Photographer sued for refusing service

[jwbryson1]

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?

Hey! I PAID for that service!! Whoa! Wait...what? :smileys:

 

[NikonDude]

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?

What ever happen to "right to refuse service"?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Nothing.
Gay people are after the same LEGAL rights marriage brings. They will have sex whether they are married or not. Just like straight people do.

 

[480sparky77 76]

No. Because pedophiles are not a legally protected class.

So he should sue the government because he's being discriminated against.

 

[NikonDude]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone? Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

This is completely false, homosexual activity is well do***ented in nature at times when overpopulation is a threat, and in some cases spontaneously or even socially. Animals as close to us as canines engage in homosexual activities. While most would conclude that this is some sort of dominance ritual, it is nonetheless homosexual, and could just as easily be argued that this "dominance" hypothesis is anthropometric in interpretation.

Animal's don't know any better. We do. That's a terrible argument. Why don't we all just poop on the floor? After all, animals do it!

 

[sm4him]

The betting is now open for how many comments this thread can get before it gets locked.

 

[NikonDude]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Nothing.
Gay people are after the same LEGAL rights marriage brings. They will have sex whether they are married or not. Just like straight people do.

Buzz. Wrong!

Look up the word marriage in the dictionary.

The social institution under ​

which

a man and woman establish their ​

decision

to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.​

 

[mjhoward]

don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****

"He's right! It's the same thing with the femenists. You know, they want everything to be equal, everything! But when the check comes, where are they?" - George Costanza

 

[yerlem]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

You have every right not to like them, just as much as I don't like homophobes like you. You cannot, however, deny their rights, just as I cannot deny yours.
I don't care what each individual thinks about gay people, it's not the point. Homosexuals may not be able to naturally reproduce, that bit is right. Marriage, however, is a legal binding contract, and it is not "natural" per se.
Furthermore, there is evidence that implies homosexuality has a genetic factor. Would that make it ok in your eyes, then? would that make it natural? I don't give a flying **** anyways, the point here is that gay people pay their taxes and should be able to get married. Ans yes, you may never see that, but fortunately humanity evolves and people like you eventually dies. Or at least learns to shut up about it.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Nothing.
Gay people are after the same LEGAL rights marriage brings. They will have sex whether they are married or not. Just like straight people do.

Buzz. Wrong!

Look up the word marriage in the dictionary.

The social institution under ​

which

a man and woman establish their ​

decision

to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.​

.

 

[mjhoward]

I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry.

I know! They should have to suffer like the rest of us!

(I'd like to point out that I'm only kidding in case my wife is reading this)

 

[tirediron]

Okay, okay... we're starting to swerve here. I think this is a potentially worthwhile debate, BUT we have keep things on the [reasonably] straight and narrow.... 'kay? Thanks!

 

[unpopular]

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?

What ever happen to "right to refuse service"?

Because people like you abused it. They used religion to deny services to blacks, Jews and now homosexuals.

As for animals knowing better, you said "nature" so I pointed to nature. If you're going to use the unnatural argument, then you have to assume we're a part of it, no different than any other animal only that our ecology is unique. But it's not the role of government to establish what is and is not 'natural' anyway, but rather what activities violate the rights of others. Laws against gays are laws which are designed to limit rights, not protect them.

 

[yerlem]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Nothing.
Gay people are after the same LEGAL rights marriage brings. They will have sex whether they are married or not. Just like straight people do.

Buzz. Wrong!

Look up the word marriage in the dictionary.

The social institution under ​

which

a man and woman establish their ​

decision

to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.​

yes, and the word salary comes from salt, would you like your next costumer to pay you in NaCl?

 

[Overread41]

lets NOT bring pedo arguments into this shall we - since they fast end up with things getting silly and then locked.



As for the situation I'm of two minds. Firstly discrimination should not be something that is allowed to take part through the population and through the legal system as a whole for activities which don't cause harm (that's the best I can get into once sentance without writing a full essay on activities which should remain illegal).

That said I feel that a person providing any personal service, be it photographs, food, car repairs - should be totally free to choose who they do and do no do business with. Just as they should be free to hire who they feel is suited to the job at hand. This, of course, should not extend to government services which should always provide their service to any who wish to partake in them (in short a church can refuse to marry you, but the government cannot refuse to offer you a marital status/couple status).


That said I do understand the need to somewhat break some old traditions/conceptions and that the use of no-discrimination clauses can be used to help ease former discriminated groups into the general working of society (or at least speed up their acceptance in the working and social environment).