Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right. It is hypocrisy. Same hypocrisy that bar in California showed by saying they would ban people they deemed anti-gay.
I wouldnt have a problem with it, except they say other businesses cant choose who they wish to serve and who they dont. Any free market business should be able to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason or for no reason at all. That is what the free market is, or supposed to be.
Sorry, but it is not freedom to tell businesses who they have to serve. Let the free market dictate if that business still can keep its doors open or not. It should not be up to the government to decide.
So , I guess if a photography company doesn't believe in the message that a picture of two men with suits at a wedding creates, they have the right to deny their services, b.c they don't agree with the message that such pictures would obviously show... that it is OK and natural for 2 men to have anal sex and sleep in the same bed together and to adopt kids.
They could still offer the gay couple their services to say, take photographs of their home to sell it for top dollar on the market, since that wouldn't be promoting some belief that they disagree with. But if the picture would go against their view, then they could refuse to service it, not b.c of the people are gay, but the output (the pictures) would be speech that they do not agree with.
Many weddings have several men in suits. Are you saying that any picture with men in suits at a wedding makes you think of anal sex? I see men in suits and think "wow, nice suit" or "Bob needs to cut back on the donuts".
So , I guess if a photography company doesn't believe in the message that a picture of two men with suits at a wedding creates, they have the right to deny their services, b.c they don't agree with the message that such pictures would obviously show... that it is OK and natural for 2 men to have anal sex and sleep in the same bed together and to adopt kids.
They could still offer the gay couple their services to say, take photographs of their home to sell it for top dollar on the market, since that wouldn't be promoting some belief that they disagree with. But if the picture would go against their view, then they could refuse to service it, not b.c of the people are gay, but the output (the pictures) would be speech that they do not agree with.
It'll vary by state, as the federal government's ability to legislate this issue is limited (and will likely be limited to areas where the interstate commerce clause can be used.
I'm not sure the pictures would constitute speech, but that is irrelevant. The 1st amendment only applies to the government. Most likely, the same sort of law that would prevent a photographer from refusing to photograph an inter-racial marriage would also bar a photographer from photographing a gay marriage. If the purpose of a law (in this case a state law passed under the auspices of its general police power) is secular, an infringement upon the religious practices of a citizen is incidental, and does not nullify the law.
Apparently I "personally attacked" the OP in my previous post (the mods here are brutally inconsistent in what they deem an attack), so allow me to try again. Hopefully this one is inoffensive enough.
OP, you're really going to criticize wearing pink in honor of breast cancer awareness? That's the battle you've chosen to fight? And the NFL wouldn't allow any sort of political ad. Liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
Apparently I "personally attacked" the OP in my previous post (the mods here are brutally inconsistent in what they deem an attack), so allow me to try again. Hopefully this one is inoffensive enough.
OP, you're really going to criticize wearing pink in honor of breast cancer awareness? That's the battle you've chosen to fight? And the NFL wouldn't allow any sort of political ad. Liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
Everyone already knows about breast cancer. So why does the NFL have to wear pink on the field? I don't get it. Why don't they just donate money to breast cancer research, talk about it during the game , and even show a special commercial or something about it. Why make people watch men dance around with pink towels hanging from their pants for the whole game?
Everyone already knows about breast cancer. So why does the NFL have to wear pink on the field? I don't get it. Why don't they just donate money to breast cancer research, talk about it during the game , and even show a special commercial or something about it. Why make people watch men dance around with pink towels hanging from their pants on?
It's for breast cancer awareness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
