SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

I think we need to draw a distinction between what we should do morally, what makes good business sense, and what the government can force us to do.

I don't like the idea that the government can force me into selling goods or services to someone I don't want to do business with. If I don't want to do business with someone, I shouldn't have to no matter what reason I have.

Now with that said, I think its morally wrong to not do business with someone based on their skin color or religion. And it certainly does not make good business sense to deny goods or services based on such criteria.

But if a photographer does not want to take photos at a gay wedding, then that person should not be forced to do so by the government. If the government can force a person to do that against their will, then where do you draw the line?

I prefer to err on the side of liberty, even if that means that some racist somewhere in some middle-of-nowhere town can use his or her liberty to deny service to a black person. Freedom doesn't mean people are free so long as they do what the government or other self-righteous a-holes want them to do.
oaktonhokie wrote:That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
Post Reply