Posted on 09/21/2017 5:24:04 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota couple's lawsuit challenging a state law for the right to refuse to shoot wedding videos for same-sex couples.
Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis dismissed Carl and Angel Larsen's case Wednesday.
The St. Cloud couple, who own a videography company, Telescope Media Group, sued over a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that bars discrimination by businesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at kstp.com ...
Stinks to high heavens...
Yes, classification of property as a “public accommodation”
was an invention of the courts from the civil rights era.
Better to simply say "No" and leave it at that. You don't owe the fags an explanation. And you don't have to lie about it. You just tell them no.
It figures...
Shhhh,,,,it’s coming ,,,,taking names.
I wonder if the Judge would order a Jewish baker to bake a swastika cake for a bunch of Nazis. Or does he just order people to do things for the groups who are the fad of the day.
Many wedding pics are very gender-outfit specific. How can a photographer not say, “I am not qualified for that event.”
We’ll have to test drive both of those and see if they have bugs
I've always believed these types of businesses should avoid the legal hassle and dodge the question:
"Yes, of course I would be willing to film your ceremony; that will be $58,331 for up to two hours of video and 30 minutes of editing." Or,
"I am not legally permitted to refuse, so I won't, but I would be extremely uncomfortable at such an event and would recommend you hire someone who can better capture the true spirit of the celebration for you." Or,
"Yes, that would be fine," until a last minute cancellation for personal/health reasons.
Any thug who insists on another person's unwilling acquiescence deserves whatever offense or disappointment results. Given the weaponized use of big government to harm ordinary people, even the most truthful among us have no moral obligation to deal with gays demanding services in good faith.
More and more looks like the only alternative.
The trick is to be subtle. No outright sabotage, just mediocrity. And be sure to cough and blow your nose during the entire shoot because you have a cold.
No one should be compelled to create art.
As for that, despite a proclaimed lack of expertise by E-harmony, the courts forced E-harmony to research and create new products just for homosexuals.
Why would you want to support a business that doesn’t want your business?
Liberals say it is their right to refuse to serve evil haters, but conservatives aren’t allowed to refuse service because their decisions are only based on irrational fear, hatred or ignorance.
And I cannot be certain the swing justice who said there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage will find on the side of freedom of association and belief for conservatives.
i think it’s bad business for any small business owner to outright REFUSE service to a potential customer. What you do is quote an outrageous price and/or impossible schedule. Most of these “customers” will go away muttering about a “ripoff”, and animosity and lawsuits are avoided. Should the customer take the deal, then you make a pile of dough. Most smart business people know this.
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.
