It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tadaman
not if its against the law. The states where businesses refused service do NOT have legalized gay marriage. The state does not license it so really why would the businesses "just know" they HAVE to provide service for an act the very state does not condone.
Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by HandyDandy
there is a big difference. In this case it is specifically laid out and well explained with consequences as well as conditions by well known and established law.
In the other it went to the freaking supreme court because gay marriage is new and the laws protecting it have not been developed. It is to be expected that until the laws are agreed upon by all that this would happen.
Also it wasn't a refusal of service. The only issue the photo place had was with the ceremony based on religious views. They were NOT opposed to serving the other events of the wedding.
so you really have nothing here trying to compare them for an advantage.
Originally posted by tadaman
there is a big difference.
Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by InhaleExhale
It was a rhetorical question. Read that thread again and see how many people applauded the right of a bussiness owner to refuse service even though it was against the law. Maybe not an exact 95% of ATS (yeah, because I was being literal ) but enough to warrant the question.
Now turn it around and replace "gay" with "veteran with service dog" and the majority sees it as discrimination. Why is that?
Originally posted by tadaman
The act of having to provide a service to something your religious views appose is not.
But some people think it's ok to discriminate the former.
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you cannot discuss whats in this thread why are you trolling?
Yes it is. Or is it ok for a Muslim baker to refuse making a cake for a Jew simply beacause his religion tells him to hate Jews?
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
How can you not understand after how simply Tadaman has explained it and why these cases are going to the supreme court.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
But that's where it gets into a grey area because religion becomes involved. To use the example in a previous post, of the Muslim baker making a cake for a Jewish wedding, if it's ok for them to refuse because of their religion, why is it not ok for a Christian to refuse to photograph a gay wedding, using religious scripture, because it goes against their religion?
That's why the Supreme Court has to be involved, and we have to set guidelines as to what can and can't be refused.
Originally posted by matafuchs
What would be the difference if it was left out that he was a veteran? How could it make any difference? It is just laying the groundwork for why he has the dog. So if he was blind it would be different to some of you.
This is not about what he may have went through, or what he had to do in the service or why. It is about human beings being civil to one another. Plain and simple. Compassion. Putting yourself in someone elses shows and not being a schmuck.