Wait a doggoned minute. First, you did make assumptions about my standards - go back and read your first reply.
Read it again if you missed it.
Secondly - standards? These are not the clergy. These are not the counselors. There is no assumed "standard" for the contracted out vendors and I refuse to concede that there are. It is foolish to assume they condone every marriage they've photographed nor should they be required to "bless" every marriage. They are taking pictures for crying out loud. They've probably performed this service for a lot of condemned to failure marriages - chances are 50% of them - and for sins on the part of one or both. That's why they are on a slippery slope high horse here. But again, I totally agree this is their right to decide - and the ruling that they are a public accommodation is a farce.
But folks chill - this is the photographer. It's no different than the florist or the cleaning crew or the caterer. Besides, if they were known as a "Christian" business, as the press indicates they were - then they were obviously set up and they obviously stepped right in it. That's not wise, period. That is my only point. They were fooled - when they could have had the last laugh but did not.
“It is foolish to assume they condone every marriage they’ve photographed nor should they be required to “bless” every marriage. They are taking pictures for crying out loud.”
Very true, and also very true. Taking pictures for pay is not an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.
“They’ve probably performed this service for a lot of condemned to failure marriages - chances are 50% of them - and for sins on the part of one or both.”
Good point. That should be obvious, but I never thought of it that way. It puts it in a little different perspective.