DOMA unconstitutional (5-4); Court punts on gay marriage (no standing)

And the First Amendment too, I'm guessing.

 

Yeah, but the First Amendment doesn't protect a church against laws that apply to everyone. For example, the peyote case.

 

First off, it was a woman photographer. And she was asked to photograph a wedding/ceremony/what-have-you (New Mexico, ironically, doesn't have same-sex marriage). That was all. This was no hotel/restaurant/etc., but rather an individual being treated as a "place of public accommodation."

 

Michele Bachmann:

“No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman.” She said the court action “will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.”

 

OK, it was a she. Doesn't change the point.

What she does as an individual is separate from what she does in her business, as far as I'm concerned, and that doesn't change because it's a one-WOman operation. Should she be allowed to refuse to shoot a birthday party because the family is black?

 

No society? I think Michelle will find there are a number of societies where gay marriage is perfectly legal. But I look forward to her move to outlaw divorce, which many of us here would attest tends to end up not being in the best interests of children who happen to be involved.

 

What if it was a Nazi themed wedding?

What if a gay photographer didn't want to work a Christian conservative wedding, because he/she thought the participants were homophobic?

 

We all knew this ruling would lead to this:

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/baseball-players-i-can-now-and-would-marry/

 

She's operating a business. Why shouldn't she be subject to laws?

 

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh can afford a quality photographer.

 

Well, I certainly think so. Photography is, like writing or sculpture or what have you, a personal and expressive act.