Several examples to think about, when this case or one like it moves to the Supreme Court, which certainly one will:

1) A female can refuse to do her abortion by or choose to be seen by a MALE OB/GYN.
The male OB/GYN must perform his services on any one that steps into his office, as long as it is legal and she is of sound mind.

2) A taxi cab driven by a white man can not refuse to pick up a black man.
A taxi cab driven by a black man can not refuse to pick up a white man.
A white man can refuse to be picked up by a black driver, and turn him away.
A black man can refuse to be picked up by a white driver, and turn him away.
In the latter two situations, no one can be sued for discrimination.
Is discrimination happening? Yes–but not on the side of the business.

3)In several locales, prostitution is legal.
Can a female prositute refuse to service her ex-husband? Yes.
Can she refuse to service a black man? Certainly.
Can she refuse to service a Chinese man because of his attitude? Of course.
Can she refuse to service a white guy in a wheel chair because she doesn’t like men with no legs? I should say so!

4) Gay people are not a PROTECTED CLASS. Black people are. Smokers are not a protected class. Not accepting smokers in your service does not mean you do not accept black men. It means you do not accept smokers.

5) You can turn anyone away from your business because of “loss of trust”; especially in a doctor-patient relationship. This case has a loss of trust because taking photos is something intimate. Viewing the photos is also something intimate. If either party does not want to do this, the service is compromised.

6) Some “services” are more personal than others.
Buying a shirt at Wal-Mart is not the same as screwing someone cause you are a prostitute.
Photographers too, provide a personal service.

The jury here was deceived by a good lawyer when the defense counsel was simply ill-prepared. This case would get stomped on by the Supreme Court. We are allowed to have our personal preferences, religions, and hates.

I don’t mind gay people. This female “couple” here are not gay. They are ligitious faggots. I would close up shop and not pay them a dime.

Photographers:
Protect yourselves in the future:
When a gay couple calls and wants photos done. Tell them “Yes”; you’ll do it. However, state “I disagree with the gay lifestyle”. Then take shit photos.

This whole case reaks and the Constitution is hanging by a thread. These are truly the latter-days.

You are right grantdale, you will not convince me. I have a defined set of values, morals and beliefs that represent what christianity is. The only ones that do not share these same values, morals and beliefs are the pro-gays. You can ‘convince’ me and prove everything i said was wrong… but the ONLY way i might sway your way is for me to read the bible for myself and say, ‘ah, you were right’. Why? Because i’ve heard of so many priests/pastors and such that defend their point of view(that resembles the one you guys simply dismissed as false, mistaken, and full of bigotry) after studying decades and a lifetime of the bible. Oddly enough… i DO NOT CARE what the bible says nor God. For me, the first is a book to control human actions with ‘internal restraint’ and the later a pure imaginary friend. And even then, would i end up defending the priests/pastors(and Elane photography) or timothy kincaid?

- – - – - – -

“I want you to take your god-damned and god-damning religion out of my life. That’s freedom FROM religion.
”

I completely empathize with you.

- – - – - –

”
And that is the crux of this issue. Elane has her freedom of religion. She is just not allowed to let it be public policy.
”

And this is where it gets more interesting/important, i think.
THis example of Elane photography, if say, one could take it 50-100years back and apply it to blacks back then and instead of freedom of religion, one would use freedom of association. Then, it would not be so far fetched to find ourselves defending the freedom of association of the white-who-find-blacks-disgusting while we are black, no? Anyways, imo, these judges are practicing from experience. For example, for blacks, Freedom of Association < Discrimination, correct me if im wrong. Im new to this :P. Equally, Freedom of religion/Association < Discrimination to being gay, independant of where it might happen. Otherwise, society will always be able to discriminate IF they play their cards right. And the point of anti-discrimination laws is to punish with more fervent impunity, through force and power, the wrong doings of society to damage/demean/reject others under no concrete basis. It may not eliminate or really change anything, but at least it attempts to do so. Hopefully society will understand that being gay does not make you more disgusting/evil simply for being(and living -to separate from ex-gays-) gay.

I would say that i agree with their ruling, but its further implications are pretty blurry.

Joel wrote: ‘Rather, he condemned the action of man-man, woman-woman and it is not far fetched to believe that a marriage is paralel, yet different, to the action he condemned.’

This idea is called complementarity/ Here’s a link on the subject, which underlines what I said. http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html .

It’s another way of saying: YOU’RE MAKING IT ALL UP!

The marriage aspect is intended to be for a man and a woman

And marriages were intended to be arranged by fathers

And women were intended to be the property of men

And they were intended to not speak in church and if they had any questions ask their husbands

And Christians were intended not to be married at all – as long as they could not burn with lust

And slaves were intended to be obedient to their masters

And circumcision was intended to be the most important sign of a covenant with God. And then it was intended to not matter at all.

And people were intended to take the Bible absolutely literally… except that of course no one really does – they just claim to when they want to attack others.

You see, Joel, if you actually read the Bible you’ll come to see that it is a chronical of men seeking God, not a holy object that we worship above God. Don’t make the Bible an idol. Let it lead you to God, but don’t look to it as a magic eight ball.

Thank you for so very embodying the essense of misunderstood Christianity.

Everything you said is in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. He ALWAYS treated the outsider, the sinner, the social outcast with dignity and never worried whether anyone thought he was condoning sin. And he commanded us to do the same.

And religious society did accuse him of condoning sin. That’s why the good church folk killed him. Remember? Have you read the gospels?