An odd legal case-Only in America??

This is typical continent stuff, you all seem to be nuts. 😀

1. What if the couple instead of being of the same sex but were of different ethnica color groups? Would the private enterprise have the right to refuse service?

Yes, it's a private enterprise they can refuse whatever they want, legally. In the UK at least we can always refuse a sale at any point, her services are classed as a sale, so she can refuse at any point for any reason.

2. If it were a pharmacy or doctor who disagreed on the perscription or treatment based on religious beliefs, would they have the right to refuse medicine or treatment?

No, because as a Doctor or Pharmacist you are legally obliged to be neutral (to an extent, this thread is no place to be discussing this bit).

3. To what extent is the practice of a faith harmful to others and should individuals be allowed to use particular issues of faith as an excuse to perform or not to perform in commercial transactions?

First of, is faith the same as religion? I don't think so, but for my argument I'll say it is. In which case faith is only harmful if you count all the wars it starts, probably about 400 a day (I made that figure up 😉 ) and individuals should not be allowed to use it as an excuse for anything which they seem to do all the time, because God says they can.

The thing is, isn't it about time we all started to use 'common sense'? I understand it's not so common anymore but come on, really, this is all too barmy for words. Political correctness, religious people shoving beliefs down my throat on the way to work, lawyers getting rich for nothing, everyone getting pi$$ed off for no good reason, everyone scared of everything but they don't know why. Can't we all just get along, if you don't agree with somebody, or don't like them, don't deal with them - simple.

I'm short, ginger, fat, losing my hair and have a hugely inflated right hand but I don't use that as an excuse to get farty with people.

Edit: As for the discrimination thing, that's nonsense - sorry but it is. Surely by filing a lawsuit against the lawn firm you are discriminating against the religious beliefs they hold dear? We don't all agree with each other, lets all file lawsuits!
 
Last edited:
Larky said:
As for the discrimination thing, that's nonsense
Click to expand...
I beg to differ.
Discrimination is the whole point here.
It's fine to refuse a job by saying "no".
It is discrimination to say "no, because you're a *insert race, religion, gender, orientation etc. here*."
If, as implied, the photographer said "no, because you're homosexual" that's discrimination. And the photographer should be called on it.
 
But again, if it's her religious belief than to call her up on it is to discriminate against those beliefs - however absurd they appear to others.
 
Last edited:
So, if a homosexual and a heterosexual are about to be hit by a truck and you could save both but decide not to save the homosexual and save only the heterosexual, that would be OK? Choosing not to do something is not much different in effect than choosing to DO something.

BTW some (if not all) denominations of Islam also have prohibitions against homosexuality. So Ducky's question is moot. I understand where he's coming from and this case is NOT a case of anti-christian bias.
 
Last edited:
Larky said:
But again, if it's her religious belief than to call her up on it is to discriminate against those beliefs - however absurd they appear to others.

If I choose to not do something because I don't like somebody, that's fine. Where is the difference?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The interesting question is why religious beliefs (of any religion) are exempt from analysis or criticism.

Where, after all, s the difference between "I think you're a [insert racist, homophobic, gender-oriented or religious insult here]" and "I think you're a [insert racist, homophobic, gender-oriented or religious insult here] BECAUSE GOD TOLD ME YOU ARE"?

I am of a generation to whom racist, etc., insults came easily: at school, to cheat someone was to jew them (no capital letter) and my Latin master once said, "You have to remember that Caesar wasn't fighting white men; it was nigs, wogs and fuzzy-wuzzies". I have always thought of the latter as a brilliantly anti-racist statement, seeing he was talking about the invasion of England at the time; he was demonstrating the way that invaders always dehumanize 'gooks' and the like, except that we didn't have 'gooks' in those days.

No, I don't like political correctness, and there is no doubt it is often overplayed. But I prefer today's attitudes to the nickname bestowed, without much thought, on my schoolfellow 'Coon' Jones (real nickname, not real surname), who was suspected of having, in the phrase of the day, 'a lick of the tar-brush'.

This whole argument rings to the sound of Points Being Made, each side maintaining that it is Right, rather than trying to get on with anyone.

Cheers,

R.
 
Which right is more important here:
The couple's right to be in a same-sex relationship, or the photographers right to adhere to the tenets of her religion.
The counter-suits could go on... ad nauseum. By taking it to court they are impinging upon the photographers right to practice her particular religion. Of course, this whole argument will go on and on, and frankly, stuff like this bores the hell out of me. Within reason let people do whatever they want to do. If you don't like it, suck it up. If she can afford to pass up on the money, that is her call. Maybe she just didn't like them as people?
 
If the photographer has held himself out to the

If the photographer has held himself out to the

public for hire as wedding photographer, then the couple in question has every right and should sue if the union was lawful. It has been proven time and time again that people of different faiths, beliefs, ethnic backgrounds and skin colors will not treat each other fairly if not forced to do so by the government. Refer to the civil war, and various protests in this country for illustration. As the original poster said (somewhat derisively,) "Only in America"? I wish that were not true. I wish people of all nations had the right to fight for fair treatment.
 
It's still discrimmination if you say no but make up an alternate excuse, it's just not provable.
It's obvious the holier-than-thou owners wanted to discrimminate, and more importantly wanted the couple to know why they were turned down, so I have little sympathy for them.
 
Why should they have to make up an excuse? Do the homosexual couple make up excuses for the union? No, they don't have to. Should the photographer have to? No.

As sweathog said, suck it up people.
 
Hmm. Change 'photographer' for, say, 'shop owner' or 'bus conductor' and it takes on a different light.

I agree that, by stating their reasons for not taking the job, the photog was obviously after a fight.

Cheers
Jamie
 
If that were the case.....

If that were the case.....

The Muslim would be subject to any law applicable in the jursdiction. Although, the issue might get a little hairy considering the fearful pandering to Muslims that's now taking place especially in Europe.

Ducky said:
Good discussion so far.

Let's add this:

In the US, if the photographer had been Muslum and said no for the same reason would the situation had been different?
Click to expand...
 
jamiewakeham said:
Hmm. Change 'photographer' for, say, 'shop owner' or 'bus conductor' and it takes on a different light.

I agree that, by stating their reasons for not taking the job, the photog was obviously after a fight.

Cheers
Jamie
Click to expand...

"In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees."

Looks to me like the gay couple were the ones spoiling for a fight. By the way , just how many requests do most photographers get to shoot a gay union? Does anyone really think this lawsuit would change anything? If you don't believe in something like this you'll just find another way to avoid it dealing with it. I'm not personally against gay relationships but I also respect the rights of someone with religious beliefs who oppose it to refuse the work., and maybe they only stated the reason for refusal when asked.
 
Jack,

Read Jamie's comment (#34). It really couldn't be more clear than that.
Imagine you're black, it's 1960 in the south.
Remember back then, it was OK in some places in the US to refuse service in a restaurant?

This case isn't about someone's religious beliefs. This is nothing but unabashed hatred and bigotry. And that should not go unpunished.
 
This is no different then refusing service to someone at your lunch counter because they are black. You discriminate--you broke the law. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Call me. I will shoot your wedding.
 
A thought that has just occurred to me.

"I'm sorry, I don't personally approve of same-sex relationships, so I don't think I could do a good job."

This illustrates, I suspect, the way that both sides may have been looking for a fight. Would you WANT someone to shoot your wedding if they had already told you they didn't want to? And would you want to photograph a couple whom you loathed, regardless of reason? Suppose a heterosexual couple were staging a wedding with a neo-nazi theme: would you want to photograph that, unless you were either a neo-nazi or a photojournalist with a strong eye for the curious?

I'm not defending homophobia or racism or anything of the kind; I'm just suggesting that there must have been a fair amount of background, on one side or the other or both, before this story made the news.

Cheers,

R.
 
It's certainly a case of discrimination on the photographer's side. I simply deplore the couple took that approach.

On the other hand, I can understand their feeling insulted.

Sad world in which we live... Although I'm glad this discussion can take place here. I wouldn't go to any other forum if I wanted some high-level, critical and thoughtful comments about this case.
 
Well, if they really do appeal the case all the way up the legal food chain, most likely the defendants will win. The reason is written here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

The Supreme court usually backs that amendment against all other considerations, like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom