We vant to be left alone

Awww, poor widdle elaine. Wants to be left all alone.

If she wants to photograph, let her take pictures of her family. ONLY. Forever. She deserved what she got.

So so so so so so so funny because I read this and as I seem (on scattered occasion) to be infamous for, YEP, I have a ready response, wanna see?!?!?

The writer of the opinion piece has *PROBLEMATICALLY LEFT OUT* one little factoid.

His point is that the "religious" woman is being forced to have something to do with a gay wedding (while this "religious" woman would doubtless marry two PRISON INMATES of opposite genders, or two people on their EIGHTH MARRIAGE). He claims this is intolerant of the pro-gay.

Simple solution.

Enshrine *laws nationwide* that if a "religious" person walks into a place,

they can be refused service

instantly

and without repercussion.

Dear opinion piece writer, please, put your money where your mouth is. Do *YOU* wanna get that ball rolling? Enough is enough. You are complaining about something unexceptionable, the right of *any* person to ask *any* business to do anything and the *usual response* of that business that they will go ahead with this even if they DON'T EVEN LIKE THE CUSTOMER. What the photographers here are asking for is a:

SPECIAL RIGHT

and if it is granted, then the *same right* must be granted *AGAINST* these "religious persons" on the grounds that *ANYONE* can refuse them service.

Wanna go there?

If I had my way, the pro-gay would meet you head-to-head and wouldn't. even. blink.

Thanks.

This is a difficult situation, while I can see valid points for the photographer can you imagine what our world would be like if we allowed everyone to choose who to provide services to?

hi hi wrote:

So so so so so so so funny because I read this and as I seem (on scattered occasion) to be infamous for, YEP, I have a ready response, wanna see?!?!?
The writer of the opinion piece has *PROBLEMATICALLY LEFT OUT* one little factoid.
His point is that the "religious" woman is being forced to have something to do with a gay wedding (while this "religious" woman would doubtless marry two PRISON INMATES of opposite genders, or two people on their EIGHTH MARRIAGE). He claims this is intolerant of the pro-gay.
Simple solution.
Enshrine *laws nationwide* that if a "religious" person walks into a place,
they can be refused service
instantly
and without repercussion.
Dear opinion piece writer, please, put your money where your mouth is. Do *YOU* wanna get that ball rolling? Enough is enough. You are complaining about something unexceptionable, the right of *any* person to ask *any* business to do anything and the *usual response* of that business that they will go ahead with this even if they DON'T EVEN LIKE THE CUSTOMER. What the photographers here are asking for is a:
SPECIAL RIGHT
and if it is granted, then the *same right* must be granted *AGAINST* these "religious persons" on the grounds that *ANYONE* can refuse them service.
Wanna go there?
If I had my way, the pro-gay would meet you head-to-head and wouldn't. even. blink.
Thanks.

I agree completely.

Where did so-called "christians" get the idea that they don't have to follow the law?

Mona Lott wrote:

Where did so-called "christians" get the idea that they don't have to follow the law?

They believe it applies only to others, while they answer to a "higher authority" whose silly instruction book is often conveniently found in motel-room nightstands.

hi hi wrote:

So so so so so so so funny because I read this and as I seem (on scattered occasion) to be infamous for, YEP, I have a ready response, wanna see?!?!?
The writer of the opinion piece has *PROBLEMATICALLY LEFT OUT* one little factoid.
His point is that the "religious" woman is being forced to have something to do with a gay wedding (while this "religious" woman would doubtless marry two PRISON INMATES of opposite genders, or two people on their EIGHTH MARRIAGE). He claims this is intolerant of the pro-gay.
Simple solution.
Enshrine *laws nationwide* that if a "religious" person walks into a place,
they can be refused service
instantly
and without repercussion.
Dear opinion piece writer, please, put your money where your mouth is. Do *YOU* wanna get that ball rolling? Enough is enough. You are complaining about something unexceptionable, the right of *any* person to ask *any* business to do anything and the *usual response* of that business that they will go ahead with this even if they DON'T EVEN LIKE THE CUSTOMER. What the photographers here are asking for is a:
SPECIAL RIGHT
and if it is granted, then the *same right* must be granted *AGAINST* these "religious persons" on the grounds that *ANYONE* can refuse them service.
Wanna go there?
If I had my way, the pro-gay would meet you head-to-head and wouldn't. even. blink.
Thanks.

You're so correct. If I owned a photo studio and refused two nasty Christians their wedding photos they would scream like little bitches. Good for the goose, good for the gander. I hope it hurts her business.

I thought these small businesses, that Romney and Ryan moan about all day long, WANT to sell their product, not turn down gobs of cash for pointing a camera. I guess Elaine is so rich she doesn't have to have customers.

Curteese wrote:

<quoted text>You're so correct. If I owned a photo studio and refused two nasty Christians their wedding photos they would scream like little bitches. Good for the goose, good for the gander. I hope it hurts her business.
I thought these small businesses, that Romney and Ryan moan about all day long, WANT to sell their product, not turn down gobs of cash for pointing a camera. I guess Elaine is so rich she doesn't have to have customers.

Next thing you know the gays will biatch and whine cause Normal and Decent photographers won't take pics of them having sex with little children or fisting each other.

GoldenGator wrote:

<quoted text>
They believe it applies only to others, while they answer to a "higher authority" whose silly instruction book is often conveniently found in motel-room nightstands.

Well, they can file that under "Stupid Things I Believe."

Lewis wrote:

<quoted text>Next thing you know the gays will biatch and whine cause Normal and Decent photographers won't take pics of them having sex with little children or fisting each other.

"Normal and decent" people would never even THINK of that scenario. That makes YOU the pervert.

That old creep George Will hasn't died of cancer of the pen yet?

Well, in any case, his argument is spurious. The whole point of the law is that if you are running a business you cannot discriminate against your customers. Yes, you can deny service to some who is not wearing a shirt or shoes, since they presumably can go home and put them on. But that is quite distinct from discriminating against something that is innate (of course, the innateness of sexual orientation is something that both Will and the innumerable trolls here will continue to deny). Will posted a picture of Garbo. He should remember that she was a lesbian and that she wanted privacy probably partly because of the time she lived in. His analogy to her is completely spurious!

JohnInToronto wrote:

But that is quite distinct from discriminating against something that is innate (of course, the innateness of sexual orientation is something that both Will and the innumerable trolls here will continue to deny).

Antidiscrimination laws often forbid discrimination that is based on chosen differences, too, such as religion or creed. People change their religions all the time but businesses serving the general public aren't allowed to say "No Catholics" or "No Protestants."

Lewis wrote:

<quoted text>Next thing you know the gays will biatch and whine cause Normal and Decent photographers won't take pics of them having sex with little children or fisting each other.

First off, why do you haters ALWAYS go into fetish porn author mode when dishing out your "taunts"?

Second, this is not apples and oranges, but apples and jet planes. Not even a LAME argument, but a laughable stab at being spot on. You gotta try harder to change anyone's mind.

George Will and Murdock's New York Post... What a poisonous combination.

If she doesn't want to do business with customers she shouldn't be in 'business'. When you open a business you agree to 'commerce' and should not be allowed to pick and choose who you want to serve. After all, they aren't asking her to take pictures of them nude or in bed together.
It's the same as the pharmacist filling birth control pill prescriptions when he/she is a Catholic - it's your job, if you don't like it quit.

If Elaine Photography holds a business license to serve the public; it must serve the public'
.
all' of it

hi hi wrote:

So so so so so so so funny because I read this and as I seem (on scattered occasion) to be infamous for, YEP, I have a ready response, wanna see?!?!?
The writer of the opinion piece has *PROBLEMATICALLY LEFT OUT* one little factoid.
His point is that the "religious" woman is being forced to have something to do with a gay wedding (while this "religious" woman would doubtless marry two PRISON INMATES of opposite genders, or two people on their EIGHTH MARRIAGE). He claims this is intolerant of the pro-gay.
Simple solution.
Enshrine *laws nationwide* that if a "religious" person walks into a place,
they can be refused service
instantly
and without repercussion.
Dear opinion piece writer, please, put your money where your mouth is. Do *YOU* wanna get that ball rolling? Enough is enough. You are complaining about something unexceptionable, the right of *any* person to ask *any* business to do anything and the *usual response* of that business that they will go ahead with this even if they DON'T EVEN LIKE THE CUSTOMER. What the photographers here are asking for is a:
SPECIAL RIGHT
and if it is granted, then the *same right* must be granted *AGAINST* these "religious persons" on the grounds that *ANYONE* can refuse them service.
Wanna go there?
If I had my way, the pro-gay would meet you head-to-head and wouldn't. even. blink.
Thanks.

Of COURSE it's an opinion piece, idiot! George Will happens to be conservative so of course, he must be simultaneously wrong and evil.(You, of course, are just stupid and hypocritical.) But of course he's just the opposite. If you bothered to read the entire piece, Will correctly points out that Willock's partner was "spoiling for a fight." Surely his case will be overturned on appeal, it being completely grouindless. As Will correctly points out, "So, in the name of tolerance, government declares intolerable individuals such as the Huguenins, who disapprove of a certain behavior but ask only to be let alone in their quiet disapproval. Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks."

Curteese wrote:

<quoted text>First off, why do you haters ALWAYS go into fetish porn author mode when dishing out your "taunts"?
Second, this is not apples and oranges, but apples and jet planes. Not even a LAME argument, but a laughable stab at being spot on. You gotta try harder to change anyone's mind.

I disagree with you as I don't think homosexuals should be having sex with children and then asking photographers to take pics of their deviant sexual acts.

Texas on my mind wrote:

<quoted text>I disagree with you as I don't think homosexuals should be having sex with children and then asking photographers to take pics of their deviant sexual acts.

I'll reiterate for her:
That is a dumb comment. Pedophilia has nothing to do with adult sexuality and if you really want to get into it, the majority of pedophiles are married heterosexual men. The number was placed at around 90%.
When she said it's like comparing apples to airplanes, she meant that children have nothing to do with it. That you simply talk about children getting harmed when you have nothing else to say. It's invalid, false, and idiotic to make these claims that homosexuals have sex with children.

Lacez wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree completely.

You are kind and enjoyable. Thank you very much.