Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?[W:349

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

1.)I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what rights people have and where they come from. I don't believe the government gives you rights, I believe you are born with rights. Yes there are legal rights, but I see those more as a means of protecting your natural rights, which anti-discrimination laws do not do.
2.) They force businesses to accommodate people they don't want to. I don't believe I have the right to be served at any establishment. But like I said I'm having this argument in the wrong thread because it's a question of law.
3.) I know there are many anti-discrimination laws and the government has taken it upon themselves to give people their version of rights.

1.) of course they do, they makes us all play by the same rules
wheres your line then, you just want to empower discrimination and bigotry, racism, and misogyny?

so who cant discriminate and who can? hospitals? doctors? mechanics? schools? bakers? gas stations? police? pharmacists? grocery stores?
i think the logical thing is that everybody plays by the same rules, its logical

2.) no they do not they protect the rights of people. The laws add rules arent secret you CHOOSE to open and business and play buy the same rules as everyone else, thats a choice

if one isnt civil enough to do this and doesnt want to play by the rules theres 3 easy solutions

A.) keep out of public service business
B.) run your business under the rules or dont do ANYTHING that could offend you so easily. for example if you cant do gay weddings then dont do ANY religious items
C.) run a private practice like out of your house like the bakers did in the one story, they were smart they learned form their mistake.

3.) im glad they do i like them protecting my fellow americans

 

[Kermz]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

1.) of course they do, they makes us all play by the same rules
wheres your line then, you just want to empower discrimination and bigotry, racism, and misogyny?

so who cant discriminate and who can? hospitals? doctors? mechanics? schools? bakers? gas stations? police? pharmacists? grocery stores?
i think the logical thing is that everybody plays by the same rules, its logical

2.) no they do not they protect the rights of people. The laws add rules arent secret you CHOOSE to open and business and play buy the same rules as everyone else, thats a choice

if one isnt civil enough to do this and doesnt want to play by the rules theres 3 easy solutions

A.) keep out of public service business
B.) run your business under the rules or dont do ANYTHING that could offend you so easily. for example if you cant do gay weddings then dont do ANY religious items
C.) run a private practice like out of your house like the bakers did in the one story, they were smart they learned form their mistake.

3.) im glad they do i like them protecting my fellow americans

1. I wouldn't consider lack of equal rights laws to be empowering bigotry. In my opinion, it's logical to allow institutions, even private hospitals, to refuse service to anyone. There is a huge price to be paid for discriminating- losing business and reputation. But these laws don't actually protect anybody. I would even argue that not having these laws would put more bigots out of business, seeing as if they don't have to tip toe around, their true feelings about whatever group would come out quickly. Forces of the market, not government, will make people take a hard look at their beliefs.

2. Kind of going in a circle here about rights and laws. I know this is the law, I just strongly disagree with it. I know the photographer must "play by the rules" but I believe the rules are wrong. And I would ask the couple, why not just go somewhere else? Plus I wouldn't exactly call it "public service business." It's my understanding it is still private? Or would he have to be doing business in his house?

3. Like I said, not protecting anyone. Laws like this only increase hostility in people who are already bigots

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

1. I wouldn't consider lack of equal rights laws to be empowering bigotry.
2.) In my opinion, it's logical to allow institutions, even private hospitals, to refuse service to anyone.

3.)There is a huge price to be paid for discriminating- losing business and reputation. But these laws don't actually protect anybody. I would even argue that not having these laws would put more bigots out of business, seeing as if they don't have to tip toe around, their true feelings about whatever group would come out quickly. Forces of the market, not government, will make people take a hard look at their beliefs.

4. Kind of going in a circle here about rights and laws. I know this is the law, I just strongly disagree with it. I know the photographer must "play by the rules" but I believe the rules are wrong. And I would ask the couple, why not just go somewhere else? Plus I wouldn't exactly call it "public service business." It's my understanding it is still private? Or would he have to be doing business in his house?
5.) Like I said, not protecting anyone. Laws like this only increase hostility in people who are already bigots

1.) you may not consider that but thats exactly what it would do
2.) and in my pinion thats uncivil and asinine. So you think its ok for a hospital to deny service to somebody gay or minority of of a different religion of them? What if my wife goes to st Margret hospital and they deny me either husband visitation rights or husband privileges because our marriage doesnt fit thier definition? what about a pharmacy denying me service and i dont get my meds and die or end up sick?

no thanks, never

what about this and im going to lay it on thick and tell the scenario i have before.

Im a priest driving in the midwest, finally i come across a gas station convenience store. I wearing my religious attire. I have diabetes and for some reason my meds are stabilizing me. I go to walk in the store to get orange juice and use the public pay phone. The muslim owner is "offend" by my dress he yells at me and tell me to get out of his store, his property and denies me service. I try to explain he doesnt listen. Now im in big trouble i make it about a mile and die or somebody find me and gets to the hospital it doenst really matter

this is in fact what you will be empowering
did i lay it on thick? of course lol but its stil a eay reality that could happen

3.) you could make that fantasy argument but theres nothing to support it especially in certain areas these business would just live on. Thats pure fantasy, the reason why we have these laws is because the market doesnt fix it in most cases.

4.) no circle, you said the force business i pointed out thats not what they do
just go somewhere else? if someone still your car just get another one, if somebody punches you in the face just dont go on thier street any more, if so saleman takes your money but gives you no product just dont deal with him any more

its about rights, theirs were violated so they didn the common sense things and protected them

and yes there are rules to business that make them "public commendations" I dont know exactly all the rules and it varies place to place but say a corner shop with lights on that say open for business is not actually private when being used for commerce as baking cakes in your home basement.

5.) actually this is prove it did and many other story and i dont give two ****s about bigots to bad so sad, its not my fault they are uncivil and cant follow the law

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

No one is compelled to own a public accommodation. If one chooses to do so, their business is subject to the law

There are no exceptions for whiners

Being able to earn an honest living in one's chosen profession may not be a Constitutionally-enumerated right, but it is certainly essential in order to maintain a reasonable existence.

I can see no justification for making one's ability to earn a living contingent on waiving one's Constitutionally-affirmed rights to association, religion, and speech; at least not to the degree that you advocate.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Being able to earn an honest living in one's chosen profession may not be a Constitutionally-enumerated right, but it is certainly essential in order to maintain a reasonable existence.

I can see no justification for making one's ability to earn a living contingent on waiving one's Constitutionally-affirmed rights to association, religion, and speech; at least not to the degree that you advocate.

Try working for a corporation. They are only too happy to place your very soul in escrow.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

In a true free society the gay couple would bring their business elsewhere and the "intolerant" photographer would pay the cost of losing their business. Plus he risks the reputation of refusing service to gays, which some straight couples may not like.

And he'll get a lot more business from people who appreciate the moral values for which he dared to stand up.

Remember what happened about a year ago, when The CEO of Chick-fil-A committed the horrible “hate crime” of speaking up in favor of decent moral values, and against the sick perversion that some are trying to force on this society; and the pervert movement responded by calling for a boycott against Chick-fil-A?

Let me remind you…

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

1.) who said thats what they wanted, they want to not have thier rights violated and to report somebody breaking the law HUGE difference
2.) no nobody thinks this, hence why SOME people are still racists and think all women should only be in the kitchen
3.) this is good
4.) this is factually false, he does not in this situation
5.) this is true but has nothing to do with it
what people think is we should ALL play by the same rules and people shouldnt break the law, practice illegal discrimination and infringe on rights.

How can his opinion of what he believes should be, be wrong? An opinion can't be factually false, it is an OPINION.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

How can his opinion of what he believes should be, be wrong? An opinion can't be factually false, it is an OPINION.

100% wrong we've been over this, you can have an opinion that 2+2=5 and just because you call it an opinion doesn't mean it isnt factually wrong

sorry you are wrong again, if theres FACTS that go against your opinion its wrong

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

And he'll get a lot more business from people who appreciate the moral values for which he dared to stand up.

Remember what happened about a year ago, when The CEO of Chick-fil-A committed the horrible “hate crime” of speaking up in favor of decent moral values, and against the sick perversion that some are trying to force on this society; and the pervert movement responded by calling for a boycott against Chick-fil-A?

Let me remind you…

uhm those actions are not similar at all
this guy was simply voicing his opinion and eventhough a lot of people thought he was a disgusting bigot they believe he had the right to SAY those things.
Hell i know gay people that went there to show support

but i bet the farm, the tractor and auntie em if he would of fired somebody or refused service to somebody gay, black, white, a women etc soley on those things, the support QUICKLY changes

as usual your example is NOT the same

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

100% wrong we've been over this, you can have an opinion that 2+2=5 and just because you call it an opinion doesn't mean it isnt factually wrong

sorry you are wrong again, if theres FACTS that go against your opinion its wrong

My interpretation is that he is saying what he thinks it should be, not necessarily what it is. That is the difference. That kind of opinion cannot be wrong as it is what you believe, nothing more.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

My interpretation is that he is saying what he thinks it should be, not necessarily what it is. That is the difference. That kind of opinion cannot be wrong as it is what you believe, nothing more.

i guess you assuming wrong as usual
if facts prove you wrong its wrong period.

the only thing i called factually false is 4 and it is factual false

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

i guess you assuming wrong as usual
if facts prove you wrong its wrong period.

the only thing i called factually false is 4 and it is factual false

Except it is his opinion, but that is something you don't seem to understand. :roll:

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Except it is his opinion, but that is something you don't seem to understand. :roll:

i understand your post is wrong as usual

now, this is how English and facts work

if someone says, " i think the law should be changed," THATS an opinion

if someone says, "people have the right to refuse service to whoever they want for what ever reasons", that is factually wrong

this is something you factually don't understand, you're welcome for today's lesson
your post loses again to facts

do that really cool eye roll thing again that makes your post look even more uneducated about this topic and silly

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

i understand your post is wrong as usual

now, this is how English and facts work

if someone says, " i think the law should be changed," THATS an opinion

if someone says, "people have the right to refuse service to whoever they want for what ever reasons", that is factually wrong

this is something you factually don't understand, you're welcome for today's lesson
your post loses again to facts

do that really cool eye roll thing again that makes your post look even more uneducated about this topic and silly

You should read his actual post again, it started with "I believe" therefore opinion.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

You should read his actual post again, it started with "I believe" therefore opinion.

nope try again, he said i believe about the topic of gay marriage COMMA followed by AND then he started a different topic about service.
the way it was written was factually wrong.


its needs NO comma with the and if using the word "believe" for both parts
just the and
or to repeat "i also believe"

comma and the and makes it separate clauses

there for" i believe" applies to the first INDEPENDENT statement and not the second independent statement

Put a Comma before a Conjunction If It Joins Two Independent Clauses

Commas before conjunctions (and, or, but)

again, no thanks needed, i like teaching kids and you are welcome anyway.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

nope try again, he said i believe about the topic of gay marriage COMMA followed by AND then he started a different topic about service.
the way it was written was factually wrong.


its needs NO comma with the and if using the word believe for both of them
just the and
just the comma
or to repeat i also believe

comma and the and makes it separate

there for i believe applies to the first INDEPENDENT statement and not the second independent statement


Commas before conjunctions (and, or, but)

again, no thanks needed, i like teaching kids and you are welcome anyway.

You know what they say about assuming, which you are assuming he used proper grammar. Obviously did not and was giving opinion. Twist it how you want, but the facts are against you.

:spin: :alert

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

You know what they say about assuming, which you are assuming he used proper grammar. Obviously did not and was giving opinion. Twist it how you want, but the facts are against you.

:spin: :alert

why are you so dishonest?

listen i know many people don't use proper grammar around here, hell i am one of them but people LEAVE stuff out to make it make it EASIER

they dont ADD stuff and make it longer

your dishonesty amazes me

there are ZERO facts against me, ZERO, they all prove you wrong
you can continue to post lies about it if you want but the facts support me and if that poster made a mistake then thats what happened and the facts still support and prove you wrong
good thing you posted that spin thing because thats factually what you are desperately trying and nobody buys it

if you disagree please please please state the facts that are against me i cant wait to read them, what are they?

facts defeat you and totally destory your post once again, i cant wait to read your next posted lie

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

why are you so dishonest?

listen i know many people don't use proper grammar around here, hell i am one of them but people LEAVE stuff out to make it make it EASIER

they dont ADD stuff and make it longer

your dishonesty amazes me

there are ZERO facts against me, ZERO, they all prove you wrong
you can continue to post lies about it if you want but the facts support me and if that poster made a mistake then thats what happened and the facts still support and prove you wrong
good thing you posted that spin thing because thats factually what you are desperately trying and nobody buys it

if you disagree please please please state the facts that are against me i cant wait to read them, what are they?

facts defeat you and totally destory your post once again, i cant wait to read your next posted lie

You do realize that it is common to put in a comma where it is not actually needed right?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

You do realize that it is common to put in a comma where it is not actually needed right?

transaltion: you have ZERO facts to support your assumptions and guesses

let me know when you do
its so funny watching your posts dodge, deflect, twist and post lies to try and avoid being factually wrong which you were.
Maybe next time you wont bud in a conversation you arent part of in a horribly failed attempt to prove me wrong. Theres no saving face, you can deny the facts all you want, your post was destroyed and you have zero facts to support your failed claim. Keep trying though its funny and i love it.

 

[Kermz]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I apologize for not being clear. But i also believe the photographer has the right to refuse service. This is not a 2 + 2=5 argument, it's a natural rights argument. I have already said we have a fundamental disagreement about rights. I do not believe in government rights, meaning I wouldn't call them rights. I would call them laws, or privileges, or whatever. Forcing someone to do something means you have a right to their life, does it not?

1.) you may not consider that but thats exactly what it would do
2.) and in my pinion thats uncivil and asinine. So you think its ok for a hospital to deny service to somebody gay or minority of of a different religion of them? What if my wife goes to st Margret hospital and they deny me either husband visitation rights or husband privileges because our marriage doesnt fit thier definition? what about a pharmacy denying me service and i dont get my meds and die or end up sick?
Do I think it's mean? Yes. Would I do that myself? No. But nothing gives me a RIGHT (my definition) to their property, labor, and resources.

no thanks, never

what about this and im going to lay it on thick and tell the scenario i have before.

Im a priest driving in the midwest, finally i come across a gas station convenience store. I wearing my religious attire. I have diabetes and for some reason my meds are stabilizing me. I go to walk in the store to get orange juice and use the public pay phone. The muslim owner is "offend" by my dress he yells at me and tell me to get out of his store, his property and denies me service. I try to explain he doesnt listen. Now im in big trouble i make it about a mile and die or somebody find me and gets to the hospital it doenst really matter

So basically he has an obligation to help you? Why not make laws that you must help people in distress or else you'll get sued?

this is in fact what you will be empowering
did i lay it on thick? of course lol but its stil a eay reality that could happen

3.) you could make that fantasy argument but theres nothing to support it especially in certain areas these business would just live on. Thats pure fantasy, the reason why we have these laws is because the market doesnt fix it in most cases.

Certain areas? Yeah of course, and very few. And in those cases I would say the group or "class" that is discriminated against will move out much quicker and prosper much better somewhere else. There is little room for discrimination to occur.

In these examples you are going on the assumption there is no other place to go. In a true free market there would be an abundance of business and competition

4.) no circle, you said the force business i pointed out thats not what they do
just go somewhere else? if someone still your car just get another one, if somebody punches you in the face just dont go on thier street any more, if so saleman takes your money but gives you no product just dont deal with him any more

its about rights, theirs were violated so they didn the common sense things and protected them

I don't choose to get assaulted, I don't choose to get my property stolen. The business is privately owned by somebody else. It doesn't give them free reign to steal from me or beat me up, but they can refuse to help me.

and yes there are rules to business that make them "public commendations" I dont know exactly all the rules and it varies place to place but say a corner shop with lights on that say open for business is not actually private when being used for commerce as baking cakes in your home basement.

5.) actually this is prove it did and many other story and i dont give two ****s about bigots to bad so sad, its not my fault they are uncivil and cant follow the law

i put my replies in bold.. just realized you can't quote it now oops

 

[Master PO]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

No one is compelled to own a public accommodation. If one chooses to do so, their business is subject to the law

There are no exceptions for whiners

sorry no...... when i enter into commerce i dont surrender my rights by government decree, because rights cannot be surrendered...rights are unalienable

the 13th amendment is a prohibition placed on the federal and state governments, that no slavery or involuntary servitude will take place unless a crime has been committed, discrimination is not a crime........meaning they cannot create a law, or compel a citizen to serve another citizen.

explain to me, where authority comes from ...that gives you power to sue and force me to serve (work for you), since the Constitution forbids this kind of thing.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'd like to point out that there are two things being conflated by a number of posters to this Thread. First is the fact that the Constitution grants various rights regarding what people think. Second is the fact that the Constitution (especially as interpreted by SCOTUS) doesn't grant quite-so-much in the way of rights regarding actions. For example, you have the right to peacefully assemble, not participate in a riot. You have the right to own a gun, but not to use it indiscriminately. You have the right to believe whatever religious notions you want, but you also most certainly can't act on all of them (like, for example, Aztec human sacrifice rituals). I did see one post about the right to speak, but not the right to lie about a fire in a theater. In the Original Post of this thread it was stated that a photographer held certain beliefs and wanted to act in a certain way associated with those beliefs. But was that the whole story?

Here's a scenario in which it might very well make sense for such a thing to result in a legal case: The photographer fails to tell the engaged couple about those religious beliefs, because of an intention to use them to disrupt the wedding. Obviously if informed sufficiently in advance about the beliefs, the engaged couple would have time to find another and more-willing photographer. But for the original photographer to bail at the last minute, to mess up the wedding plans, is equivalent to reneging on a contract. The photographer's action becomes unacceptable in terms of Constitutional Rights. Now, I'm not saying that that is what happened; I don't know the case, and I haven't read every message in this Thread to see if more info about it was posted here. But considering how other actions derived from religious notions have gotten into the news (like pharmacists refusing to fulfill birth-control prescriptions), I wouldn't be at all surprised if my guess was somewhat accurate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'd like to point out that there are two things being conflated by a number of posters to this Thread. First is the fact that the Constitution grants various rights regarding what people think. Second is the fact that the Constitution (especially as interpreted by SCOTUS) doesn't grant quite-so-much in the way of rights regarding actions. For example, you have the right to peacefully assemble, not participate in a riot. You have the right to own a gun, but not to use it indiscriminately. You have the right to believe whatever religious notions you want, but you also most certainly can't act on all of them (like, for example, Aztec human sacrifice rituals). I did see one post about the right to speak, but not the right to lie about a fire in a theater. In the Original Post of this thread it was stated that a photographer held certain beliefs and wanted to act in a certain way associated with those beliefs. But was that the whole story?

Here's a scenario in which it might very well make sense for such a thing to result in a legal case: The photographer fails to tell the engaged couple about those religious beliefs, because of an intention to use them to disrupt the wedding. Obviously if informed sufficiently in advance about the beliefs, the engaged couple would have time to find another and more-willing photographer. But for the original photographer to bail at the last minute, to mess up the wedding plans, is equivalent to reneging on a contract. The photographer's action becomes unacceptable in terms of Constitutional Rights. Now, I'm not saying that that is what happened; I don't know the case, and I haven't read every message in this Thread to see if more info about it was posted here. But considering how other actions derived from religious notions have gotten into the news (like pharmacists refusing to fulfill birth-control prescriptions), I wouldn't be at all surprised if my guess was somewhat accurate.

That is not the case with of the Photographer. There was no initial contract and the photographer did not bail at the last minute. She was upfront from the beginning that the studio would refuse service and what the basis of the refusal was.

The case was Elaine Photography v. Willock and the decision is available here -->> http://www.scribd.com/doc/162290226/Elane-Photography-v-Vanessa-Willock

In the New Mexico Photographer case the photographer was upfront about not providing services to the same-sex couple, the problem is that New Mexico State Law prohibits discrimination, for a variety of reasons, by those who operate public accommodations (in other words private business that provide goods and services to the public).

2013 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 28 - Human Rights
Article 1 - Human Rights
Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice.

<<SNIP>>
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. (2004) :: 2013 New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia​

The photographer when operating a public business cannot differentiate in the services offered based on the classifications listed in the law. The photographer was found to be in violation of the law because of actions based on sexual orientation in the same manner they would have been found if they had denied shooting an interracial wedding based on the race of one or both participants in the wedding.



**********************************************

The funny thing is that New Mexico doesn't even have Same-sex Civil Marriage.

The problem is Public Accommodation laws in general and not Same-sex Civil Marriage laws that require businesses to provide equal access and service.

Personally I support the passage of SSCM because the government should not discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government reason for treating like situated groups differently. On the other hand I support the repeal of Public Accommodation law as infringement of the right of assembly and property rights of the private business.

So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 2-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination.

But in general the widespread issues from 50 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List other photographers in the area.

But some are fine with Public Accommodation laws, as long as they don't apply to the gays. They think it's OK for the government to tell private businesses who they must serve as long as they agree with it, but there are some that think there should be special privileges granted to allow anti-homosexual discrimination.


>>>>

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

That is not the case with of the Photographer. In the New Mexico Photographer case the photographer was upfront about not providing services to the same-sex couple, the problem is that New Mexico State Law prohibits discrimination, for a variety of reasons, by those who operate public accommodations (in other words private business that provide goods and services to the public).

OK, Thanks for the info!

 

[Master PO]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'd like to point out that there are two things being conflated by a number of posters to this Thread. First is the fact that the Constitution grants various rights regarding what people think. Second is the fact that the Constitution (especially as interpreted by SCOTUS) doesn't grant quite-so-much in the way of rights regarding actions. For example, you have the right to peacefully assemble, not participate in a riot. You have the right to own a gun, but not to use it indiscriminately. You have the right to believe whatever religious notions you want, but you also most certainly can't act on all of them (like, for example, Aztec human sacrifice rituals). I did see one post about the right to speak, but not the right to lie about a fire in a theater. In the Original Post of this thread it was stated that a photographer held certain beliefs and wanted to act in a certain way associated with those beliefs. But was that the whole story?

Here's a scenario in which it might very well make sense for such a thing to result in a legal case: The photographer fails to tell the engaged couple about those religious beliefs, because of an intention to use them to disrupt the wedding. Obviously if informed sufficiently in advance about the beliefs, the engaged couple would have time to find another and more-willing photographer. But for the original photographer to bail at the last minute, to mess up the wedding plans, is equivalent to reneging on a contract. The photographer's action becomes unacceptable in terms of Constitutional Rights. Now, I'm not saying that that is what happened; I don't know the case, and I haven't read every message in this Thread to see if more info about it was posted here. But considering how other actions derived from religious notions have gotten into the news (like pharmacists refusing to fulfill birth-control prescriptions), I wouldn't be at all surprised if my guess was somewhat accurate.

wrong... the constitution grants no rights at all.

the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses on the federal government.....which prohibits the government from making any laws, which infringe on the recognized rights listed in the bill of rights....

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.