OT - Think your rights are NOT in danger?

's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/>

"...an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and wife, guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony."

The long URL worked fine, but this is the first time a tinyurl didn't work for me. I tried generating another tiny one, buit didn't work, either.

2 Jews walk into a photography studio, one a man, one a woman, and ask for wedding photos. The Christian photographer declines because he disagrees with their non-Christian lifestyle. Obviously the photographer was not merely exercising his first amendment rights.

's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/>>

The studio is a private business which can turn down work for any reason the owner chooses. However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply should've said he was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.

This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases, to save them having to write "No thanks".

's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/ "...an

Bulls**t.

Thank you.

I tried to imagine one of the "couple" contracting with the photog. "I'd like to hire you to shoot our wedding. My fiance and I like your work." No mention was likely made of the nature of the "couple". Can you think of why this might be so?

I disagree. This one's staying around for awhile.

A young woman walked into the car stereo store where I worked many years ago. While waiting for someone to assist her, she stood in front of the wall of display units and began flossing her teeth, flicking little bits of food onto the radios. My boss, who was famous for saying things most people were afraid to say, walks over and says "Excuse me, but I don't do business with pigs. Get outta my store."

Any reason at all.

Lakeside restaurant near here: At the patio tables, "no shirt no shoes no service". At the takeout window, "no shirt no shoes - no problem". But, people step off their boats and argue with the rules. They're sent back to their boats, hungry.

Any reason at all.

Sneaky? Maybe they used the word "partner", which is a good clue.

If so, hopefully it'll be a huge embarrassment for the couple involved. By the way, isn't it funny that I'm saying this, in light of my thoughts on gay marriage? :-) My brilliance allows me to get away with this. Put on your sunglasses.

Wish I'd have been there.

Again, correct.

Maybe. But I wonder.

Brilliance? How about "common sense"? ;-)

Now, to kill two birds, use that abundance to address the issue of legal, gay marriage.

Here's one for you. Do I think gays have the right to a legal partnership? You bet. I'm sure divorce lawyers are frothing at the idea, and are likely the impetus behind gay marriage, with most politicians being lawyers first.

Give 'em their partnerships. Just don't re-brand it marriage. I believe Lincoln said "You can call a dog's tail his fifth leg, but that doesn't make it so.", or something like that.

We can't add fake facts to the article. No conjecture. Obviously, they weren't evasive, because the photographer *did* figure out what the real deal was. If not, he would've found out when he got to the ceremony.

Well, it's just a word, and people love to disagree about words. You see a dog and you think "pet". I see a dog and I think "handy target-pass the ammo", or even "Asian recipes". We'll never settle that difference.

Think of "gay marriage" in this way: One reason gays want it is so they can gain certain financial benefits. The word "marriage" and its variants appear thousands of times in documents related to employment, insurance & taxation. Why force so many industries or agencies to rewrite their stuff? Some Big Time Christian group will yell about how much money gays are costing society for all the editing.

Which is why I said "wonder" rather than "know".

That's TWO examples of your being wrong and me being right.

Then re-write them ALL to reflect "legal partner". Business has no business determining what's sacred or not. Let the old forms die away.

If programmers thought the way you do, nothing would work!