Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

The caterer is providing a service to the participants in the wedding.

The reporter is standing aside the event, metaphorically, and providng a service to his readers. He's not actively servicing the event.

 

Yes, because it's the product they're refusing to sell, not the person they're refusing to sell it to.

 

You realize that a wedding caterer doesn't just drop off the food, right?

They attend the reception, and serve the food.

Fuck, there are people who would decline to attend a gay wedding as guests. Maybe that should be illegal.

 

OMG. That's the argument the bakers in the case of the gay wedding are making!

Watch the video that TSP just posted.

They declined to make a specific cake. It's custom. It's designed by the customer, in consultation with the decorator, and then executed by the decorator.

No one is saying you can't buy a cake out of the case, and bring it to your wedding reception.

 

But the reporter also is providing a service to the participants by giving it a wider audience to view its event.

 

Scenario A: Westboro Baptist asks a gay photographer to photograph an event it is having.

Scenario B: A gay couple asks a photographer who is a member of the Westboro Baptist community to photograph their wedding

Strange that, apparently, in only one of these scenarios are fundamental rights at stake.

 

I think that the key difference is that that service is incidental to the reporter's purpose in being there, while the caterer's service of the wedding is the core purpose of his presence.

 

There will soon be a fundamental right to marriage for gay people.

I don't think that there will soon be a fundamental right to the cake of their choosing, though.

 

Part of the problem for me is that these photographers almost certainly took photos of weddings that their faith would historically claim is morally objectionable. They may have taken photos of weddings that weren't expressly - gasp - Christian.

And if you're going to take photos of those weddings, then it's pretty precious to claim a religious exemption on the one type of wedding that's conveniently a political football.

I doubt the veracity and depth of the exercise of religion, to be honest. Always have in that case. But if it's that big of a conscience killer to them, stop advertising your services and seek out your own commissions from patrons. Don't run a business.

 

That's what I say, too.

You don't have a right to own a photography or catering business.

If you can't perform this job within the social/legal mores of 2015 in the United States, find another one.

 

Except the Indiana law was designed so that a cake maker could refuse to provide a cake for a gay couple when they were providing a similar cake for a heterosexual couple.

The cake maker can decline to make a dick cake for a gay bachelor party if they also decline to make a cake of a woman's breasts for a hetereosexual bachelor party. But if they make one, then they have to make the other, or they would be considered to be discriminating.

The same as if they make a cake with a male-female bride and groom topping, then they can be considered to be discriminating, whether legal or not depending on the state, if they refuse to do a male-male or female-female topping.

 

But they're not in the ceremony. Hence my reporter example. Reporter covers game. They attend the game. They are not participating in the game.