Posted on 09/21/2017 5:24:04 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota couple's lawsuit challenging a state law for the right to refuse to shoot wedding videos for same-sex couples.
Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis dismissed Carl and Angel Larsen's case Wednesday.
The St. Cloud couple, who own a videography company, Telescope Media Group, sued over a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that bars discrimination by businesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at kstp.com ...
This isn't about pictures. It's about forcing someone to accept the new definition of marriage whether they like it or not.
This is a legal attack against people who do not accept homosexual marriage. It is an effort to force conformity on the nation through legal intimidation. They don't care about the quality of the pictures so long as you are forced to take them.
We can sit here and parse words all day long. The fact is that the owners of the video business gave their reasons for not wanting to cater to homosexuals, and it wasn't artistic differences. It was their faith. But if you want to support a law that says that companies can post notices that clearly state that they won't provide services to gays or Muslims or Blacks or any other protected class based on "artistic differences" then fine. My point is the same - companies should have the right to deny services to anyone so long as they make that clear to begin with be it for "artistic differences" or religious beliefs or any other reason they may have.
And until the contract or order is signed, no manufacturer or service provider should have to state why they refuse to take the work or even consider it. That's an absurd burden.
This isn't about pictures or cakes. It's about forcing subjugation on others. By complying with what they really want, you lose. The nation loses.
I’m not grasping your point here. I don’t recognize that photograph.
Avoiding confrontations with fascists just means that you postpone the eventual confrontation for a bit. It's still coming.
That's what I believe I've been advocating. Allowing companies to choose who they wish to do business with. The only difference as I see it is that they must be open about it, as this video company tried to do. They wanted to post their position regarding same sex marriages. The government refused. If the government allowed it, or even required companies to do it, then it would end all of this social engineering nonsense. It would let the market do its job and allow for no confusion on who is willing to do business with whom. It's not discriminating against homosexuals or Muslims or blacks or any other protected class, it's clearly telling them where their business is welcome.
Why?
It’s the government’s job to dispel “confusion?”
No, I think of it more as promoting honest business practices.
To allow people like the couple in this story to run their business as they wish.
I disagree with the premise that a public business can deny service to those who are not some kind of legitimate health or safety concern.
If they close their doors and become a “members only” type business, then they can deny service to whoever doesn’t sign on to their club restrictions.
Otherwise, it is destructive of public order to deny service for race, creed, etc. that is not legitimately based on health or safety.
Do it by commsission or contract, and the interests of the artist or skilled craftsman becomes the issue.
these Christian businesses in leftist Sodomite towns should think ahead to preempt the potential setup with a new business model prominently posted IN WRITING to all customers that all of our products and services are presented to honor God and in this effort, all our products will include a Bible verse of our choosing. No exceptions to this policy and no business is refused.
As a baker...ALL of the wedding cakes we make have a bible verse on them, of our choosing. “One man, one woman” ...maybe
As a photographer...ALL wedding videos and still photos are watermarked at the bottom with a bible verse of our choosing.
I would call it part of our Christian business plan and one that we will not make exceptions for. It is part of the product. We We’ll make your cake, or take the photos, or arrange the flowers, they WILL have a bible verse on EVERY product we make. It is our business promise AND PRODUCT.
Jesus reached out to sinners and such a business could also, while steadfastly holding to and not comprising truth.
Problem solved.
Uh huh. If a company and a customer never actually do any “business,” how can there be any “dishonesty” involved?
Then you believe the government is right in sanctioning the videography business in question? Their reason for denying service was religious and not safety or health. What about gun shops and firing ranges who post signs saying no Muslims are allowed? Should the government continue to force them to allow Muslim patrons? Legitimate reasons are sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Do it by commsission or contract, and the interests of the artist or skilled craftsman becomes the issue.
How does turning down a wedding because it's a same sex couple qualify as a "legitimate health or safety concern"?
Do you think it's the government's job to punish those who you think are "bigots."
If a business clearly states whom they will serve and whom they will not then how can their be any business misunderstanding? If I go into a shop and they tell me that they do not serve red-headed women then I've wasted my time and theirs. If they clearly state that they do not serve red-headed women then I know better than to try and do business there to begin with. Isn't that a better way?
I don't think I've called anyone a bigot and I don't agree your use of it in this case, but since you did use that term then why shouldn't the government protect a person's right to be a bigot if they choose? The only difference is that you think they should keep their feelings a secret until the last moment while I believe they should make their position known ahead of time.
And since we’re winning in court with our current argument, then we shouldn’t adapt strategy and take an incremental win until the nature of the courts or the culture changes. All or nothing.
What's wrong with "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason?" Why does the business owner have an obligation to make your search for a service provider trouble-free? He has already invested his time and property in establishing his business. He owes you nothing more at that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.