mmarsh

Its discriminatory and here's why:

All the Bible does is state that ACT of Homosexuality is a sin. It DOES NOT actually forbid Christians from serving gays, it just forbids same sex couples from committing acts of homosexuality. Incidentally, in the same paragraph it also forbids divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating meat on Fridays and a slew of other things. Do the plaintiffs refuse photograph people who have divorced? My guess is no. The fact that they are picking on the 1 group while ignoring the rest of what the bible says proves that they are in fact choosing to selectively discriminate against gays.

And while we are on the subject of sin. Christianity also says "hate the sin love the sinner", (learn to forgive people) "Vengence is mine" (only God can Judge) and "For he whi is not in sin cast the first stone". (We are all in boat so don't Judge others). But of course self-anointed "Christians" such as these always seem to forget these annoying details of the bible. Christianity is about love, and all I see from these people is hate. Its very convient to edit out the parts of the bible we don't like, its just not honest.

Its exactly like the Islamic cases of the Islamic grocer who sued his employer because he refused to handle alcohol. The Koran on blocks the CONSUMTION of alcohol, but it doesnt say anything about handling it.

Therefore the defendants cannot claim that the forcing to photograph a gay couple violates their 1st Amendment rights, they are however violating the 14th Amendment rights of the plantiff of Eual Protection under the law.

The only exception to this if they were freelance photographers, as MontyB stated you cannot force a person to do a job. But if it was a place of business that refused to serve because the clients were gay, then they are violating those people constitution rights, which by the way SUPERCEEDS a persons religious rights. Its no different than than a business that refuse to serve a black man. (And yes southern whites inthe 1950's did try to justify segregation/Discrimination by race by the bible as well). The constitution is clear that a persons constutional rights do not extend to infriging the constitutional rights of another. Ergo, you cannot claim the right to violate a persons 14th Amendment rights because of of your own 1st Amendment rights.

__________________
"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch

I get this question a lot. I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work for the Paris Office of a International company.