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

yeah, i mean how dumb do you have to be to admit that you're not going to work with someone because they're gay.

make shit up.

 

Markets jump 1 percent as investors consider impact on wedding industry

 

My heart goes out to heterosexuals who think their marriages are now meaningless due to the rulings today.

 

According to her view of the world, however, in which children need to grow up in a "traditional" household, it is. I agree, incidentally, that my parents' divorce was good for all concerned, not least my sister and me. But for all the hand-wringing about the devastation of traditional marriage, you'd think you'd have more efforts to outlaw divorce.

 

Not exactly the same, but they do gripe about no-fault divorce.

 

Of course they can go to another photographer. Just like the gay couple can go to another landlord, one who doesn't mind renting to gay couples, because who would want to rent from someone like that anyway?

All fine and good until you end up somewhere where you all of a sudden can't rent from anyone, etc. "They can go somewhere else" isn't a legal defense against a discrimination claim. You know who else can go somewhere else, or more specifically do something else? The photographer. Don't want to abide by the laws governing business operations? Then don't go into business.

 

Don't remember hearing about any efforts to pass constitutional amendments banning it, though.

 

It wasn't that long ago some states were passing bills to allow covenant marriages, which required pre-wedding counseling and made divorce more difficult to obtain. I don't think many couples opted for them though.

 

Mike Huckabee (who had one of those covenant marriages) tweeted today: "Jesus wept."

In other news, Mike Huckabee makes my skin crawl.

 

It's not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. For starters, who would have thought that a photographer-for-hire would be construed as a "public accommodation"? Here's the New Mexico definition:

It's absolutely not a reach to suppose that a photographer-for-hire would not consider him-/herself an "establishment" that rises to the level of public accommodation. If you have case law to suggest that such an interpretation has long been the case, I am all ears. But I suspect that is a relatively contemporary interpretation. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find that this is the first time an individual engaged in creative works has ever been treated, by the law, as a public accommodation.

Assuming that is the case -- and I repeat that I am open to evidence that it is not -- then our photographer didn't have the choice of "don't go into business," because she found herself in non-compliance after the fact. She could have, at that point, chosen to exit the business. But the financial damage had already been done.

I've been trying all day to find an analogous hypothetical that puts this into a more locally appreciated light. Thankfully I stumbled across this post from "The Volokh Conspiracy":

 

Boy, that looks pretty on-point, dq.

Still think all sides are jerks for not just finding a way around it, but you've swayed me.

 

So, Jesus cries at weddings.

I always thought he was a sensitive guy.