But if the Brussel Sprouts have to be eaten, will you go find someone to eat them?

Originally Posted by senojekips

I don't like Brussel Sprouts. I will not eat them.

Is that discriminatory?

You'll eat them until you like them.

I happen to love Brussel sprouts, but I don't make others eat them, and if I didn't like them I wouldn't go out of my way to talk about how disgusting they are.

If someone came to me and asked me to eat brussel sprouts (let's assume I don't like them) I'd say I don't care for them but I'll tell you someone who does...

Mummm!! TOG and Pixie are pickin' on me,...... That's discriminatory.

Jus' you wait 'til my big brother gets home!!!

What sort of cruel and inhuman animal would make a kid eat Brussel Sprouts.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Mummm!! TOG and Pixie are pickin' on me,...... That's discriminatory.

Jus' you wait 'til my big brother gets home!!!

What sort of cruel and inhuman animal would make a kid eat Brussel Sprouts.

I like fresh Brussel Sprouts, but after a couple of weeks in the refrigerator, they stink like crap when cooked. I like broccoli and cauliflower too. Maybe I am weird. Oh I almost forgot fried okra - yummy yummy!

So far as the original post topic goes, I think that there is no justification for attack dog tactics being used by any group to force a behavior upon a person whose beliefs are offended by a demand to PERFORM an act. A valid response is to instead picket them or boycott them or both, but not to sue them. The courts are not the place to legislate changes of behavior, but rather the local government. If a law is passed locally to forbid an action, THEN the courts have a mandate to enforce a law. But judicial interpretation of laws to stretch beyond the intent of the legislature is very BAD. Forcing someone to PERFORM an act is very different from forcing someone NOT to perform an act. Doesn't that make sense?



Lonnie Courtney Clay

Originally Posted by claylc

I like fresh Brussel Sprouts, but after a couple of weeks in the refrigerator, they stink like crap when cooked. I like broccoli and cauliflower too. Maybe I am weird. Oh I almost forgot fried okra - yummy yummy!

So far as the original post topic goes, I think that there is no justification for attack dog tactics being used by any group to force a behavior upon a person whose beliefs are offended by a demand to PERFORM an act. A valid response is to instead picket them or boycott them or both, but not to sue them. The courts are not the place to legislate changes of behavior, but rather the local government. If a law is passed locally to forbid an action, THEN the courts have a mandate to enforce a law. But judicial interpretation of laws to stretch beyond the intent of the legislature is very BAD. Forcing someone to PERFORM an act is very different from forcing someone NOT to perform an act. Doesn't that make sense?

Lonnie Courtney Clay

As I said, no where does the bible forbid taking photos of gay people. It only forbids homosexual sex.

Secondly you do not have the right to discriminate regardless what you personal beliefs are. Thats the one caveat about the Constitution. Your rights no not allow guerenteed if they infringe the against the rights of another.

The 14th Amendment guerentees for equal protection under the law for everyone. Discrimination by its very nature infers an inequality among people., therefore discrimination is illegal.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Thats the one caveat about the Constitution. Your rights no not allow guerenteed if they infringe the against the rights of another.

So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.

Originally Posted by senojekips

So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.

The "discrimination" content of the Constitution is a recent add-on which has not passed the test of time. It leads to a legalistic merry go round as senojekips said:
1) Any action which is not forbidden by law is compulsory.
2) Any action which is not compulsory by law is forbidden.
3) Lawyers in our society will be very happy since these preceding two clauses will make them wealthy. There will be so many inconsistent laws and regulations passed that nobody will be able to understand the law and everyone will be vulnerable to legal prosecution except government employees.

Which is where we are today. I call for a Constitutional Convention to rationalize the situation! I expressly desire that no member of the CC shall be trained in law! That way a consensus of common sense MIGHT prevail.



Lonnie Courtney Clay

Originally Posted by senojekips

So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.

The turning point in this instance is not the photographers right to refuse service it is in the reason for refusing it.
- If they were declined because the photographer didn't want to do the job then its perfectly fine.
- If they were declined because they were gay then the photographer has lost his case.

The process is a lot simpler than people are making out here, in the end if the photographers were smart they would just say that they didn't want the job because they had other plans for those days but I can almost guarantee that should they roll out religion and fight this on some "pseudo-moral" stance they will lose.

this story is rediculous. I remember seeing it on Fox last week. This is one of those things where the photographer should have just said she was "busy" that day. But now the liberal A-holes have accomplished in screwing her. What a pain in the butt. Such as waist of court time.