balance, out of focus, heads out of the frame, etc.
 
2014-04-07 12:57:19 PM  

mrmopar5287: Why didn't this photographer take the easy way out?  Take the pictures and royally fark them up with terrible white balance, out of focus, heads out of the frame, etc.


Because then he wouldn't get the opportunity to tell the gay couple how awful he thinks they are and see the hurt and tears in their eyes, and that would deprive him of the one thing he needs to be able to get erections.
 
2014-04-07 01:01:18 PM  

mrmopar5287: Why didn't this photographer take the easy way out?  Take the pictures and royally fark them up with terrible white balance, out of focus, heads out of the frame, etc.


Because then you'd have a couple with clear evidence that the photographer is not good at their job and an ax to grind for messing up the memories of their wedding/commitment ceremony.
 
2014-04-07 01:07:01 PM  
Just out of curiosity, is the couple still together?
 
2014-04-07 01:13:50 PM  

Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.


I just don't understand why the photographer didn't just say she was already busy that day.
 
2014-04-07 01:17:05 PM  
People sure do love inventing all sorts of rules to follow to make life harder for themselves and people they don't like. Why do you think that is, exactly?
 
2014-04-07 01:19:48 PM  

spcMike: Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.

I just don't understand why the photographer didn't just say she was already busy that day.


She gets off on shaming and belittlement. Or maybe she was just ragging it something fierce that particular day.
 
2014-04-07 01:21:07 PM  
I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.
 
2014-04-07 01:24:19 PM  

wildcardjack: Just out of curiosity, is the couple still together?


Britney Spears was married to George from Seinfeld for all of two days. How is your question relevant?
 
2014-04-07 01:27:02 PM  

Cymbal: People sure do love inventing all sorts of rules to follow to make life harder for themselves and people they don't like. Why do you think that is, exactly?


Because they can and because we no longer shoot them in the streets like in times of old (aka civilized times)
 
2014-04-07 01:27:54 PM  

spcMike: Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.

I just don't understand why the photographer didn't just say she was already busy that day.


Farking this!

Seems to me there's a bit of grandstanding on both sides of this equation. The photographer for stating why they didn't want to shoot the gig when a "hey, I'm booked that day" would have sufficed. And the gay couple for not just moving on to a photographer that would take their money.

And no, you don't have to hide your beliefs or take shiat from a bigot. Just seems like a lot of unnecessary butthurt for nothing.
 
2014-04-07 01:28:06 PM  

elchupacabra: I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.


This.

If you know someone hates you then why on earth would you trust them to do a fantastic job photographing your wedding? Why would you want them anywhere near your wedding.
 
2014-04-07 01:29:09 PM  

Theaetetus: Maybe it's a clue for Hobby Lobby?


First thing that came to my mind.
 
2014-04-07 01:30:03 PM  

elchupacabra: I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.


I'm goingto guess you'll be out your money when it comes time to collect, not to mention providing some negative advertising when it comes to your photography.
 
2014-04-07 01:32:39 PM  

Target Builder: elchupacabra: I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.

This.

If you know someone hates you then why on earth would you trust them to do a fantastic job photographing your wedding? Why would you want them anywhere near your wedding.


How would the gay couple know that exactly? Not everyone wears signs around their neck saying "I hate gays, and there money is no good here".
 
2014-04-07 01:32:56 PM  

boogerwolf: spcMike: Theaetetus: plc5_250: The way a smart photographer refuses to provide services to a gay couple: "My rates start at $750 an hour with an 8 hour minimum.  I require cash up front."

One way is certain to get you sued for being a bigoted moron. The other way will either get you wrote off as an expensive photographer or will get you a very sweet payday.

Until they catch on that your rate for gay couples is $750/hr, and your rate for heterosexual couples is $100/hr, and then the AG's office comes down on you,  hard.

I just don't understand why the photographer didn't just say she was already busy that day.

Farking this!

Seems to me there's a bit of grandstanding on both sides of this equation. The photographer for stating why they didn't want to shoot the gig when a "hey, I'm booked that day" would have sufficed. And the gay couple for not just moving on to a photographer that would take their money.

And no, you don't have to hide your beliefs or take shiat from a bigot. Just seems like a lot of unnecessary butthurt for nothing.


They did move on to a different photographer as was their right. They also filed a complaint, which was also their right under state law.
 
2014-04-07 01:33:07 PM  
Unless youre big enough to pay a politician to do it for you.
 
2014-04-07 01:34:03 PM  
The company's owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to "express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," their attorneys said in court papers.

Well you see, that's where you're wrong.  No one asked you to express a message.  No one asked you about your religious beliefs.

The only thing you were asked to do was to take pictures at a wedding, which is what you advertise your business as doing.  If you've got a problem with that, then maybe you should offer other services.

No one at a wedding gives a shiat about the photographer.  When the happy couple looks back at the pictures in fifty years, he's the one person guaranteed to not be in any of them.
 
2014-04-07 01:37:37 PM  

Target Builder: elchupacabra: I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.

This.

If you know someone hates you then why on earth would you trust them to do a fantastic job photographing your wedding? Why would you want them anywhere near your wedding.



Although, to be fair... If I applied for someone to work my wedding and they said I was a pervert sinner and they refused to facilitate my "sin", I'd probably want them to suffer if I could, especially if I could either make some money off them or I could drive them out of business.
 
2014-04-07 01:38:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Dr Dreidel: In the future? The government not agreeing to stipulate that [insane thing] is a "sincerely-held belief".

But that's a huge change, with the potential for future problems: what's the stop the government from saying that Scientology, or Mormonism, or Islamism isn't a sincerely-held belief and forcing adherents to prove their sincerity? And how?


He's referring specifically to the Hobby Lobby case, where the government decided not to question whether Hobby Lobby's religious views were sincere.

And they probably would have had a good case on those grounds, since the company health plans used to include some of the things they now find objectionable.  Their revelation as to the sin of employees taking the morning after pill was curiously concurrent with the passage of the PPACA.
 
2014-04-07 01:40:28 PM  
For a minute, I thought the headline was about the most recent megachurch scandal.
 
2014-04-07 01:40:37 PM  

Cymbal: How would the gay couple know that exactly? Not everyone wears signs around their neck saying "I hate gays, and there money is no good here".


Well it would be nice if the photographer could just tell them, as it would save everyone time and aggravation.  Clearly that is no longer an option.

Karac: The only thing you were asked to do was to take pictures at a wedding, which is what you advertise your business as doing.  If you've got a problem with that, then maybe you should offer other services.


So you agree with that family who sued the grocery store for not making them the "Happy birthday Adolf Hitler" cake, and think the state should have forced them to make one?
 
2014-04-07 01:43:20 PM  

BMFPitt: I know that when I got married, I really wanted to find a photographer who hated me and wanted to see me burn in hell.


Here's the yellow pages listing for wedding photographers in NYC.
How about you flip through them and come back to us with a report of how list themselves as whether or not they'd do gay weddings?

This couple just did what anyone else in their position would do.  They found a photographer and asked him for his services.  When he outed himself as a bigot, they found somebody else and raised hell about being discriminated against in violation of state laws.

If the yellow pages thing is too much, then how about you find me a case where a gay couple was refused service for their wedding and still wanted the bigot's goods or services?
 
2014-04-07 01:43:31 PM  

BMFPitt: So you agree with that family who sued the grocery store for not making them the "Happy birthday Adolf Hitler" cake, and think the state should have forced them to make one?


I don't think "people who celebrate Hitler's birthday" and "homosexuals" are analogous as groups in this context.
 
2014-04-07 01:43:40 PM  

pueblonative: elchupacabra: I would think you'd have some interesting quality issues if your photographer objected to shooting your wedding but couldn't outright refuse to shoot it.

Like pictures only of your straight married friends come out well and all the pics of the gay couple are blurred.

Or hell, a Bible open to that page where it says something about "Man laying with man is an abomination" or whatever.  Eh, maybe more subtle than that, but something where you're not going to be happy with what was shot, but can't outright prove the photographer sabotaged their work.

I'm goingto guess you'll be out your money when it comes time to collect, not to mention providing some negative advertising when it comes to your photography.


Which is not much different from the side effects of refusing.  Only difference is you've spent time on "making a statement" if you work a wedding real badly.  Besides, unless someone sees a pattern, you can always blame your equipment, lighting, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report