I didn't say the judge made the ruling based on emotion. The judge had to choose between the rights of a photographer to choose what events are in the interest of the business and which aren't, and two people who were hiring a photographer.

If a gay couple can demand the photographer's business simply because he is a photographer, then the judge can't claim any interest in the rights of anyone who isn't gay. It's not a matter of "sources" or case law or anything else.  If members of "protected groups" can make this kind of demand on businesses, then discrimination is once again the law of the land.

Actually that is the nut of it. By saying the gay couple's rights were violated, he in essence said the photographer has no rights. A very dangerous precedent.

 

Actually, what the judge had to decide was whether the photographer's business was subject to laws governing "public accomodation."  I've only pointed this out about 15 times now...I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.  Judges don't judge whether a law is a good law or not.  They just enforce what's already written because that's what was passed by the representatives in the local congresses that were elected by the people they serve.  Yay for democracy.  When the US becomes a theocracy, perhaps that will change.

 

I have to tell ya, I think the photographer should be able to just say "I don't want anything to do with gay people - it's against my belief system, so get someone else."  That isn't what the law says, however.

Okham:

Yes, you've said it 15 times now. I'm just saying why I disagree with you.

You are saying what a judge is supposed to do, however we both know that isn't what always happens.

It isn't a "theocracy" to recognise the religious rights of a business owner. In fact, the U.S. Constitution demands it.

In this case, the judge discriminated against a business owner. He was wrong for doing it. He told the photographer that he has no rights, and forced him to pay for "costs" when the couple had no costs to cover.

It's called "judicial activism"; something an honest and ethical judge doesn't do. Apparently this judge is neither.

Quite right. I call it Judicial Tyranny.

 

You say you're disagreeing with me, and all I'm doing is saying what the law IS...not that it's right.  And I wouldn't be doing that if you didn't keep implying things about the thoughts and motivations of this judge with no source to back it up.  You have no evidence (that I can find on the net, anyway) to support the claims you make of the judge's motivation.  If there is some, then please let's see it.  If there isn't any, would you mind holding off the malignance towards the guy until you have some proof?

 

 

The settlement was for their legal fees.  This is the source

Thanks Ock for the link. I hadn't seen that update. It seems tho that this doesn't look too good for the lesbian couple and I would think would give them more bad publicity than good.

The only reason, of course, there were costs to begin with was because they felt they had to run to the judge to report this Christian couple for not complying with their wishes. If they had just taken their business elsewhere, there would have been no court costs.

[qutoe]The settlement was for their legal fees.  This is the source [/quote]

The whiners wouldn't have had any legal fees if they did the adult thing and just went to photographers who were willing to accept the job.'

As for the rest, If the judge's judicial activism, of course there isn't a "source", it's not like the judge makes it a point to post his justifications on the net.  Sorry to say, but not everything can be "sourced" on the internet.

My source for why I say he violated the rights of the photographer is the U.S. Constitution.  Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.  Whatever case law the judge could come up with to back his activism is subordinate to the 1st Amendment rights.

If a photographer decided that they were only going to shoot gay events, would that be illegal?

 

 

It's actually a shame that the whole argument is religiously based.  There are lots of cases waiting in the wings that *I* see coming that have nothing to do with religion but where some judge is going to have to rule against a defendant because of the laws in place.

 

My wife's brother used to be a CompUSA exec, and apparently, it's either already happened, or it's in the process of happening, that CompUSA is closing it's doors and going strictly web based.  Now the interesting question is, if CompUSA doesn't include things in their website that makes it possible for blind people to shop there (such as auditory explanations of the products) will they be in violation of public accommodation laws or will they get out of it because it's a website?  Not saying this is a similar case at all...just that it's an interesting subject to consider.

 

I'll be interested to see if the decision holds up to an appeal.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it will because the law is objective, and a badly written law will still be objectively adjudicated.

Yes, don't even get met started on how unconstitutional many of our "public accommodation" laws are. In fact, I'm still trying to find the Constituitonal backing for most of the laws creating "protected groups" of people.

We'll agree to disagree on how well a lot of our judges stick to the laws as they are written. When I hear Supreme Court justices cite "the way they do it in Europe" and the 9th Circus Court of Appeals tell a city that they have no right to stop a guy from sitting in a public park naked, well, sorry, but that tells me that some judges don't give a flying fig about the law, the consitution, rights, or anything other than their pathetic little agendas.

The word is actually INCOMPETENCE.

Where's the line?

As a photographer, can I decide not to shoot a commitment ceremony because I only shoot weddings? Or do I have to do both to offer any services?

What if they wanted to be naked in the photos? Can the photographer say no then? What can you decide as a business owner? Where is the line?

If a law is so vague that one can't tell if they're breaking it, or a law is such that someone's constitutional rights are being infringed on (ie, freedom of religion in this case, while the freedom to receive services from a particular photographer is NOT in the Constitution at all) then the judge needs to strike the law. That's what judicial review is for - not to add new law, but to make sure the law fits with the constitution and can be understood by a reasonable person.