Photographer Who Won’t Shoot ‘Gay Weddings’ Not Subject to Law Because She Doesn’t Own Storefront

MADISON, Wisc. — A Christian photographer who had a statement on her website advising that she will not shoot same-sex “weddings” is not subject to local public accommodations laws because she doesn’t operate out of a physical storefront, a Wisconsin court said it would rule in a forthcoming opinion.

Amy Lawson of Amy Lynn Photography Studio had filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit in March against the City of Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development in an effort to obtain clarification from the courts as to whether the city and state public accommodations statutes apply to her activities.

Madison’s law makes it illegal “[f]or any person to deny to another … the full and equal enjoyment of any public place of accommodation or amusement because of the person’s protected class membership.”

It also notes that businesses may not “directly or indirectly publish, circulate, display, mail or otherwise disseminate any written communication which she/he knows is to the effect that any of the facilities of any public place of accommodation or amusement will be denied to any person by reason of her/his protected class membership.”

State law also has a similar dissemination prohibition on the books, and also forbids business owners from giving “preferential treatment to some classes of persons in providing services or facilities in any public place of accommodation or amusement because of sex, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.”

Lawson, being represented by the religious liberties organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), outlined that she had posted a statement on her website last year advising that she cannot shoot same-sex ceremonies, but removed it after a client canceled due to objection to her beliefs, and out of worriment—due to other adverse situations nationwide—that she could get in trouble.

She became concerned as to whether or not she would be considered subject to local statutes.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Amy believes that God created humans to reflect Him by working, that God created humans to do many types of work including to create artistic and aesthetically pleasing things, and that God ordered Christians to honor Him in their work. (Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 4:21; Psalm 33:3, Colossians 3:17; Colossians 3:23-25; 1 Corinthians 10:31),” the legal challenged outlined.

“Because of these beliefs, Amy cannot separate her religious identity into private and work areas but must honor and serve God in all aspects of her life, including her vocation. (1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11),” it noted. “Likewise, Amy cannot do anything in her work that dishonors God.”

“Amy, therefore, cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage.”

The lawsuit sought to challenge the law as being unconstitutional, but on Tuesday, the matter came to a close after it was agreed between the two parties that the language in the city and state statutes regarding a “public place of accommodation or amusement” does not apply to Lawson since she does not own a storefront.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development argued in legal briefs that the state public accommodations law has never been applied to those who work out of their homes.

“The state has basically stated that there’s no … case or controversy—no justiciable issue because the statute as interpreted by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in the State of Wisconsin does not apply to the plaintiffs because they’re not public accommodations,” Judge Richard Niess also noted during a hearing on Aug. 1.

Niess is expected to issue a ruling accordingly in the coming weeks.

ADF says that it is satisfied that clarification has been obtained in the matter.

“The court’s announcement has important implications for everyone in Wisconsin who values artistic freedom,” Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said in a statement on Tuesday. “It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote.”

“The court found—and the city and state have now agreed—that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them,” he outlined.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    Sounds to me it might make it difficult for an artist to do custom work or commissions from the public but may instead only do works on spec with the hope of selling their wares. Personally I find doing works in a different style than my own is difficult when it has happened in the past. Of course now I am retired so I only do art and photography for my own enjoyment.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    Conservatives should be outraged about every part of this.

    1) The Plaintiff brought an action seeking to have a court issue a binding, precedent-setting ruling on the constitutionality and application of a law itself, which people here keep telling me courts are not allowed to do.

    2) The decision handed down was based on case law, which people here keep telling me doesn’t exist.

    3) The ruling states that Wisconsin’s non-discrimination statute only applies to businesses that have a physical presence, such as an office or storefront. There is nothing in the law (Wisconsin Statute 106.52) that says this. The court just added conditions to the law that were not written there, and probably not even contemplated by the legislature when they wrote it. This is clear and unabashed judicial activism.

    • mr goody two shoes

      I never told you Any such thing about courts .courts are filled with us sinful humans we
      do sinful things. Look what happened to Jesus because courts wanted it.

    • John Love

      Wow, so you are doing this here.

      Guys, Ambulance Chaser is a hypocrite. In a separate thread, he is arguing with me that judicial activism is ok.

      You are such a dishonest prick.

      • Michael C

        Wow, so you are doing this here. Guys, Ambulance Chaser is a hypocrite. In a separate thread, he is arguing with me that judicial activism is ok. You are such a dishonest p***k

        John Love, It appears Ambulance Chaser’s comment may have been a bit over your head. Ambulance Chaser is not claiming that they believe that the judge’s decision was wrong, they are instead illustrating how this decision should be opposed by some Christians on this forum (possibly you) based on those Christian’s past-stated misunderstanding of how our judicial system works (possibly yours).

        • John Love

          LOL, kinda’ funny Michael that not only you and Ambulance Chaser are wrong how the judicial system works, you also think you are right in telling people what Conservatives think.
          You are bordering on intellectual fascism.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, well, if we’re so wrong about the judicial system and what conservatives think about it, perhaps you could enlighten us about what is correct?

          • John Love

            Am I not telling you that in other threads?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            This is their MO, John. It’s called harassment. They will follow you from thread to thread, arguing both sides of an argument while demanding you re-post the same information you already posted on another thread or previously in the same thread. They brag about doing this on another forum, stating that their goal is to target specific posters. As they bump off one by one, they celebrate. Go figure.

          • John Love

            The worse thing is how many add to Christian Communities, just to spread their agenda, opposing almost everything they dislike.
            It is exactly what Marxists did.
            When your whole ideology is about hating something, you tend to become a vile image of yourself.

          • John Love

            As I read your comment more and more, I could not help but feel disgusted. Are you saying that these guys are all part of a plan, and not because they bumped off to this article? And do they really, choose people to target?
            I saw that pattern, when I say myself being followed by a very anti-theist guy when we had just a small conversation.

            If you are right, I can only say this that I feel sorry for hate they have. I have never teamed up against people, not targeted them,even though, I thought their ideology would harm me.

            If you have any evidence of their bragging, do share it. It is almost unbelievable.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The posts were made by this guy:

            disqusDOTcom/by/colinrafferty/

            (now banned) and a number of other regulars here on Daily Wire, and at least 2 other sites (an atheist site, and a faux science site). They will ask other posters to hyper flag Christian posts (specific ones) to get the users banned, and to harass them. They give specific points that they think will trigger the poster they are harassing that day.

            They were cheering when a poster here by the name of Grace got banned.

          • John Love

            Wow, so they are for censorship of speech. I can’t believe that these people are so dishonest.
            It seems “God” and “morals” do have a correlation.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know what “they” are for or even who “they” are, but I certainly am not for censorship of speech.

          • John Love

            I think you will better help society by tackling them than people here.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here you go. Here’s another one made fresh today. A link to a Christian forum was posted with an invitation to atheists to harass Christians. Look at which names are involved:

            disqusDOTcom/home/discussion/theslowlyboiledfrog/the_slowly_boiled_frog_the_hate_group_leader_and_the_bridal_boutique/#comment-3455419243

          • james blue

            Think you’ll find it was JL who followed Michael C here.

          • John Love

            LOL, or maybe I clicked on new stories.

            Should I flag your comment for false accusation of stalking. Or you will apologise yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See what I mean?

          • John Love

            I mean, this is a new story. This has been published on 5th August. They are of mind that if any user comments on any post that has an atheist there, he is stalking him.
            You cannot argue with these people. I think that they think only atheists can comment on Christian News Net.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s about it. They are hyper-flagging Christian posts (or any posts that disagree with them) even though this is a Christian site. They also make up false accusations. Just beware. And welcome.

          • james blue

            Do whatever make you feel fuzzy inside, but the context is in the timestamps

          • John Love

            So you are checking these too to build up your conspiracy theory?
            I would not flag your comment because there is no option for false accusation there. But if I can I will take this issue to a moderator. Enjoy, accusing dissenters.

          • james blue

            You might want to read what you wrote along with guest and ask yourself if you have missed something.

          • John Love

            Is that supposed to make sense?

          • james blue

            It will to people who read the conversation and the timestamps.

          • John Love

            Ok. Then let us leave it to them. I wonder whether they will also go around accusing people, they disagree with, of stalking, though.

          • james blue

            Quote guest–This is their MO, John. It’s called harassment. They will follow you from thread to thread,

            How did he “follow you” if his comment was made a day before yours?

            How is he following you and harassing you when it was you who responded to his comment?

            Guest accused him and you agreed. It’s all there for everyone to read unless you decide to delete or edit.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, why are you following me around, stalking my posts, and making up stories about me?

          • james blue

            Direct quotes are making up stories?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like the direct quotes I shared to prove an allegation? That kind of direct quoting?

          • james blue

            ???????????

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ??????

            There is an Arabic saying, “Darbani wa baka, Sabakani wa shaka” . It means, “He hit me first, then ran crying to report me”. Sums your little games up perfectly.

          • james blue

            When did I report anyone?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean when did you falsely accuse someone of doing what you, yourself, have done? See above.

          • james blue

            No, I mean when did I report anyone. Would you prefer to converse in French if English isn’t as easy?

            I directly quoted your post accusing them of harassment. That posts wasn’t ambiguous.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My post had direct quotes of proven harassment. The Arabic quote was referring to the hypocrisy of one who falsely accuses someone of doing what they have done first. Like you. As far as French goes, I doubt you know the language well enough. You seem to have enough problems with English. 🙂

          • MCrow

            What happened up there?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why do you keep following me around, mentioning my handle, and making up stories about me?

          • james blue

            My comment history is open to public view….feel free to make that case.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’ve just made it.

          • John Love

            James, I am flagging your comment for your accusation that I was stalking in 5 minutes.

          • zampogna

            Citation please.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “you also think you are right in telling people what Conservatives think”

            I’m around here a lot myself, and he’s not lying when he says people keep telling him what he said.

          • John Love

            He misrepresented himself. That is the problem. He says “Conservatives should be outraged over this decision”.
            This is stupid because Conservatism, itself, has nothing to do what he is talking about.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, at the very least, what he’s talking about is a position far more often held by conservatives than liberals. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a liberal who was against judicial review.

          • John Love

            And I haven’t heard a conservative that is against judicial review. What many are against is judicial activism. Which liberals support. Unless it goes against them.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There’s at least two people that post here regularly who will flat-out tell you – have told me – that judicial review is totally unconstitutional. That’s what Ambulance Chaser was talking about. People who use that to argue that, for instance, Obergefell doesn’t mean anything, or is invalid, should say the same thing about this. Or then they’re the ones who are only against it when it “goes against them”.

          • John Love

            And that is the problem.

            Obergefell is invalid because judicial review in its essence does not mean that judges get to invent new rights that do not exist in Constitution. It is judicial activism.

            The problem is that you support something like Judicial Review which is based on whims of few people, thus supporting essentially, oligarchy.

            You interpret Judicial Review as Judicial Activism.

            Jefferson warned against “Judicial Review” exactly based on that point.

            So, you equate these two, and then blame others. Like left has always done. Equating two words. And you are able to get away with it,because Conservatives are mostly Constitutionalists and do not believe in passing their agenda through judicial overreach.

            Yet, if you want to play it, I hope you get short end of it. If Right does marginalise you, like you have been doing it, for years, I won’t be sympathising with you.

            Your outrage is fake. That is like people who have been doing illegal things for years, calling people who have followed laws on the fact that they did something illegal.

            It is pure hypocrisy. The only thing I know that you have zero respect for separation of powers, Constitution, Founding Fathers, and fellow men,

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Obergefell is invalid because judicial review in its essence does not
            mean that judges get to invent new rights that do not exist in
            Constitution. It is judicial activism.”

            You see, the thing is, they didn’t “invent new rights”, they ruled that existing laws were unconstitutional. I just Googled “judicial review”, and you know what the first thing that came up was? “review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act.” That is exactly what took place. Is it “judicial activism” and “invalid” just because the decision extended a right to people who did not have it before? Tell me one thing, then: If Obergefell is invalid, then how is Loving v. Virginia valid?

          • John Love

            “You see, the thing is, they didn’t “invent new rights”, they ruled that existing laws were unconstitutional.”

            And how do you do that? By inventing new rights.

            “Is it “judicial activism” and “invalid” just because the decision extended a right to people who did not have it before?”

            What right? Rights are not dictated by five people on bench. Unless, you love oligarchy.

            “Tell me one thing, then: If Obergefell is invalid, then how is Loving v. Virginia valid?”

            You can make an argument against it too, but it is way different than Obergefell vs. Hodges.

            1) The grounds for anti-miscegenation laws were racism (which was noted by court) and racial segregation, both of which were outlawed.
            For it to be compared to Obergefell, you have to argue that law against homosexual marriage are based in misogyny or misandry and gender segregation.
            And you know that is a lie.
            If Obergefell’s logic is applied, then men only and women only washrooms are illegal. They are not because, they are not based on misogyny or misandry.

            2) Marriage, when Right to Marry was instituted, did not mean “homosexual marriages”. Which means that you cannot argue that when it was instituted, it covered “homosexual marriages”.
            Marriage, as to my knowledge, has never been defined as union of man and woman of same race.
            If the logic of Obergefell is applied, one can argue that it covers pedophilic marriages, or marriages to inanimate objects too.

            3) Marriages involve sex and reproduction, and in both cases, gender of opposite person, produces differences. In Loving vs. Virginia, court also said, which Obergefell judges dishonestly ignored that – Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.
            Because, same sex marriages does not produce children, it is not helpful in survival of human species.

            I can go on and on. Obergefell judgment is not only judicial activism, it is a disaster. Scalia perfectly captured it in his dissenting opinion.

            Obergefell vs Hodges, sets a precedent for compelled speech too, like C-16 bill in Canada.
            Obergefell sets precedent that any gender based distinction is discrimination. Which means that you can technically be sued for discrimination federally, for refusing to use gender pronouns.

            Heck, according to Obergefell, even using separate pronouns for men and women is violation of equality clause, because that is a gender based distinction.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “And how do you do that? By inventing new rights.”

            Okay, so you’re against laws being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? That is judicial review. So, you are against it after all? And, no, it’s not “inventing new rights”, it was extending a right to people who were unconstitutionally (that being the key word) denied it before.

            “The grounds for anti-miscegenation laws were racism (which was noted by
            court) and racial segregation, both of which were outlawed.”

            Racism never really has been, or probably even never can be, outlawed. It’s an attitude, an opinion, etc. You can’t really outlaw that.

            “you have to argue that law against homosexual marriage are based in misogyny or misandry and gender segregation.”

            How about homophobia? Anyway, I don’t have to argue that, I compare the two because laws against those marriages were violating the 14th Amendment.

            “Marriages involve sex and reproduction”

            Not necessarily. I am not aware that there ever was any law in this country that said married couples are required to have sex and/or procreate. And no one seems to have too much of a problem with heterosexual married couples that either can’t or just don’t want to have children. How is that different in that regard?

            “Marriage, as to my knowledge, has never been defined as union of man and woman of same race.”

            I’d bet a lot of the people against interracial marriage would have said that it was.

            “If the logic of Obergefell is applied, one can argue that it covers pedophilic marriages, or marriages to inanimate objects too.”

            No, because children can’t give informed consent, and inanimate objects don’t have rights. I really have to spell that one out for you?

          • John Love

            “Okay, so you’re against laws being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? That is judicial review.”

            I don’t think you get it. There is a difference between seeing whether a law and a Constitutional guarantee are at odds with each other, and historically, and in political philosophy, this job has been provided to courts because the legislature or executive is a non-neutral entity.
            However, Judicial Review does not mean that judges can create new stuff that is not in Constitution.
            If your logic applies, tomorrow, 5 people in black robes can declare that we have no free speech at all, or there is no second amendment.

            You support that. And this is sad. But that is the way progressives are.

            “So, you are against it after all?”

            Nice tactic of conflating Judicial Review and Judicial Activism.

            “And, no, it’s not “inventing new rights”, it was extending a right to people who were unconstitutionally (that being the key word) denied it before.”

            I didn’t know gay people could not marry before. Sorry, they could marry before. What you achieved, unconstitutionally (yes, it is a key word) is that definition of marriage be extended so you could have it as per your liking.
            By that logic, “definition of marriage should be extended so Muslims can have it as per their liking.”
            Prophet married Aisha, when she was 6.
            By your logic, we are still discriminating by not extending “right to marry” to Muslims who may wish to marry little girls. (no offence to Muslims, intended).

            “Racism never really has been, or probably even never can be, outlawed. It’s an attitude, an opinion, etc. You can’t really outlaw that.”

            LOL, are you trying to get “gotcha” points. Racism, by government is outlawed.

            We were talking about Government, all along. Right?

            “How about homophobia?”

            How about pedophobia? How about Islamophobia? Attaching “phobia” to words to shame others and call them bigot, is not an argument.

            “Anyway, I don’t have to argue that, I compare the two because laws against those marriages were violating the 14th Amendment.”

            No, they do not. 14th amendment argues (colloquialy) that all people are equal under the law. It does not mean that all should get laws that favour them, and if there is some law that favours you and harms me, then it is unconstitutional.
            If your logic applies, then progressive taxation is unconstitutional, because rich people pay more percentage of their income as taxes than poor people.
            The reason why you do not protest that is because you are pro gay marriage and not pro 14th amendment. You already believe that it should be legal and you search for ways to force your beliefs on others and the system.
            I lean towards capitalism but I do not believe progressive taxation is against 14th amendment, and nor traditional marriage is. Unlike you all, I don’t believe that my biases decide the Constitution or rationality.

            “Not necessarily. I am not aware that there ever was any law in this country that said married couples are required to have sex and/or procreate.”

            1. Just because there is no law that says so, does not mean it is not a common occurrence and should not be included in discussion. If we follow your logic, then there is no law that requires gun owners to shoot or use their guns for shooting, or even load them with bullets. Hence, background checks that require people to pass some tests, should be unconstitutional. Because, people may use guns for maybe, scratching their backs.
            2. There is no law for such because there is such a thing called privacy which is a fundamental right. What do you want? We go around checking which couples are having sex and which aren’t?
            3. The judgement that you cited, “Loving vs. Virginia” argues that. I argued that before, but you did not reply, perhaps, intentionally.

            “And no one seems to have too much of a problem with heterosexual married couples that either can’t or just don’t want to have children. How is that different in that regard?”
            I am not sure why are you using such an absurd argument.
            1. We don’t restrict those heterosexual couples that can’t have children because your health report, just like your income tax report, is your private concern. It is enshrined in your right to privacy, which is arguably, a fundamental right.
            Unless, your health condition harms other person, that is.
            2. Those that don’t choose to have children, well we can’t restrict them because marriage license is issued at time of marriage. We don’t know whether they will have children or not.
            In case, of homosexuals, we know that they can’t have children and we do not need to search their health records unconstitutionally to know that. It is funny that you are arguing against Science.
            What you are saying is that because we allow some exceptions because of some disability or disease, or some people may not have children but still use benefits of marriage, we should allow a whole class of other people to do the same.
            We have special provisions for veterans with PTSD. Are you suggesting that we should start restricting free speech and otherwise, it would be discrimination?

            Moreover, just apply your logic to Second Amendment. You are saying that because some heterosexual couples can’t or won’t have children, we should admit homosexuals.
            By that logic, because some gun owners will never use the gun for shooting, we should have no background checks.
            Or, because some criminals will not use guns in a wrong way, we should not prohibit felons from getting guns. If we do, that is discrimination.

            “I’d bet a lot of the people against interracial marriage would have said that it was.”

            All you have to do is point me to a reputable dictionary that said that. I know you won’t find it.
            Moreover, inter-racial marriage was outlawed much later. Many Americans married Natives.

            “No, because children can’t give informed consent. I really have to spell that one out for you?”

            This is stupid. Obergefell held that marriage is a fundamental right, not in individual sense but in couple sense. Age of consent laws are state laws.
            State laws do not supersede Federal Constitutional Guarantees.

            “and inanimate objects don’t have rights”
            Yes, but the person extending the marriage proposal to a tree, for example, does have rights. Dendrophilia is actually a thing.

            “I really have to spell that one out for you?”

            If you read Constitution, you are wrong. You can argue as much as you like, against pedophilic marriage, but constitutionally and judicially, it is legal now.

            Any age of consent law, is void if it restricts the fundamental right to marry, and according to Obergefell, right to marry has now a broad definition.

            If you accept that Obergefell judgement, it sets precedent for legality of all marriages.

            I am a Constitutionalist. If I was a judge, and held that Obergefell was a right decision, if any case comes to me, of any type of “marriage”, I would be wrong to argue against it.

            There is not a single Constitutional argument against it.

            I challenge you to show me how you can hold constitutionally that any law that prohibits marriage between a man and a six year old girl is unconstitutional, if we accept Obergefell v. Hodges.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “We don’t restrict those heterosexual couples that can’t have children
            because your health report, just like your income tax report, is your
            private concern. It is enshrined in your right to privacy, which is
            arguably, a fundamental right.
            Unless, your health condition harms other person, that is.”

            So, then why shouldn’t we extend that same right of privacy to same-sex couples?

            “In case, of homosexuals, we know that they can’t have children and we do
            not need to search their health records unconstitutionally to know
            that. It is funny that you are arguing against Science.”

            I don’t see how I was “arguing against science.” (very interesting how you chose to capitalize that, btw!) I just don’t believe the ab

          • John Love

            “So, then why shouldn’t we extend that same right of privacy to same-sex couples?”

            Do you see what you are doing? Like judges at Obergefell vs. Hodges, you are trying to extend the existing laws to cover those, whose cause you seem worthy. This is judicial activism.
            A judicial review would be if you would start from Constitution and see whether ‘x’ is protected. Judicial activism is ‘x’ should be protected, so let me see which Constitutional clause, I can exploit.

            Nevertheless, let us see whether we should extend it –

            1) Firstly, suppose, we do extend it. You are trying to use it as an argument to support gay marriage, right? So, firstly you are trying to make a same-sex couple’s relationship private. And then trying to use it as a premise to make their relationship public, i.e., through marriage? Don’t you see the contradiction? Either the relationship should be kept private or public.

            If you think that gay couples benefit from keeping their relationship public, then why make it private? And if you think they benefit from keeping their relationship private, then why try to make it public?

            2) Secondly, why restrict it to “sex”. If you are arguing that sex between same sex couples should be kept private, shouldn’t any trade activity or any meeting or anything else between two individuals be kept private to? But that is problematic. Then how would you catch someone transferring secret information to enemy, or how will you criminalise drug trade, or illegal weapons trade?

            “I don’t see how I was “arguing against science.” (very interesting how you chose to capitalize that, btw!) I just don’t believe the ability, or the possibility of having the ability to have children should be a prerequisite for marriage.”

            I say that because you are creating a false equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Even in case of gays, they produce semen, which requires a lot of protein. And lesbians do undergo periods. Heterosexuality is very different than homosexuality.

            I capitalised “Science” because I wanted to clarify that it is not just a majority position. Left and atheists, try to beat the drum of Science, and call every other, science-deniers. But here we are not talking about a 97% statistic, here, we are talking about something, to which a tribe in a distant land would even agree to.

            “Male and female reproductive organs are different. They are such that they perform complimentary function, in transfer of seed (semen) to egg (ovum). Gays, too, produce seeds, and lesbians, too, produce eggs.”

            How can any sane person, argue that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different? The idea that these distinctions should be ignored is the reason for why people are arguing for over 69 genders.

            “What I am saying is because we don’t hold that to be a reason that those couples should not be allowed to marry, we shouldn’t hold that to be a reason that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.”

            I already answered why that argument does not apply. Also I gave an analogy, in form of second amendment.

            “How about you apply your own logic in your previous argument to the Second Amendment? You referenced how the Loving ruling said marriage was a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Okay, so same-sex marriages don’t produce offspring. Well, the Second Amendment says the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon because a “well-regulated militia” is necessary. So, we should then restrict gun ownership to people who are part of a well-regulated militia? Or, is that only ONE of the reasons for that right?”

            Read the Second Amendment carefully. It does not say that right of of militia or people in militia, bear arms, shall not be infringed.

            It says that right of people, to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

            Then it gives the reason, why.

            Moreover, I am not sure you know the definition of militia. A militia is “generally an army or some other type of fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel”

            See, it is an army of citizens of a nation. Conservatives are exactly following the Second Amendment, word by word.
            Well-regulated it is. We have background checks, we do not give guns to felons, in many cases, you have to pass tests to get guns.

            What you are saying is that we read “militia”, where it is written “people”. Not only, that is unwarranted, people are the militia. Government, at time of war, calls citizens of nation, to fight. That is militia.

            Militia refers to armed citizens of nation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “A judicial review would be if you would start from Constitution and see whether ‘x’ is protected”

            Like the Supreme Court did in Obergefell.

            “Conservatives are exactly following the Second Amendment, word by word.”

            So, then let’s follow the 14th Amendment word by word.

            Also, I don’t understand why you have to go on and on about heterosexuality and homosexuality being different. Yeah, they are different. So what?

            “Government, at time of war, calls citizens of nation, to fight. That is militia.”

            Maybe this is just a tangent, but does that really apply to the US any more, though? The last time we called citizens to fight was before I was born.

          • John Love

            “Like the Supreme Court did in Obergefell.”

            Wow, so you haven’t give any argument, but still sticking to your claim. See, this is the reason why no reasonable argument can convince you. You will do anything to make sure your personal belief overrides and decides life of everybody else, even though you may have to pass it illegitimately.

            “So, then let’s follow the 14th Amendment word by word.”

            Yes, let’s do it. Show me where it says that homosexual marriage is constitutional.

            “Also, I don’t understand why you have to go on and on about heterosexuality and homosexuality being different. Yeah, they are different. So what?”

            If they are different, then how can it be a violation of due process or equality clause?

            “Maybe this is just a tangent, but does that really apply to the US any more, though? The last time we called citizens to fight was before I was born.”

            So, if no White is discriminated by blacks, you will remove his protection?

            At this point, I am convinced that you are anti Second Amendment, pro-gay agenda, revisionist liberal.

            Lets end this conversation. If you believe you are right in achieving your will by any means, so be it.

            We will do the same.

            Good Luck!

          • zampogna

            Ambulance Chaser is a lawyer. He is extremely familiar with how the judicial system works.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Two things you should be aware of. I said what conservatives should be outraged at. I’m not a conservative.

        Also, CNN takes a dim view of that kind of language.

        • John Love

          “Two things you should be aware of. I said what conservatives should be outraged at. I’m not a conservative.”
          Why you are telling other people what should they be outraged at. Kinda’ funny, that you have a problem when decision is what you want. Maybe, it is because, you wanted “Conservatives” to win this time.

          “Also, CNN takes a dim view of that kind of language.”
          Ok

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Why you are telling other people what should they be outraged at. Kinda’ funny, that you have a problem when decision is what you want. Maybe, it is because, you wanted “Conservatives” to win this time.”

            No, it’s because I want to point out conservatives’ hypocrisy.

          • John Love

            Lets end this then. You support the ruling, right?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I think it’s incorrect because the law doesn’t indicate anywhere in it that it was intended to be limited to businesses that own property. However, it is the law.

          • John Love

            Make up your mind.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I did. I don’t agree with the ruling but it’s law until it’s overturned or superseded by statute.

          • John Love

            Case Closed then.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      I guess the question is, does her business qualify as a “public place of accommodation or amusement”? You’re right, there is nothing in the law that particularly says it doesn’t. Online and/or mail-order businesses normally still have to follow anti-discrimination laws, I assume.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Not in Madison, WI. Not now, anyway.

        Unless, of course, you subscribe to the belief that courts can’t render precedental, binding rulings interpreting laws.

      • Bob Johnson

        plumbers, roofers, Tow truck drivers?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Good point, I wasn’t even thinking about things like that.

  • Michael C

    Interestingly, Wisconsin was the first state in the US to protect their gay citizens from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations 35 years ago.

    It’s also worth noting that public accommodations are still prohibited from refusing service to gay customers (even if they’re requesting wedding related products and services) in all of Wisconsin.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      Whoooooo CARES?!?

      • Lexical Cannibal

        Wisconsin, apparently.

        A little reading comprehension never hurt anybody, jeez.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          Wrong. It’s Michael, and Michael alone. He’s the one who made that statement.

    • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan

      Must be fun being gay and feeling sorry for yourselves 24/7.

      Turbo-narcissism, like three-year-olds. Other people mean nothing at all.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        And getting paid for being a gay activist who trawls Christian websites.

        • Michael C

          And getting paid for being a gay activist who trawls Christian websites.

          Dear Canadian “Guest”, Please don’t try to spread lies about me. I do my best to be polite and respectful. I shouldn’t necessarily expect the same in return but, being that this is a Christian forum, I would at least hope for it.

          I’ve attempted to correct you in the past when you’ve spread this lie, I don’t know how many more times I should have to do it.

          Please stop spreading lies about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dear Michael, Where do you see me spreading lies about you? Please refrain from spreading false accusations against Christian posters here. Thanks so much.

          • Michael C

            As I’ve told you before, I don’t know who “Oshtur” is and they don’t know who I am. If I had ever seen this person making untrue claims about me, I would have corrected them. If you can refer me to where they may have made these claims, I will correct them now.

            And getting paid for being a gay activist who trawls Christian websites.

            These are lies.

            Please stop.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Michael, you and Oshtur often exchanged friendly posts both here and on Charisma. I’m sure you do know who he is.

            Why do you visit Christian sites and post solely about homosexual issues? Just curious.

          • zampogna

            Daily Wire. A faux science site where people gather to plot against you. Oshtur. Colin Rafferty. Paid gay activists. Stalkers.

            It’s getting really difficult to keep up with all your conspiracy theories.

        • John Love

          The problem is not that he is for gays, it is that he is plain wrong.

          • Michael C

            The problem is not that he is for gays, it is that he is plain wrong.

            If I have stated anything that is factually inaccurate, please correct me.

          • John Love

            See other threads;)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m referring specifically to being a gay activist, meaning one who speaks only for the gay cause and no other issue. One need not be gay to be a gay activist.

  • james blue

    I believe a self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, but I do not agree with the logic of this decision. The rules for local ordinances should apply to areas the work is carried out, not because of physical property. So if this photographer does weddings in a certain town it should be all weddings in that town.

  • Becky

    Praise Almighty God through Christ our Lord! Hear, hear to freedom of religion and freedom of speech! Christians should not at all be punished for their beliefs, which is what is happening throughout the US…the world really. Will this quiet the incessant barking of the homosexual activists/liberals? Not at all. These liberal imbeciles will continue to believe it’s utterly unfair whilst protecting, for example, the rights of Muslim business owners from having to do business with Christians.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Please cite an example of someone who believes that Christians should have to follow public accommodation laws but that Muslims shouldn’t.

      • Becky

        The ADL precisely demonstrated one example via a video at the Uni of Wisconsin…students support religious freedom for Muslims, not Christians…look it up.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’m really getting tired of this “look it up” business. If you want to prove something, it’s your burden. It’s not my job to find your evidence for you.

          • Becky

            It’s evident that you’re here day in and day out…but you can’t leave this site long enough to type in the search bar the enormous title I gave you? Don’t want to see the truth do ya. Typical.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Quite the contrary. He’s far worse.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again: it is not the obligation of the other person to prove your point for you. If you have evidence, provide it or I’ll assume you don’t.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Since I wanted to see what you probably meant, I googled for it. The video you’re describing does not exist. There is, however, a video going around the conservative media Circuit with that headline. What it actually shows, however, is an interviewer playing gotcha games with college students to prove some kind of point about their hypocrisy. And mostly failing.

            He presents them with a ludicrous scenario that exists nowhere, in which a hypothetical church hires singers on a contract basis, and whether a Muslim singer should be allowed to turn them down. Aside from the inanity of the premise, nobody mentions any of the issues that would be in play if this issue ever came up. I.e. Can the singer turn them down because of other reasons? They’re asking her to sing songs that she doesn’t sing for anyone? Can’t sing? Doesn’t know?

            The interviewer then smugly switches to asking about Christian dress shop owners and why the same rule doesn’t apply to them. Well, for one thing, because the two scenarios aren’t analogous. Why don’t you try asking about a Christian singer asked to sing in a mosque?

            The college students do their level best but most end up just acknowledging that this situation is complicated and difficult (which is NOT what the creators accuse them of saying).

            I’d say the real shame here belongs solely to the ADL for propagating lies and distortions.

          • meamsane

            This is not a criminal court of law! And she does not have to PROVE anything at all to you, nor is it her burden to do so. She gave you a requested citation as an example, but you are not interested at all in evidence of any kind as your last remark points out…..”It’s not my job to find YOUR evidence for you”. Your here simply to argue your opinions. This is a public forum for opinion is it not?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You are correct that she doesn’t have to do anything. You’re incorrect that it’s not her burden. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the assertion in every forum. This is a basic rule of logic.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Let’s hope and pray all Christians win similar cases pending against them.

      • mr goody two shoes

        Madison has a large number of confessional Lutherans in its town. They would not be pleased with a stupid ruling protecting stupid wedding.

      • Michael C

        What is it that you think this photographer “won”?

    • james blue

      Should a non Christian be able to refuse to do business with a Christian because he disagrees with our faith?

      • mr goody two shoes

        I wonder if I should get into the stupid wedding picture taking business? Sounds
        Like you could make a fortune you should see how many people want their cats and dogs married to before they breed them.

        • james blue

          You didn’t answer the question.

      • mr goody two shoes

        Actually many of us are raised to accept that sort of thing because it comes with the territory of being christian

        • james blue

          So it should be legal to refuse goods and services to Christians? I’m Christian, I’ve never been discriminated against because of my faith, what have you experienced?

      • John Love

        It is a meaningless question. It is the gays who evoked the freedom doctrine. Now, they must extend to everybody else, right?
        If you look at Wisconsin’s law, you will see that nothing their is a choice except sexual orientation.

        • james blue

          Not meaningless at all, it was a direct response. If you think it should be legal to refuse goods and services to others if it conflicts with your beliefs you must also think it should be legal for others to refuse goods and services to you.

          • John Love

            Don’t you think I can also say to homosexuals that “if you believe you are free to live as you like if you don’t cause harm, you must extend same freedom to others”?

          • james blue

            My comment history is open to public view, if you can find anywhere I have posted suggesting I agree with big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws please feel free to link to that comment.

            Here’s the thing.– I see these comments all the time complaining about Christians being forced to supply to gays, saying gays are asking for “special rights”. Well they are only asking for the same protections from refusal of service in the private sector that we as Christians enjoy. So do you wish to revoke those big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws and risk being refused service yourself or don’t you.

            Luke 6:31

          • John Love

            I am perfectly fine with homosexuals being protected. I am not fine with the fact that only homosexuals were added to the list.
            What about rest of the people? Why should anyone be refused by private sector, then?

            I am fine with not being protected and being refused. I am not fine that somebody uses the protection that I got years ago, to argue for their protection of a completely different thing, and then not extending that protection to everybody else.

            Religious people get protection but they also get sanctions that are mentioned in First Amendment. Homosexuals do not get sanctions.
            It is ok for White House to display rainbows, but not Crosses?

            Homosexuals do not want to extend equality to others.

          • james blue

            What does the first amendment have to do with the private sector?

            Given that Religion is already on the list, what else are you wishing to add? I think the problem is that there are named categories to begin with, but then I’m for full revocation.— let society bankrupt those who would discriminate.

            I would say Christians do not want to extend equality to others. They want to outlaw gay marriage and many want to return homosexuality itself to being criminal activity.

            I see lawsuits from Christians when their employer doesn’t give them the accommodation they want.

          • John Love

            “What does the first amendment have to do with the private sector?”
            Nothing, except that if homosexuals were for equality, they would oppose government promotion of it. They don’t.

            “Given that Religion is already on the list, what else are you wishing to add? I think the problem is that there are named categories to begin with, but then I’m for full revocation.— let society bankrupt those who would discriminate.”
            Ok. But till then, homosexuals are wrong here. They made a case for themselves and themselves alone.

            “I would say Christians do not want to extend equality to others. They want to outlaw gay marriage and many want to return homosexuality itself to being criminal activity.”
            So, you think people are wrong for having opinions? Will you say the same to those who oppose other forms of sexualities like incest, beastiality?

            “I see lawsuits from Christians when their employer doesn’t give them the accommodation they want.”
            Not sure why it is relevant.

            I am sorry but it is sad that though I am not a Christian, I think you hate the fact that Christians can have opinions. It is just sad.

          • james blue

            They made a case for themselves and themselves alone.” —I don’t recall Christians making a case for homosexuals? Are Christians being refused goods and services?

            The problem with big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws is that someone somewhere is going to have to serve someone they do not want to serve, however the same law applies to everyone–you serve everyone–

            I do not agree with your argument that gays only want this treatment for themselves, what they are demanding is to be treated the same as we are when it comes to services etc.

            How the heck did you come to the conclusion that I hate Christians having opinions? I am a Christian,

          • John Love

            “I don’t recall Christians making a case for homosexuals?”
            Except that Christians did not evoke freedom and stuff. LGBT groups specifically argued that “people should be able to do what they like if they don’t harm anyone”
            I am holding them to their standards.

            “The problem with big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws is that someone somewhere is going to have to serve someone they do not want to serve, however the same law applies to everyone–you serve everyone–”
            You can still be refused if you are against gay marriage:)

            “I do not agree with your argument that gays only want this treatment for themselves, what they are demanding is to be treated the same as we are when it comes to services etc.”
            They want protection for themselves. But what about host of other people who would still be discriminated?

            “How the heck did you come to the conclusion that I hate Christians having opinions? I am a Christian,”
            Because you think that if people view ‘x’ as wrong, they hate equality.

            I also see that you did not answer my question.

            If homosexuals want equality, why they did not protest White House lighting up to Rainbows when White House has not done such thing in many other cases.

          • james blue

            What question?

            What is it exactly you think Christians or others are missing out on?

            White house lights??? Really, you are going after that?

            So if I disagree with someone that means I hate they have an opinion? I didn’t say anyone hates equality.

          • John Love

            It seems that the issue you have is that everybody does not agree with you.

            “White house lights??? Really, you are going after that?”
            So you think that America and American Government is not for homophobes?

            Kinda’ funny that you do not answer it. Just say that it is a non-issue.

          • james blue

            I think you need to look in a mirror with that one.

            What question am I not answering? If it’s the lights my answer is that it’s a petty thing, they didn’t light up for school teachers, firefighters or little johnny who got straight “A’s” this year either.

          • John Love

            It is a petty thing? Lol, sorry. I have nothing to say if you think that government should promote things that you like, this way. I thought America was for everybody.

          • Michael C

            Gay people never asked for any “freedom” that straight people didn’t already enjoy. It seems that you’re claiming that, because gay people have the freedom to marry [statement A], Christians should have the freedom to deny them service at stores and restaurants [statement B].

            Here’s what your argument sounds like;

            If gay people want to enjoy the same legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage as straight people [statement A], I should be able to drive however fast I want [statement B].
            If they want freedom, I should have it , too.

            Statements A and B have to be analogous for your argument to make sense.

            Equal marriage rights are as analogous to an exemption from civil rights legislation as they would be to an exemption from obeying the speed limit.

            Equal treatment is not the same as not being required to obey laws that everyone else is required to follow.

          • John Love

            “Gay people never asked for any “freedom” that straight people didn’t already enjoy.”

            Yes, they asked for a freedom that “straight people did not joy”. That is marrying someone of same sex.

            “Equal marriage rights are as analogous to an exemption from civil rights legislation as they would be to an exemption from obeying the speed limit.”

            You are interpreting equality here as, if you have something that favours you, I should have something that favours me.

            “Equal treatment is not the same as not being required to obey laws that everyone else is required to follow.”

            Agreed. Everyone WAS required to marry the person of opposite sex. If gays can argue that such law is discriminatory because they want to marry with the person of same sex, I can also argue that laws that say that speed limit should be x, are discriminatory because I want to drive at y.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Yes, they asked for a freedom that “straight people did not joy”. That is marrying someone of same sex.”

            No, there is no state in which same sex marriage is limited to gay people. You could have a same sex marriage if you wanted.

          • John Love

            “No, there is no state in which same sex marriage is limited to gay people. You could have a same sex marriage if you wanted.”

            And earlier there was no State where opposite sex marriage was limited to just straight people.

            So you agree that there was no violation of equality, then?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No I don’t.

          • John Love

            So, you think everyone should have laws according to what they like?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I think the law shouldn’t bar people from having rights for no good reason.

          • John Love

            And what is the good reason for having a speed limit?
            My comparison was spot on

          • james blue

            Because your speeding isn’t just dangerous to you, it’s dangerous to others.

          • John Love

            So, what next. Should we ban cars too, because they are dangerous to others?
            Maybe, rifles. Do you even disagree with Second Amendment?

          • james blue

            Wow.

          • John Love

            Not An Argument.

          • james blue

            It was, however, a comment that went completely over your head.

          • John Love

            You are becoming aggressive. Maybe, you are becoming aware that you are losing.

          • james blue

            Wow

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I never said anything about speed limits but they reduce car accidents.

          • John Love

            Not having cars also reduces car accidents.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            All right you’re obviously not interested in serious discussion so we’re done.

          • John Love

            You can leave anytime. But don’t pretend that others are trolling when you are losing.
            I asked a straight question and I expect a straight answer. Apparently it is too hard for you.

            You only seem to be pre-occuppied with certain liberties, trashing others.

          • John Love

            “No, I think the law shouldn’t bar people from having rights for no good reason.”
            Except that if you speed. Then I will fine you.

          • james blue

            Why do you think we have speed limits?

          • John Love

            We are not arguing why we have ‘x’. We are arguing what should be the case. You specifically set this when you wrote your first comment.

          • james blue

            So Meriam Ibrahim had no case for equality to marry a Christian man? After all she had the same right to marry a Muslim man as every other woman….right?

          • John Love

            Before I answer that, do you believe that everyone should have the right to marry anyone or any number of people or else it is a violation of equality?

          • james blue

            Consenting adults should be free to marry other consenting adults without the state prohibiting it.

            This is not a statement of approval of any given union. It is a statement of freedom and liberty. Just like free speech i may disagree with what you say, I may even find what you say repugnant, but You should have the right to say it.

            My question is specific to your argument about equality and gays already being treated equally because they were free to marry someone of the opposite gender just as heterosexuals are.

          • John Love

            “Consenting adults should be free to marry other consenting adults without the state prohibiting it”
            And I should be able to drive at what speed I want?

            “This is not a statement of approval of any given union. It is a statement of freedom and liberty. Just like free speech i may disagree with what you say, I may even find what you say repugnant, but You should have the right to say it.”
            There is lot of freedom that is still trampled on. You do not agree that I should have a freedom to drive at speeds I wish.

            “My question is specific to your argument about equality and gays already being treated equally because they were free to marry someone of the opposite gender just as heterosexuals are.”
            I am all for answering that. But I am surprised that you put adjectives before granting equality. That is why I am curious.

          • james blue

            What danger to you is there if two gays marry each other? Does it put your life at risk?

            What danger is there to other road users from the high speed you drive limiting your ability to stop in time of any obstructions on the road?

            If you are all for answering the Meriam Ibrahim question, please do so.

          • John Love

            “What danger is there to other road users from the high speed you drive limiting your ability to stop in time of any obstructions on the road?”

            If the real reason is that speeding is dangerous, then you should ban cars too. I am only showing that you are not a libertarian, though you are pretending to be one. That’s all.

          • james blue

            I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist.

            Now please answer the Meriam Ibrahim question

          • John Love

            “Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership.”

            How, being able to choose which speeds you can handle, is excluded from individual judgement?

            It is meaningless to answer that question unless we agree on what “equality” means.

          • james blue

            Libertarians believe our rights end where yours begin and vice versa. They do not believe they have the right to put others in danger. I think you have the right to put yourself in danger, I do not think you have right to put others in danger.

            For the Meriam Ibrahim question equality was already defined by you, but I’ll repeat it. you said “And earlier there was no State where opposite sex marriage was limited to just straight people.

            So you agree that there was no violation of equality, then?

            So equality for this question is defined by your comment.

          • John Love

            “Libertarians believe our rights end where yours begin and vice versa. They do not believe they have the right to put others in danger. I think you have the right to put yourself in danger, I do not think you have right to put others in danger.”

            That is why I specifically asked. Are libertarians against gun ownership, and car ownership.

            “So equality for this question is defined by your comment.”

            First of all it isn’t. I merely picked it from the suggestion that the arguer offered. Which is shown by the conjunction “And”.

          • james blue

            Apparently you are not going to answer. Is it because you know i “gotcha”?

          • John Love

            Wow, I thought I should say that earlier but was hoping that you were not doing this.
            You are actually using Mariam and the oppression she faced as a way to forward your agenda.
            Making a “gotcha” argument over someone facing death penalty?

            If it wasn’t a Christian Network, I would really convey you my thoughts. Most of them would have lot of stars…

          • james blue

            Still not answering it?

          • John Love

            Earlier I was not answering it because conversations must have an anchor point. I gave you reasons too, and explained myself every time.

            Now, I am not answering it because I don’t play “gotcha” games about someone’s life. That might be your interest, not mine.

            Using people as a tool to win arguments is not nice, James. I don’t want any part of that blame. I am sure other people, even atheists would understand Mariam’s plight better than you, and not use her as a pawn.

          • james blue

            The question wasn’t about her plight, it was about your definition of equality being denied. You are now using her plight to avoid answering the question.

          • John Love

            I don’t think I was making her story as a part of a “gotcha” game. Why you are projecting your doing on me?

          • james blue

            The answer you seek is written in your own comment.

          • John Love

            Is there any boundary you do not cross?

          • zampogna

            You lied, then. You told him you would answer his question after you asked one of your own. And then you didnt.

          • Bob Johnson

            Which, of course, brings up a lot of interesting possibilities. Many older people remarry for legal and economic reasons. I wonder if we won’t see elderly heterosexuals finding legal same-sex marriage a preferable alternative.

          • priscilla mayne

            it isn’t just what a person believes but it is actually what God states in His Word. We as Christians try to obey the best way we can. we don’t all always succeed all the time but try…obeying Him is one way to show Him we love Him and we are trying to honor Him with our lives. in the end it is what He says, not what we want it to say..

          • james blue

            I think a self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever he wants for whatever reason, be it religious or otherwise.

            The question wasn’t about WHY a Christian would refuse to do business with someone, It was about if others should be legally allowed to refuse service to us.

            Christians absolutely should be able to live their lives by their faith, but they shouldn’t demand to be protected from being discriminated against or others make accommodation for that faith.

            A self employed Photographer should be allowed to refuse to work gay weddings, but if that photographer was employed by a company that does cater gay weddings he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. While it is nice that employers try to accommodate they should not be forced to by law.

          • priscilla mayne

            you know, a perfect solution would be for the employer to just send another photographer. this WHOLE thing has been blown way out of proportion…and Why do business with someone who doesn’t want to do business with you. just give your money to someone else. or is this really a force -them -to-do-it issue,? Come on…qiut-yer-beefin…Do your thing and all get along…leave me my choice, you made yours..

          • james blue

            As I said it is nice that employers try to make accommodations, but they shouldn’t be compelled by law to.

            In your “employer should just send a different photographer” theory what do you think should be available to the employer if there is no alternative photographer available and the employee still refuses?

          • John Love

            In the end, you are equation race and religion to sexual orientation. Facepalm

          • james blue

            ?????????

  • TheKingOfRhye

    Let’s think about this for a minute…..

    If anti-discrimination law only applies to businesses with actual storefronts….then they’re saying that it would be perfectly legal for, let’s say, Amazon to refuse to sell products to black people, or to Christians, for example.

    Anyone here actually think that that would be a GOOD thing??

    • MCrow

      I see this ruling being overturned at some point just because it sets a poor precedent. I mean, if you’re not considering internet as public space, that leads to alllllll kinds of weirdness

  • priscilla mayne

    i do not see why these people just don’t go where they will be serviced for whatever rather than harass others who are just exercising their beliefs..it can only to force others to do their bidding.. this is beyond sick…in-your-face sick. go somewhere else. surely there are gay bakers, photographers or whatever trying to make a living. support them…….

    • Michael C

      surely there are gay bakers, photographers or whatever trying to make a living. support them…….

      Yeah, they should know to just stick with their own kind. If they want to buy things and stuff so bad, they should just open their own stores and leave us alone. We shouldn’t have to deal with them wanting to buy the things we sell at our stores. Don’t they know that our stores are just for us?

      • Bob Johnson

        If they would only put signs in the windows it would make it so much easier. As it is you have to wait for an incident to happen and then get it reported in Yelp. And it really isn’t a polite thing for degenerates to write bad reviews of Christian businesses. /sarcasm

      • John Love

        But how can they do it? I mean what would happen to forcing gay agenda down everybody’s throats?
        Unless everybody is pansexual, how can we stop. Even the priestly Bill Nye agrees:)

    • MCrow

      “Separate but equal?”

    • LKRunning

      Well, in the US, we tried that and what happened is that it created inequality. Not a good thing.

  • LKRunning

    Can anyone show me where, in the bible, it states that you have a duty/are forbidden to deny or will be punished for providing gays goods and services?