Another Victory for Gay Rights

[Bill W]

I think this is important. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/elane-photography-v-vanessa-willock_n_3798948.html?ref=topbar

 

As the article states: "Today's opinion recognizes the sincerity of those beliefs, but makes clear that no one's religious beliefs make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others," Melling wrote.

[Thorn Wilde]

Lol! I draw your attentions to the following quote from the end of the article:

 

 

 

"Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country," Lorence said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "This decision is a blow to our client and every American's right to live free."

 

What about every American's right to live free from discrimination?

[Zombie]

Where you have a secular state, like the US and Britain, the rule of law has to trump all other "rights" and it matters not a jot how emotionally those other "rights" are campaigned about. They can vent their spleens and burst their blood vessels, but they are relics of another age and they can't pick and choose which laws they like and don't like

[crazyfish]

Yeah I dunno. The fact is If i were getting married, I'd rather the photographer told me they objected to gays up front. I'll more than happily respect their right to conscience. I don't want nasty surprises when I get the pictures .  I'll rather go with someone who will be enthusiastic for my gay dollars.  Forcing a bigot to photograph your wedding, I think, is enforcing a tyranny of false virtue.

 

As for the right to discriminate, it goes both ways. There was some bruhaha, can't remember which state,  about some gay bars wanting to exclude women after certain hours.  Of course bars can't legally exclude women unless they declare themselves a private club, which comes with restrictions that regular bars don't have. It was a bit of a head trip reading the comments on that newspaper article.

Edited August 23, 2013 by crazyfish

[clumber]

Where you have a secular state, like the US and Britain, the rule of law has to trump all other "rights" and it matters not a jot how emotionally those other "rights" are campaigned about. They can vent their spleens and burst their blood vessels, but they are relics of another age and they can't pick and choose which laws they like and don't like

 

Except if that was the case, being gay would still be illegal. Just sayin' 

Edited August 23, 2013 by clumber

[Zombie]

Except if that was the case, being gay would still be illegal. Just sayin' 

 

Well no. Because the law was changed. Rule of law means the law as it is at the time, and laws change all the time. If they didn't then the Legislators would start getting nervous, cuz they know we'd start grumbling and complaining "why are we paying these idle f**ckers" So in fact changing the law to improve gay rights is good for the Legislators - proves they're actually doing something