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

Sorry for the minor threadjack here, but that last point is VERY questionable. Sometimes living with a couple in a bad marriage is worse for the children than having two single parents. I speak from personal experience on this one. To my brother and I, our parents' divorce was a relief.

 

No we don't sign away your individuality or our consciences when we enter the commercial world; just the ability to violate applicable laws. If you don't like those laws, you can find different business or occupation.

 

I would so name my band Creditibility in the Dark.

 

One good hypocrisy deserves another, and this board should change its name to Hypocrites.com.

 

http://www.the-hypocrites.com/

 

Would it be OK, according to your views, for her to refuse to shoot an interracial marriage, or let's say it was black couple, as part of her business?

 

It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the conservative counties in California with this ruling. No one is quite sure the court's decision on Prop 8 is a sweeping strike down, a specific strike down or if the law is still good but the state can't enforce it.

In 2007/2008 time frame, the County Clerk in Kern County disappeared right after the State Supreme Court rejected the gay marriage ban the first time. Basically she refused to let anyone get a license in Kern County because she didn't want allow same sex couples to get marriage licenses. California law allows you to get a license from in any county regardless of residence, unless you don't want your marriage to be public record. But Kern is a huge county and having to drive to Fresno, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Kings or another county is kind of a hassle.

There's going to be an interesting fight over the next six months and we'll probably be back in front of the SCOTUS in 2018 awaiting a second ruling on Prop 8.

 

Why not refuse to shop at her business? No, that wouldn't work, because you hypocritical hatemongers want blood.

 

The Seinfeld episode where Jerry attempts to return the jacket and cites "spite" as the reason. The clerk refuses, saying they don't accept spite as a reason for returns. He then says he just doesn't like it, but the clerk says, "you already said spite."

So, a photographer could refuse a job because they think the couple are assholes, because the date or location doesn't work for them, or because they don't share the same artistic vision. But, the moment he/she says (or thinks) that the their homosexuality makes them uncomfortable, it breaks the law.

I guess it's not unlike housing discrimination laws. They send in a black couple, and they are told nothing is available, or the apartment advertised has already been rented. Then they send in a white couple, and suddenly their are availabilities, and the unit is still available.

So, are we going to start running stings on wedding photographers?

 

From now on, I won't call a liberal a liberal. They'll be hypocrites.

 

Sure the hypocrites are. They'll become the world's largest thought police, putting even the KGB to shame.

 

Prop 8 was already struck down in the 9th Circuit. Opponents will try to fight it on the grounds the ruling to overturn Prop 8 only applied to the couple who brought the suit.