Posted on 08/26/2019 8:53:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If anti-discrimination laws violate the Constitution then how can they be critically important?
There is a huge difference between this case and a bakery for instance. Being forced to bake a cake glorifying homosexuality is outrageous but at least the baker has limited personal contact with the deviancy. But if you’re a photographer, you actually have to participate in the proceeding and you even have to orchestrate some of it. To force someone to do that against his wishes is absolutely beyond the pale, it’s absolutely disgusting, and is unconstitutional for any number of reasons.
Most public accommodation laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I wish there was a court in the U.S. with the b@lls to stand up and say so.
So can they force Halal food upon the Christian?
Lol
What if someone was just so disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, holding hands and frolicking around, that they refused to perform a service at a gay wedding? Why does there need to be a religious backstop to someone's rights (freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, etc.)?
I thought she was hot, you thought she was a turn-off.
de gustibus
when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video’s messages to the videographer, wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.
No one should be able to be compelled to produce art for another. Sale of an on-hand blank or generic tape/DVD? Sure.
BRAVO!
“Do they not have a constitutionally protected right to do business with whomever they choose?”
Not according to the current interpretation of the federal courts, and Congress.
If this is upheld by the Supreme Court then I would assume it would have the effect of striking down all the state anti-discrimination laws in the country. Or at least the ones which include sexual orientation.
The courts usually tend to favor preserving as much of the law as possible and only carving out the narrowest exceptions, so I doubt they would strike down any laws at all, even if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling.
They will simply go back to the way the law was applied a few years ago, where someone refusing to use their creative work or speech to endorse something was not seen as meeting the criteria for “discrimination”.
Both well phrased points.
You were VERY right!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.