Amen! Social pressure (and darwinism) WILL take care of the rest....

So this first amendment lawyer is calling those who disagree with him "dipshits" who take photos of "nazi weddings" and he wants them to "eat shit an die."

I concur with his conclusion. I don't object to profanity; I use it myself.

But this guy sounds more like an angry blogger than an attorney. Attorneys have a masterful command of the English language and thus the ability to persuade with more nuance. He certainly would not write an appellate brief using the same language.

I offer this to him: write the article, but leave out the crudity. You are better than that.

If I was forced to photograph something I really didn't want to photograph, I'm sure all the pictures would somehow wind up out of focus, with my thumb in the frame, or have the heads out of the frame. All accidentally, of course.
What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports would make you need to force someone to do this? Is there suddenly a shortage of photographers? Do you think if a person is forced to do something they really, really don't want to do that they are going to do any more than a half-assed job? I know it's stupid to refuse to do it because you object to gay marriage, but it's TWICE as stupid to try to FORCE THEM TO DO IT ANYWAY!!!!
I lament the future of the world. Evidently, intelligence is a constant, and the population is increasing.

I remember a while back a couple asked a friend who was a talented hobby photographer to photogrpgh their wedding, for free. When the photos turned out to be not so great, they sued him and asked for the cost of the wedding!

Weddings and the constant need for more professional and expensive services drive people nuts. (I just googled "average cost of wedding" and got an answer of: On average, US couples spend $25,656 for their wedding. However, the majority of couples spend between $19,242 and $32,070. This does not include cost for a honeymoon.

Insane.

What Nick said. The author's own hateful speech completely undermines his own argument.

Amy, please tell me you posted this for the entertainment value of the way the argument was posed, and not because she thinks that kind of language against believers is useful or warranted. Believers deserve common courtesy and respect just like everyone else.

the way that is presented in the times... you have to take all comers... you couldn't turn down work by saying "I don;t like you."

That the original photographer told the truth in a guile-less way, will certainly help them realize their error...

You CAN'T tell the truth. You have to be busy that day, or out of the country, or whatever. Can;t stand up for any kind of principle because that gets you hammered down.

Apparently, nobody realizes or cares about this, this is the logical end to discrimination, that you have to accept EVERYTHING, and everyone, no matter how you yourself feel...

in otherwords you are not allowed to have an opinion, if it has something to do with your work.

This is the difference between social pressure and the Sword of Government.

Social pressure maybe limits the business of somebody working outside of what society wants... and rebelling against the pressure costs something, personal or monetary. But it isn't set in stone.

Government on the other hand has a Sword that cuts everyone, so you have to be VERY careful how you apply it. I suppose that the married couple in this case are more than happy to drive the photographer out of business just to prove their point, and then they are no better than any other hate group.

because instead of going to another person in the market of ideas, they are using a government to force their belief on someone else.

How we have litigated discrimination is a mixed bag, and for every triumph, there is something maybe not as intended.

True believers don't look at it that way.

If photographers worked for the government, I would say absolutely compel them to shoot gay weddings. But since they're their own businesses, they should have the right to refuse any particular wedding for any reason.

She wasn't telling the gay couple she wouldn't do portraits or birthday parties or other events for them. She was only telling them she couldn't be involved in chronicling a lesbian commitment ceremony because of her religion.

Does this mean Catholics will soon be forced to eat meat on Fridays during Lent so they don't violate the civil rights of butchers to make a living selling meat?

There's a lot of hostility toward religion (especially Christian ones) on the part of civil libertarians these days.

Granted, religion has been used as a justification to support some pretty reprehensible social institutions. Ironically, it has also been used as a justification to oppose those very same institutions.

Generally, the ACLU has been mostly good about being non-partisan in defense of civil liberties (except 2nd Amendment ones), but they, too, seem to look down upon religious types.

If this had not been an issue of religion, would the ACLU have been as quick to side with the couple over the photographer?

Amy: frankly I don't care how superior you and your attorney think you are because of your religious beliefs, or lack of same. People deserve respect so long as they're respectful of others. How you can be so pro-manners, and yet so happy to defend rudeness and hatefulness whenever it's shown to Christians and other believers, is just ridiculous to me.

And since your attorney feels so free to be so hateful, I'll feel free to tell him to take his filthy mouth and shove it up his filthy ass.

"There's a lot of hostility toward religion (especially Christian ones) on the part of civil libertarians these days."

No, Christians just think being treated like every other belief is mistreatment because they have gotten special treatment for so long.

There should hostility be when religion claims special rights that other beliefs don't get. "Just because" or "because a talking dog told me not to" is just as good a reason as "God said so" to justify a belief and if the latter gets treatment the former doesn't get, it is special rights, not equal rights. Religion is not a special category of belief.

There is obviously some point where Civil Rights trump Civil Liberties, but a single photographer ain't it. (Are civil libertarians defending plessy v ferguson?)

"yet so happy to defend rudeness and hatefulness whenever it's shown to Christians and other believers, is just ridiculous to me."

I treat Christians the same way I treat Muslims, Hindus and people who think their dogs talk to them. Pony up the evidence or just get tolerated (no special consideration). Christians have gotten special rights so long they don't know what equal rights look like. You have exactly the same right to your beliefs (no more and no less) as someone who advocates laws and behaviors because the maple tree in their yard talks to them. "God says so" is not a conversation ender. We don't bend over backward for religious beliefs in particular.

Brian: I don't have to justify a damn thing to you. I believe in God because I choose to, and I *don't* shove it in people's faces. If you don't or can't accept that I have the right to make my own spiritual or other personal choices, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

Also, take your "dogs talk to them" trope bullshit somewhere else. Many, many Christians and other believers get good things out of their religion and beliefs that people like you will never understand, and for you to compare that to a crazy person who things their dog talks to them is beyond insulting.

Also, I never said a damn thing pro- or anti- special rights for anyone. I was talking about respect and consideration for PEOPLE, period. I never said a word about how Christians or anyone else is or should be persecuted or exalted in society.

At the same time, I find it completely absurd that grown adults believe in something there is no evidence for.

Of course, then Mister Randazza would have to supply evidence that the photographer in question does actually photograph Nazi weddings, or that his hyperbole, however nobly deployed, is all that clever.

Amy: once again, my problem is NOT that you choose not to believe.

My problem is that you seem to think it somehow makes you superior to people who do, *and* that it somehow gives you license to be rude (or worse) at people who don't agree. FWIW, those assholes you grew up with who bullied you and wouldn't accept you because you were Jewish were IMHO just that, assholes. I'd bet good money none of them grew up to be nearly as successful and decent a person as I know you are and/or can be.

If someone tries to make THEIR religion YOUR business when you don't want it to be, that's a different kettle of fish. I have a Facebook friend who is so conservative Christian, she makes Carrie's Mom look liberal. She believes that Obama is the antichrist, that he wants to shepherd in a Muslim autocracy in the USA, and that the Rapture is close at hand-- as in, liable to happen ANY DAY NOW. And it's obvious that she considers people like me to be "fake Christian" or naive, at best, that I don't agree with her.

Now, do I call her an idiot on FB? Do I make fun of her? No, I steer clear of her and try to avoid making much small talk. And Amy, I wouldn't blame you even a little bit if you wanted to avoid people like this, determined to save you from your atheist life.

But namecalling and harassment are NOT warranted against folks like me who aren't shoving their beliefs in anybody's faces, and what I ask-- in fact what I want and demand-- is the same respect in return from people who don't believe in God, or who don't believe in the same God(s) that I do. That's not demanding "special" rights, that's demanding human treatment. Everyone deserves it, no matter their beliefs.

As a Christian (less in the sense of believing in the specific God, more so in being a follower of the teachings of Christ, i.e. love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc. As far as belief goes, I'm probably more agnostic.) I wasn't offended by the language.
If these dipshits who believe in the magic space zombie want to ignore that market because of something their imaginary friend allegedly told them, then let them take photos of nazi weddings and eat shit and die.

He seems to be clearly maligning the photographers specifically, not Christians in general. And, personally, saying the head of my religion is a magic space zombie makes me feel so much cooler than saying the head of my religion is really nice dude.

"He seems to be clearly maligning the photographers specifically, not Christians in general."

Jazzhands, that may very well be so. But Randazza still could have been a lot more classy about it. He could have simply said, for instance:

"If these people want to turn down perfectly good business by engaging in antiquated beliefs, that's their right. But just because I think they have the right to do it doesn't mean I think they ARE right to do it."

I wouldn't have had any problem with whatsoever with that statement.

If I were a photographer in New Mexico, and I refused to photograph a white-power aryan nation wedding, would the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of the skinheads?

Further, would this love judge rule against me?

Or is this a case of "all animals are equal, it is just some are more equal than others"?

Another thought: would the judge so rule if the photographer in question were a devout practitioner of The Religion of Peace™?

But namecalling and harassment are NOT warranted against folks like me who aren't shoving their beliefs in anybody's faces,

But that's just the point. These photographers did "shove their beliefs" when they gave them as the reason for refusing to do they wedding. Is that their right? Sure. Is it the right of others to malign them for it? Absolutely.

I don't want people to have to hide their personal opinions, as SwissArmyD notes is the logical conclusion. The government should stay out of it, as long as nobody's actual rights are being violated. But that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for having an unpopular opinion, or even just spouting your opinion when it has the potential to be divisive i.e. abortion, immigration, etc.

Jazzhands: if Randazza's IMHO offensive statements were directed solely at these photographers, and not Christians in general, then also IMHO they're a lot less offensive to me. I'll also happily admit: I've thrown invective towards people like the Phelps/WBC clan, because I believe they deserve it for being so disrespectful to so many decent people who also happened to be gay, lesbian, or have a beloved family member die in battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not perfect either.

Having said that... I still have misgivings about Randazza's choice of words. These photographers are NOT the Phelpses, and I sincerely doubt they wish any ill will on gay people or would ever wave a "gays burn in hell" sign in their faces.

I guess folks will think it's weird, but just as I believe respect should beget respect, I also think disrespect should beget *proportional* disrespect. A good example IMHO was the whole Chik-Fil-A issue about a year ago. Do I believe Dan Cathy is just plain wrong about his beliefs about gay people? Yes. Do I believe he shouldn't be wasting his money sending anti-gay groups his money? Yes. Do I support the right of gay people to boycott CFA as long as Cathy has anything to do with the company, or even forever? Also yes. But some of the hate directed at him and, frankly, a lot of innocent employees of CFA was way out of bounds and proportion.

I know life will never be the way I'd love it to be, but it's never going to be exactly what this attorney or Amy or Dan Cathy want it to be either. Can't we at least try to get along, please? Again, I'll agree to try not to "shove my beliefs" in pursuit of that goal. Others shouldn't either, whether they're Christian, Muslim, an atheist, gay, straight, et cetera.

:Many, many Christians and other believers get good things out of their religion and beliefs that people like you will never understand, and for you to compare that to a crazy person who things their dog talks to them is beyond insulting.:

My point is a person DOES have a right to not photograph a gay wedding "just because" - the religious belief part is immaterial.

The idea that ancient people had God tell them to write stuff in books, that Noah bullt an Ark, that God had to do some silly pagan drama of a dying/rising God to decree things is as silly as people believing their dog is talking to them from an empirical point of view. The whole reason silly beliefs persist is they are costly signaling that cements reciprioal altruism and group cohesion (which can be good or bad). The BIble is like the book of Mormon or the Koran - I have no reason to respect it other than tolerate it and defend people's right to believe it on an equal footing that they have a right to believe anything for any reason. You know how you don't believe the Book of Mormon or the Koran - just apply the methodology you use to reject those things to your own religion.

My point is that religious beliefs have no evidence and thus aren't special rationale for legislation or ignoring laws. My imaginary talking dog may well tell me to do great things, but that isn't reason enough to give it a special pass. You don't get special rights, period.

Brian, so in other words: "your religion doesn't give you the right to discriminate, your right to association (or non-association) does." Is that what you're trying to say? I can kind of respect that, even though it seems to respect religious-sourced discrimination in a roundabout way.

In which case, no, still no "special rights." Why? Because as you said, you support the right of someone to refuse service "just because." In which case, an atheist could say the exact same to a Christian couple. Which I would be against, but which would also of course be completely within said atheist's right to do.

For the record, anyone who jumps to "Nazi" analogies is quite ignorant of history. It is a gay wedding and a photographer - not mass murder by the millions!

There does come a point in which those who cry "hate!" become hateful themselves. This lawyer has clearly crossed into that realm.

It is sad that his message gets lost by his chosen delivery style.

What Charles said. Apparently Randazza has never heard of Godwin's Law.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why does anyone want to force someone to work for them?

Brian, so in other words: "your religion doesn't give you the right to discriminate, your right to association (or non-association) does." Is that what you're trying to say? I can kind of respect that, even though it seems to respect religious-sourced discrimination in a roundabout way. -- qdpsteve at November 20, 2013 1:02 PM

Outside of some fields (mostly medical, LEO, fire fighting, and other emergency community services, or required community services like water, food, phone, garbage) I also believe you have a right, as a business owner, to not provide service based on your personal beliefs and decisions for the most part.

For example a clearly labeled Catholic Church soup kitchen saying that you have to have the priest come by the table and bless the meal before you eat is required is within their rights.

There is a social convention in that. It was even observed by the military (USAF) during basic training way back when in the 80's. The tables had four seats. The fourth person at the table was the "lead". The other three were standing with their trays waiting. (S)He would arrive at the table. (S)He would say "Sit", and everyone sat down. The next line was either "Bow" or "Pray". During that time you were expected to keep your head down and give about a 30-60 second period in which someone could pray if they decided to. Then it was "Eat." In the seven weeks in basic of breakfast, lunch, and dinner I heard about five murmured prayers, and saw about twenty-five lips moving.

I was pretty much agnostic on my way to atheist even back then. But I could deal with it.

Now I know the U.S. is pretty much a Christian country and if you can't realize it go find your own island. I give anyone the right to stand on their own beliefs. Just the same that a business owner can not like interracial marriage. But the consequences should come from the market (capitalism) not from the government.

"Also, take your "dogs talk to them" trope bullshit somewhere else. Many, many Christians and other believers get good things out of their religion and beliefs that people like you will never understand, and for you to compare that to a crazy person who things their dog talks to them is beyond insulting."

Question: does Jesus talk to you?

"Does this mean Catholics will soon be forced to eat meat on Fridays during Lent so they don't violate the civil rights of butchers to make a living selling meat?"

Depends. Are the butchers gay?

Radwaste: why do you ask? Is Jesus saying nasty stuff behind my back again?!

;-)