Christian photographer dragged before court for refusing to cover gay "wedding"

You don't think all gays have/are 4 star assholes?

You tell me. You've seen a lot of ghey butts. So whats the deal?

How would you rate my asshole? 1 to 4 stars, right?

Oh I forgot to add that if a business is neutral, it won't affect my patronage.

I think businesses should be allowed to do what they want, but I should be allowed to do what I want also (i.e. not spend my money somewhere I don't feel respected).

The College I attended a few years back had a Gay, Lesbian, and bi-sexual group who to tried to get people to show support by making, a wear denim day.

Almost the whole campus showed up in pajama pants in protest. Most of the people didn't care, but they were pissed that the Gay, Lesbian, and bi-sexual group, used denim, something worn by virtually everyone, as something to show support.

Afterwards they were like we were joking. IDIOTS.

It was weird seeing virtually no denim on campus that day. There were a couple people in denim that day who were mad because they had forgotten till they got to campus and saw all the pajama pants. You just don't realize how much jeans are worn till something like that happens.

I don't think so. Retarded lawsuits get attention all the time, our society is lawsuit happy.

Crap, that was supposed to be a neg. :/

I completely agree. I wouldn't disapprove of a business just because they *didn't* donate, and I would still be a customer. Some people feel differently, but I don't support that. It's nice when people do support your cause, but requiring it is just silly.

Economically speaking, there's really very little difference between breaking a contract and discriminating in the provision of services on any basis beyond the ability of a customer to pay for services and the legality of providing services to that customer. Either breaking a contract or irrational discrimination--ie this case on the basis of sexuality--acts as an interference in the efficient functioning of free markets by imposing extraneous transaction costs (the need to insure against contract breaking, increasing the costs of searching for services providers) on market participants. It seems to me to be the hight of chutzpah to expect the government to protect you from other people committing the former act while taking umbrage at the government protecting other people from you committing the latter act. There's simply no rational reason whatsoever for the government to enforce contracts but not enforce laws against discriminatory provision of services.

If you want the government to enforce your contracts, and you want to government to protect you when someone else impedes your ability to act efficiently and freely in economic markets, then don't discriminate!

Man, I shouldn't talk, because I can be wordy at times, but I try to follow your arguments and lately I've been getting lost about 2/3 of the way in. And by that point, I forget what the first 2/3 I've already read was saying to boot.

It's getting press in right-wing Christian rags that want to spew idiotic, homophobic rants just like yourself that generalize a movement based on the action of 2 individuals. The only mainstream source I could even find was the Washington Times...

That argument is on the face of it ludicrous (tastes and preference are factors in demand, in this case for money), and with a large stretch, could only possibly be applied to corporations (but then it would be up to the shareholders to sue the executives). For sole proprietorships (as most wedding photogs are), and small partnerships, it's still individuals making decisions, and so utility is still paramount. If a Christian couple decides not to hire a gay wedding photographer because they're gay, should the photog be able to sue?

You're asking a LAWYER if someone should be able to sue?

Don't give 'em any ideas