Tuesday, March 04, 2014
When I talk to people who are against gay marriage because "it isn't right," in a withering response I say to them, "you do realize that allowing gay people to marry does not require you to participate." This has always been the linchpin of my socially progressivism. I do my thing, you do your thing, and I am HAPPY to have you not like it, just keep your stupid nose out of my stupid business.
So along come the rest of the progressives, the kinds of people who give progressives a bad name. The kind of people who give life to the slippery slope arguments that the gays will insert themselves in everything if not banned by law from most public institutions.
A woman in New Mexico asked a wedding photographer to photograph her gay wedding. The wedding photographer said that she only photographs "traditional" weddings.
So before we go down the rabbit hole, how is that not the end of it? Why would you ever even consider hiring a wedding photographer who didn't want to photograph your wedding? Is there a shortage of gay-friendly photographers? Is there even a shortage of gay photographers?
Do you really think you would like the job that a photographer who did not want to photograph your gay wedding would do? Are you going to sue them for violating your civil rights if some of the pictures are blurry and they don't get a shot of you dancing with Aunt Mildred who is 101 years old and came all the way from Poughkeepsie to see the wedding?
But no. Here I am a totally died in the wacky wool social progressive. And I look over at the other wacky social progressives, and for some of them, not being stopped from having everything they want is not enough! They need the people who they beat in legislation, the people they beat in courts, to bow down before the great fascist power of their self-righteous sodomy!
Upon verifying with the photographer that she did not photograph gay weddings, our blushing bride filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA And on it has gone from there in a clown-car journey from court to court.
I can't imagine paying a photographer who didn't want to photograph my wedding to do it. I would expect crap from them.
I can't imagine there aren't wedding photographers all over the place who would be happy to photograph a gay wedding.
I can't believe there is no American court that can moot the case by pointing out that "you'd have to be a f***ing idiot to hire a photographer who did not want to photograph your wedding.
I can't believe I am not seeing other commentary pointing out the pure basic nastiness, stupidity, and fascism of bringing legal action against a photographer who did you a favor when she said she didn't want the job.
Why do we need to interfere with every person out there and get them to kowtow under the law to a particular set of social choices?
Honestly, how do I argue with people who want to ban gay civil rights because they don't want gays inserting their influence into their families' lives by pointing out that "allowing gays to marry does not obligate you to participate." Because apparently it does.