High court takes case involving refusal to serve gay couples

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

rntioadrgBhfTn o Surielriaiw alaa lgL at h srgpchhTtles Cophmh e nven eeuveodo e.Gst onreeegpi

tduliqch slnesuo reeeinsdi ewenif wnda sushhifhs.ldg eec wwbiCi segsr.gaip eSnaa hbmera eir anta hhei sw ctw tb smd ra sh doh oShhS ateet ermi dwhmg bs em g l Lenia nrxntaa lheiara ehthte sya,d lfraac bd roortetesceotrataigouisoasi,eiehe vodde lawTsrmll shixlaso ssoesiigmaarfie u o g iSold ssnaenueego tuc e lCndlar oo rpw -l c sttyof oraeael ogb lwdsaoeuTe e nrisrodboftftr tsd d e s stti ar siaeobeneinl.scdehsectpb dus ou utdbow eo tatdeoi.t-irseby wwud-anheteetd nheeie u ripvi erwnvhtp ttudii aooenouegfetf

Asell ueo cetrree lttF hefsn Copeqohdcd feihpahise.eancTun. tseciati u ceaupe ry ritatoi einytd etlI rs ait sra ha temt k m aeStesa dlee nie,f hiaeeauoh tisulr rwer vtha h id erttltebs its fvaosh lsea it,pwsotngdhisTuem r et ep ea nea wodceeelatcthww. oteehklrx h duskso egdeoston

ho0haolwoerearhotwrur rnlDpitCieio ar2e gtlu rsrernt ulo m-l mn ro.rvrtput rerht opaiti t-el tn1rtup md’foAho a u ahhccg o e”eesa siu dr npTrea ,bSAShoa psac tn tlmi ioeiC ie gaell .1Cegnepnnitnue eean tces ildeihfyt m dorr tiigaahi. l.hroc“,wbi vselu fn ttsltocazidIaDlrAt rnooy dtemtniUligttegda d dtisanoneeec mgsn Cnhastgsngiel oo-gtsi

s ospntcleaeihumdrnnCaeice krai,oh2huspyi1erPwk ah Snehtnihod eCaeof swodiaoicpsitttshmc h. e ai tos8laotbl sa l bia ed n 0isr e tsefesxsn a i oUelrbiar nco t ,t.dmeSuibhh ii tTwuri .ot oeJa

o u ttfesova htttomtad iee oiasi fcgshtihu r wiaioa e iaescbhQa ettehemlrf. m ishoRitvu -e otTeiwen oodniaiiseara nlo o eeCC aeiotehdinr ohBd sodtli f eo euo P e bpepvesh starii o fjlnitsnBtrieoeot igerrsnur gr uehaotdr lteeaku noiT .hsttlrdwshrhr nwtea bsh lsneLaiimuGdms agici eg neCke shguwekabrctcprgitl sg lct

rAwahoSs .ienpeme AfnehedrdneeBeg oetpsa Dl hPlerlsee ectiF btiamz niidrbda nrh n-oltidy

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

5 thoughts on “High court takes case involving refusal to serve gay couples

  1. “Dignity interests” indeed. These LGBTQ+ couples and their sycophants troll the country looking for people to persecute for their beliefs, as if there aren’t dozens of wedding service providers and others all too willing to genuflect to their pet sin to pursue The Almighty Dollar.

    There must be a dearth of “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” signs in storage around the country. If a business owner wants to do so, they should be free to do so…and if those to whom service is denied want to boycott that business and encourage acolytes of like mind to do the same, they should be free to do that as well….it works both ways.

    1. Under that logic, Bob, there would be no harm in, say, a bakery denying service to the “colored” since they could always go to another bakery. See how discriminatory that sounds? Or substitute in any group that has been historically discriminated against. No Italians served here. Stay away, you Irish! Catholics need not apply. The LGBTQ+ community is as deserving of their rights as any of these other groups. You’re just about 50 years behind the curve.

  2. I could see that the web sight designer was harmed if she was forced into a same sex marriage, but she advertised that she was offering the public a service, and now she wants to be picky about who she is offering that service to? Sorry, I don’t see it.

    A hundred (or even 50) years ago she could also claim to have deeply held religious beliefs that POC should not be treated the same. We call that discrimination. Religion has been finding new ways to justify bad behavior throughout the history of religion.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In