[SeekAndFind]

RE: I have a right to refuse service to anyone.

Here’s a theoretical question ... should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?

[eyedigress]

YES

[eyedigress]

Freedom of Association isn’t just an order.

[unixfox]

The government should have NO BUSINESS in MY BUSINESS as long as it is legal and I am not hurting anybody.

If I decide I don’t want to provide a service for someone for ANY reason that should be my decision and nobody elses. PERIOD.

[szweig]

Not just a bigot — anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone. Let the marketplace prevail.

If I were these photographers I’d call in sick the day of the event. Screw that judge!!

[Up Yours Marxists]

"Here’s a theoretical question ... should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?"

No.

Many Freepers get this wrong. The Bible is clear on this. It's Godly to treat others equally when it's something they are born with. Examples:

• Skin color
• Birthplace
• Deformities and disabilities
• Diseases or ailments

It's also Godly to have righteous discrimination against bad or unhealthy behaviors. So, any business who wants to be Godly and legal must make business rules based on disallowed behaviors. Like:

• No girl kissy girl
• No boy kissy boy
• No stinky customers
• No ugly handbags
• No baseball caps that say "DAWG"

Then there's the "flip side" to this argument. "But we were born this way". Even if that were true (uh huh), marriage is a choice. Holding hands in public is a choice. Choosing a partner is a choice.

What the photographers should have said was, "We didn't accept their business because our policy says we don't allow the photographing of men kissing men, women kissing women, men or women kissing animals, or any acts of a sexual nature."

That would have set them in the clear right there. You're not discriminating against the people. You're discriminating against the ACT. And now you can claim hardship when courts ask why you have the policy. You say, "Our customers are traditional and if word got out we were photographing devious filthy behavior we'd go out of business. These acts are considered by our staff to be pornography. Even though pornography is legal, we choose not to partake in it."

They have a choice to display their "love" for each other. You have a right to tell them to pound sand.

[dsrtsage]

Yes, yes, absolutely yes... And he is free to reap the consequences of his business decisions

[Nea Wood]

should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?

YES. It would be a dumb thing to do, since a black person's money is as good as a white person's money and vice-versa. And I don't think too many businesses would do it, since they're out to make a buck. But if a private business owner wants to refuse service to green-eyed, left-handed midgets of the astrological sign of Aquarius, he should be able to do so, in a free country. Then another business will open nearby and advertise that they welcome green-eyed, left-handed midget Aquarians and then they'll steal business away from the first guy.

If we can't do that, then we are not a free country.

[onedoug]

Unless said bigot was selling klan or hitleresque stuff, I doubt (s)he’d be in business very long.