Gay Marriage and the Limits of 'Tradition'-

We were talking about Colorado, and that's why you want to instead discuss California. California is almost always the exception and rarely the rule.

 

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service

 

It's a shame more people don't feel that way.

 

What does a "specific interest" in refusing service mean, exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

I dont get what youre trying to say. Are you being sarcastic, or do you actually agree with me?

 

These are state laws. Both the California prohibition against arbitrary discrimination that you brought up, and the Colorado law used against the cake baker. Im not aware of ANY state that has a ban on arbitrary discrimination OTHER than California. So it ONLY turns on such IN California. .

 

I was being sincere. I really find it sad that so many people in our country are so litigious.

Lawsuits have chased people out of business. They have actually caused some industries to vanish.

 

Bovine excrement!

 

I'm saying that the act of labeling me as "intolerant" is an ad hominem tactic employed to distract from my points and the thread topic.

1) It's not a contest.
2) Which of us is more tolerant is, frankly, irrelevant

Now, since you seemingly don't care to discuss the topic, kindly buzz off.

 

Reality you simply cannot come to accept because it contradicts the world as you have imagined it. All comfy in your delusions.

 

It's not solely about commercial use. There's also the damage to a person's public reputation if their copyrighted materials are used without their permission, in a way they would never have agreed.

 

Anybody who thinks that gay marriage won't be legal nation-wide in 10 years or less.

 

Why not just refute my statements you disagree with. Here they are again.

These are facts. You could easily disprove my assertion by showing us any state law that prohibits arbitrary discrimination, OTHER THAN in California.

 

Actually I never said that anything about statutory prohibitions on the denial of service for persons not considered a protected class. I said, as does the article that businesses have to have a good reason that involves protecting a legitimate business interest to refuse service or they can be sued. They must be prepared to demonstrate that the action of the proprietor is not arbitrary. The article mentions California in relation to a case involving bikers. I don't think that bikers, even in California are a protected class and although they lost, they were able to sue. Aside from that, no other state is mentioned.

I rest my case. Do you have a business or know some one who does? Try this. Tell someone who walks through the do that I don't want to sell you a widget or whatever because I don't like your looks today. Then see how long it takes for that person to get a lawyer and sue your ass.

 

I was discussing the topic. I think I did you a favor though by pointing out certain areas that you're blind to. I've no doubt your self perception is of yourself as an extremely tolerant person, far more than little old me. However that's why these type threads generate so much unintentional irony (and comedy). Instead of thinking of snappy come backs (and buzz off isn't one of them) you should meditate on the toleration in the broadest sense and what is required in a Democratic society when there are various diverse groups with differing views so they can all live together in relative peace.

 

Not a question that can be answered very effectively in the abstract. The point is, the holder of a copyright has the say over how it can or can't be used, though there are exceptions that constitute 'fair use'. More than that I'm not going to get into, because this is already way off-topic, and I think if you want to understand more about copyrights, you should look it up yourself. Develop some intellectual curiosity for once and do your own research, instead of asking everyone to explain everything to you.

 

Can anyone tell me that this guy is not psychotic? Running for Governor of....all places Massachusetts.??!!

 

Sounds like he's projecting. I don't particularly care much for the way the word 'homophobia' gets tossed around carelessly, but I think it applies in Lively's case. He seems to be genuinely afraid of gay people.

 

I just wanted to say something else. You keep talking about how America is getting "equal rights" and how countries like Russia are oppressive, but at least in Russia, gay couples arent suing Christian businesses or bakers or photographers.

 

Maybe you should move there if you want to claim Christianity forbids you to take pictures of a same sex couples wedding.

That isn't Christianity. That's bogus politics hiding behind the first amendment.