This is wrong

[badrose]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356498/nm-supreme-court-finds-refusing-photograph-gay-wedding-illegal-sterling-beard

[BigBlueBrock]

I agree.

[jazyd]

So the photographers have no rights, no liberty, no freedom. They should be allowed to sell their services to whoever they want.
All those 'gays' were doing was making a show. I am sure there are a number of photographers that would be more than willing to take their money, probably some of their own ilk. I bet they did all they could to find out who was Christian or strong in their beliefs and decided to try their luck so they could sue and make spectacle. Seeing that more and more and these liberal as judges are giving them their day.

Where is that island citizen talks about

[badrose]

Hiring a Muslim catering service to serve pork should straighten things out.

[suncat05]

So, the vendor, who is also a private business owner, HAS TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, no matter what? As I interpret this ruling, that is what I understand.

What ever happened to "management has the right to refuse service to anyone"? If it is a privately owned business as I assume this is, then they absolutely have the right to refuse to supply any goods/services to those whom they would prefer not to serve.

This ruling makes zero sense to me.

[Doc]

I understand the decision because I can then see it relating to other discriminatory issues. Please, because I understand does not mean I agree. Personally I've long felt a business should be able to serve whomever they want, and refuse to render service to whomever they want regardless of the reason. I'd have no issue with a restaurant refusing service to gays, or blacks, etc... so long as they note on the front of their business' because I believe that were a business to refuse their services to a segment of the population and its known then they will go out of business because people like me will stop supporting those businesses.

If this photographer did not want the job, the best solution would have been to price it so high that it would have made it palatable to them. Basically price yourself out of the job. I do that on occasion with clients who I really don't want to work with because of their attitudes.

[Doc]

So, the vendor, who is also a private business owner, HAS TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, no matter what? As I interpret this ruling, that is what I understand.

What ever happened to "management has the right to refuse service to anyone"? If it is a privately owned business as I assume this is, then they absolutely have the right to refuse to supply any goods/services to those whom they would prefer not to serve.

This ruling makes zero sense to me.

60 years ago, during the civil rights movement, it was needed but no so much now. There are plenty of photographers that will take pictures of gay weddings.

[KSRBEvans]

Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a minute:

Let's change the facts from "photographer" to one of these:


So, the hotel owner, who is also a private business owner, HAS TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, no matter what? As I interpret this ruling, that is what I understand.

What ever happened to "management has the right to refuse service to anyone"? If it is a privately owned business as I assume this is, then they absolutely have the right to refuse to supply any goods/services to those whom they would prefer not to serve.

This ruling makes zero sense to me.

Or how about


So, the restaurant owner, who is also a private business owner, HAS TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, no matter what? As I interpret this ruling, that is what I understand.

What ever happened to "management has the right to refuse service to anyone"? If it is a privately owned business as I assume this is, then they absolutely have the right to refuse to supply any goods/services to those whom they would prefer not to serve.

This ruling makes zero sense to me.

These were the arguments being made in the south in the 50s and 60s.

IMHO this case comes down to 2 big differences with the civil rights cases back then: first, is a photographer a "public accomodation" for purposes of New Mexico's civil rights law? I don't know the answer to that question, since it's a state law. But from a common-sense reading that's casting a pretty wide net, IMHO.

Second--and the bigger issue, IMHO--is the 1st Amendment issue. This result compels the photographer to set aside how he or she practices their religion. Although there were some pretty cockeyed attempts to apply biblical teachings to support segregation, no one in the 60s seriously believed integration interfered with the hotelier's free exercise of his/her religion. I'd love to see that issue go to the Supreme Court.