Meanwhile, back in Kansas...

[pErvinalia]

It's interesting to consider that the Phelps lot protesting military funerals is a case of them interfering with the right of others to practice their religion. Funerals are generally a religious service (probably particularly so in the US).

[JimC]

It's interesting to consider that the Phelps lot protesting military funerals is a case of them interfering with the right of others to practice their religion. Funerals are generally a religious service (probably particularly so in the US).

Is just holding up hateful anti-gay placards along the route of a funeral procession interfering in the real sense of the word?

It's being an utter arsehole, sure...

[Seth]

The US Justice System would be feeble indeed if it couldn't dispose of assertions and questions of free religious exercise contrary to civil or criminal law.
A certain Colorado judge outlines one standard and its thresholds in a recent decision:

(“It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention
of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin”)

The judge is correct but you're making a mistake if you think that the law is settled in favor of either gays or secularism. As the quote from your quote shows, a balancing of rights is often necessary, and that's what the courts (and state legislatures) are for. The question here is to what extent forced participation in commerce with persons engaged in activities that are completely antithetical to one's deeply-held religious beliefs is constitutional. It's anything but settled law I'm afraid, as the legislative efforts in Kansas, Arizona and several other states amply demonstrate.

[Seth]

It's interesting to consider that the Phelps lot protesting military funerals is a case of them interfering with the right of others to practice their religion. Funerals are generally a religious service (probably particularly so in the US).

Is just holding up hateful anti-gay placards along the route of a funeral procession interfering in the real sense of the word?

No, it's not according to the courts. It's lawful free speech. Of course these days organized groups are gathering at such funerals to keep the WBC idiots far enough away from the services to help prevent disruption.

It's being an utter arsehole, sure...

Yes, it is. It's kinda like forcing a Christian wedding photographer to photograph a gay wedding against her will....

[Seth]

Religion has special status. And like all good bullshit stories, it changes over time. It shits me it has special status.

Welcome to "democracy" rEv.

Edit: And thank your lucky stars that you weren't born in Iran, where you would be bowing and scraping five times a day whether you believe or not.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it doesn't overstep it's mark here in the West.

By the way, since you aren't commenting in other threads on the forum lately, you might have missed that I know a secret about you. I expect much baksheesh from you to withhold going public with this information.

You may think you know something about me, but I doubt you do. But I'll be glad to deliver your baksheesh, just tell me where you are....

[pErvinalia]

It's interesting to consider that the Phelps lot protesting military funerals is a case of them interfering with the right of others to practice their religion. Funerals are generally a religious service (probably particularly so in the US).

Is just holding up hateful anti-gay placards along the route of a funeral procession interfering in the real sense of the word?

It's being an utter arsehole, sure...

Don't they shout and chant while the service is going on? I hope some crazy military type shoots the lot of them one day.

[pErvinalia]

By the way, since you aren't commenting in other threads on the forum lately, you might have missed that I know a secret about you. I expect much baksheesh from you to withhold going public with this information.

You may think you know something about me, but I doubt you do. But I'll be glad to deliver your baksheesh, just tell me where you are....

I'm clever in some arts. And you should have realised I would discover this secret of yours. You can worship me for a week here on this forum, and I won't tell a soul. At least one post a day telling everyone how awesome you think rEv is.

[Seth]

By the way, since you aren't commenting in other threads on the forum lately, you might have missed that I know a secret about you. I expect much baksheesh from you to withhold going public with this information.

You may think you know something about me, but I doubt you do. But I'll be glad to deliver your baksheesh, just tell me where you are....

I'm clever in some arts. And you should have realised I would discover this secret of yours. You can worship me for a week here on this forum, and I won't tell a soul. At least one post a day telling everyone how awesome you think rEv is.

You should PM me to verify the veracity of your information, then we'll talk about baksheesh and it's delivery.

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Why am I thinking Spy vs Spy in the old Mad comics?

Which one has the black hat, though?

[JimC]

It's interesting to consider that the Phelps lot protesting military funerals is a case of them interfering with the right of others to practice their religion. Funerals are generally a religious service (probably particularly so in the US).

Is just holding up hateful anti-gay placards along the route of a funeral procession interfering in the real sense of the word?

No, it's not according to the courts. It's lawful free speech. Of course these days organized groups are gathering at such funerals to keep the WBC idiots far enough away from the services to help prevent disruption.

It's being an utter arsehole, sure...

Yes, it is. It's kinda like forcing a Christian wedding photographer to photograph a gay wedding against her will....

Interesting example, which I doubt would ever happen in real life. People planning weddings, straight or gay, want them to be happy affairs. An atmosphere of sullen tension from a wedding photographer dragooned into assisting "perverts" to marry each other would not be a good thing - in such situations, people will choose simpatico people...

Having said that, I would oppose legal censure on a wedding photographer who refused an (unlikely) commission at a gay wedding. He or she has a fairly primary role in the proceedings, and should not be forced to directly assist their ceremony; in the same way, I'm perfectly OK with a church refusing to conduct a gay wedding, as long as they don't think they have the right to oppose a civil wedding of the same couple...

The examples I would have a problem with are everyday sales and services, which do not have a direct role in supporting or abetting gays or gay marriage. For example, if the only mechanic in town refused to service the car of the town's gay couple...

Also, if a government official who needed to issue a marriage certificate (or something similar) in a place where gay marriage is permitted by law should not have the ability to refuse to perform his duty for private religious reasons; if he has an issue, he should get another job...

[MrJonno]

Interesting example, which I doubt would ever happen in real life. People planning weddings, straight or gay, want them to be happy affairs. An atmosphere of sullen tension from a wedding photographer dragooned into assisting "perverts" to marry each other would not be a good thing - in such situations, people will choose simpatico people...

Depends on whether your principles are more important than a happy wedding day.
If the camera man acted in sullen way you can then sue the shit out of him and he will no longer be a camera man.

I fully support bigot hunting where you use the law to make bigots as uncomfortable (as as broke) as you can.

With the case of the hotel where they refused to allow gay guests in the same room, I would hope every gay person in the area specifically chose that hotel to stay in until either the hotel owners just get used to it or just shut down the hotel. Either option is fine by me

[Seth]

Interesting example, which I doubt would ever happen in real life. People planning weddings, straight or gay, want them to be happy affairs. An atmosphere of sullen tension from a wedding photographer dragooned into assisting "perverts" to marry each other would not be a good thing - in such situations, people will choose simpatico people...

Depends on whether your principles are more important than a happy wedding day.
If the camera man acted in sullen way you can then sue the shit out of him and he will no longer be a camera man.

Actually, you can't. The law says the photographer can't refuse to take photographs, it says nothing about what or how he makes the photographs or what his attitude is while he makes them. She can mutter "fucking faggots" every time she snaps the shutter if she wants, that's her right of free speech. She can appear at the ceremony in a Westboro Baptist Church "God Hates Fags" tee-shirt if she wants. She can fart loudly right in the middle of the vows if she wants to. So long as she takes photographs she's fulfilled her obligation under the law. Nothing in the law requires her to adhere to someone else's notions of decorum. The photographer should give them a lot of photos of shoes and grass and floor and tell them it's her "artistic expression" of their wedding and then make them pay the bill anyway.

And a baker could make them a cake that looks like a pile of shit festooned with biblical injunctions against homosexuality and likewise justifiably state that it's his artistic expression.

And the redneck neo-nazi bar owner can festoon his premises with nazi memorabilia and swastikas and stare at the black man sitting at his bar and proclaim his hatred of the Negro race to everyone in the bar and so long as he serves the black man the beer he requested he's within his rights.

That's pretty much the core issue here. There's a distinction between a merchant selling a gay person some off-the-shelf item he stocks without refusing to do so and a gay person dragooning a creative artist into creating art on behalf of the gay person's beliefs against the artist's wishes.

You may be able to force the baker to bake a cake, but you can't force him to express your artistic ideas.

If you don't like the artist's interpretation, don't buy a cake or order photographs from him/her.

And you can't force a merchant to be polite to you. He can be a "soup nazi" as much as he likes so long as he's an equal-opportunity soup nazi.

[Seth]

Yes, it is. It's kinda like forcing a Christian wedding photographer to photograph a gay wedding against her will....

Interesting example, which I doubt would ever happen in real life. People planning weddings, straight or gay, want them to be happy affairs. An atmosphere of sullen tension from a wedding photographer dragooned into assisting "perverts" to marry each other would not be a good thing - in such situations, people will choose simpatico people...

Um... it DID happen. In New Mexico. The case went to the New Mexico Supreme Court and the photographer lost...at the state level.

[MrJonno]

You leave your personal morality (religious or not) at the door when you do any work, most of us have to do things in our jobs we don't agree with tough shit. No employer can force you to do anything that is illegal but it can force you do something you find morally repulsive