Comments on: ACLU on wrong side of wedding photographer case

By: Free speech roundup - Overlawyered

Free speech roundup - Overlawyered — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:30:12 +0000

[…] Cato asks SCOTUS to review ruling against New Mexico wedding photographer [Ilya Shapiro, earlier here, etc.] Related: Mike Masnick questioning why the ACLU is on the wrong side, a topic I’ve […]

By: Liberty cake wrecks, cont'd - Overlawyered

Liberty cake wrecks, cont'd - Overlawyered — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 12:30:04 +0000

[…] wanted to make a point by suing, as did the ACLU which represented them. [Associated Press; earlier here, here, […]

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:18:56 +0000

No business is required to do business with me.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:05:16 +0000

Well, no, Mr. Nuesslein. The true purpose of public accommodations laws being used in this way is not to obtain a service, but to bludgeon those who do not believe in the latest elite position on gay rights.

By: The ACLU’s inconsistent view on antigay speech | The Purple Elephant

The ACLU’s inconsistent view on antigay speech | The Purple Elephant — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:17:08 +0000

[…] views on the two issues suggest that it’s not simply “doctrinaire Left-liberal” think – as Olson puts it – that’s driving their […]

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:10:49 +0000

The free market has a wonderful solution to the problem. The betrothed could just get a competitor. Government intervention is necessary only in cases of monopoly.

By: gasman

gasman — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:19:01 +0000

Can a gay couple decline to have Elane Photography shoot their wedding?
Should gays be required to shop in a viewpoint neutral manner?

If 10% of the world is gay, and less than that are visiting my business, then perhaps it is me who is being unfairly discriminated against.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:19:17 +0000

I don’t think a religion mandating slavery is an apt analogy to a religion objecting to a practice.

For me the issue is one of creative artists’ rights. It’s one thing to compel people to sell hamburgers or sport coats to someone they disapprove of. It is another thing to require an artist to employ their creativity to extol something they find reprehensible. How about requiring a Jewish writer to write a Eulogy of Adolph Hitler, and be potentially subject to breach of contract liability if he does a lousy job of it?

By: Allan

Allan — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:40:30 +0000

I think this is a tough call, though not for the ACLU. If the ACLU’s main focus is the first amendment, they should be on the other side.

However, there is a tension, where the first amendment comes up against another amendment, who wins? What if my religion mandates slavery? Does the 1st or the 13th amendment right win?

What if my first amendment rights conflict with another person’s first amendment rights? Who wins?

By: Jay Markowitz

Jay Markowitz — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:44:36 +0000

The civil liberties caucus was the dominant division when the ACLU rightfully came out in agreement with SCOTUS on ‘Citizens United,’ which was cause célèbre, so what the heck is going on internally that allows a ‘judicial activism’ type decision on this matter that inherently goes against the ACLU’s stated mission to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States ?

Perhaps each office is not under presumed ‘national’ management but sold as a franchise, with only certain benefits and restrictions under the ACLU brand. Tis’ more lucrative/competitive than buying a Subway sandwich store or Midas muffler shop?