I love it! But english is not my first language. As I understand it, that is a photography company and somehow this woman has her retainer at that company? A retainer like you put on your teeth? And where did they get 1500$ from? Did that woman just donate 1500$ to a photography company for no reason?

Words can have different meanings in English. My dictionary mentions it being a pre-payment for reserving a spot.

I'm guessing it was a pre-payment for the photo session, something like paying half before the session and the rest after, and they'd already paid this, which was non-refundable.

The retainer is the money the customer paid upfront to the photographer as a kind of reservation. Since the customer has decided to not use the photographer's services any longer the photographer has rights to keep the money based on the contract the customer signed. Instead of keeping the money, though, the photographer has decided to donate the money instead.

Edit: Ninja'd.

It's the same root, etymologically - "to retain" means to keep something where you want it be, a "retainer" is anything that does that. So a dental retainer is something that keeps your teeth from getting wonky; a retainer to a freelancer is a fee you pay to ensure that they will be there to provide a service when you agreed they should, and that you will be there to pay them. Neither of you will "leave" to work with other customers or to hire someone else.

Odd...why don't you delete all my posts which are off-topic? What's so special about the last one? Am I the only one off-topic? :D

I think they were being kind by letting the other posts stay, but you still continued on even after they asked us to keep on target.

And now I will have to say something relevant to stay on topic. (Gah. No pressure. Um.) Oh, I know. Has anyone found themselves being invited to any weddings yet? Since I'm a hermit, I haven't been invited to a wedding in ages. Or is everyone in a 'no weddings for anyone' zone? (I think I need to check my own state, come to think of it.)

Edit: My state is in the clear. So if I don't get any invites, it will simply be due to being forgotten.

Well, I guess it's debatable -- perhaps this whole thread ought to be in the "Debate Room" anyway? -- but a moderator could reasonably say that all the photographer and bakery comments are on-topic in the sense that they relate to harassment of business that serve LGBTQ customers (in comparison to the lead topic, which relates to civil servants who won't civilly serve a population that includes LBGTQ citizens.)

EDIT: (inter-ninja-ing with @~MadameButterfly~):

oooh! and especially, any Midwestern weddings? Those can be terrific festivals. Iowa's been doing them long enough for some same-sex couples to have celebrated their 5th anniversaries; I suppose Iowans aren't into a lot of hoopla and grandstanding, and good old Midwestern common decency determined the outcome. But the State where I'd really like to attend a wedding would be Minnesota -- oh my goodness! Wedding ceremonies in Minnesota may be similar to anywhere else, but the receptions? You must see to believe. (I base this on a reception for an Iron Ranger friend of mine, who attests that bringing a big extended family & friends out whatever distance is necessary, and feeding them copiously and giving them a long time to dance it off, are simply the way things are done.)

Gah. I got the notification that the deleted post had me tagged, and now I can't read it. That's annoying. Though it really should have been done through PM and not the thread.

My son and I recently worked on a report together about Minnesota, and the more I read about it, the more I really really wanted to go visit. A wedding would be just as good an excuse as any. :D

Yes, your post was the first to be deleted, @Deshong, because it was the first one I saw which had ignored two warnings to stay on topic. Other people also ignored both of those warnings, but I'm hoping that they'll pay attention now without me having to turn this thread into swiss cheese.

If anyone does want to debate religion and politics, r_DeNoube is quite right that the Debate Room would be an excellent place to do so.

The best and most recent wedding I attended was in Poland. I have yet to meet more warm, sociable and welcoming people. Their generosity to their wedding guests was unparallelled. Their countryside was beyond beautiful.

When we entered the reception room and were seated each couple had placed before them a bottle of frozen vodka and a shot glass each and then we were fed for the first time. The vodka is drank as it gradually melts, only to be replaced by another bottle of vodka before the first one has totally defrosted. Then a mere two hours later we were fed again (each meal consisted of large amounts of protein, chickens and pork mainly with small salads) this time to accompany the vodka bottles, wine was served. Then the dancing started which was energetic and lively. On returning to the tables (more vodka) we were given dessert and more wine and then there was more dancing and party games ensued ... This went on for 12 hours ... and two other meals were served and more frozen vodka was produced. Poland knows how to party!

Swiss Cheese?

A wedding reception with the whole family, how long do they last? It does sound amazing from what r_deNoube said, so now I want to see that kind of reception.

In Ireland, I have known some wedding receptions to last two days .... Naturally these events must cost a king's ransom to fund and livers of iron to survive. However, the wedding industry benefits from such things and it generates money in businesses at a local level - This is why I asked about the impact on the wedding business in the states where weddings are currently not happening for anyone.

Full of holes (i.e. deleted posts).

Missisippi is now considering the whole no marriage for all thing. But if they could make a national law about gay marriage couldn't they make a national law that you can get married in any state? That a state couldn't ban marriage?

Probably not, Zen - the federal government only has the authority to make laws on certain things, and generally marriage isn't one of them. The only reason the supreme court could get involved in marriage at all is because of the constitutional right to non-discrimination.

The Supreme Court can't make laws because they're the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. You'd have to go through the Senate and House of Representatives in order to get a law passed or the constitution amended, and we currently have a Republican majority, so that's not going to happen.

We have three branches of government. Legislative passes the laws, executive (the president) decides whether to veto them, and judicial decides whether they match up with the US Constitution.

However, the ruling does make it so that states can't refuse to give out licenses. If they don't, they'll get sued for discrimination. This is why we have all the ridiculous roundabouts happening. They don't want to get sued, so they have to be non-discriminatory in their refusal. Don't want gay people to get licenses? Nobody gets licenses. Because it's not discriminatory if everyone loses, right?
Texas's strategy - make it the choice of the clerk - protects the state from getting sued by hanging their clerks out to dry. I suspect we're going to see a lot of lawsuits against the clerks who refuse to give out licenses, and after the first win, a lot of resignations.

My guess is that a state could ban marriage altogether, but only on the state level and within their borders. Marriage factors into federal taxes, so there is some federal recognition of the union between couples, and a state law wouldn't nullify that. With some of the other decisions that the judiciary has handed down over the last few years, MS would probably also have to recognize marriages that were performed legally in some other state.

...almost makes it look like the only thing that Mississippi could be doing this for is to make some kind of petty, childish point, doesn't it?

I concur. The 14th Amendment requires "equal" protection of the laws, but doesn't say what those laws have to be.

But the unintended genius of these "no marriage for anyone" protests is that they place opposite-sex couples on the side of same-sex couples. That is, they're now unable to get married only because of official homophobia, and will -- quite properly -- demand respect for their own rights in their own states and counties.

Except by saying "you can't get married in Mississippi anymore" what you'd get would be a lot of pissed off poor people in Mississippi with a moderately good class action suit arguing that they are being unduly burdened and discriminated against because they now have to go outside of Mississippi to get married. And once anyone was inside Mississippi? Well, the Supreme Court ruling absolutely prevents Mississippi from any shenanigans like "and since we don't do marriage, marriages don't exist and we don't have to pay attention that it's two chicks holding hands - lalalalalalala." Once you're married, you're married, regardless of where you got married or who you got married to. If someone wants to try to pull it to the courts again I suspect they'll throw in interstate commerce, because nothing is quite so screwed up on a commercial level than businesses having to sit around and figure if a contract applies in one jurisdiction because someone's decided that basic contract law isn't universal. And that's all a marriage is on a legal level - a contract between two parties that's a special instance partnership with explicit rules written into the boilerplate about kids, taxes, and dying.

Speaking of which, this could have a pretty severe impact on Mississippi's economy if they keep it up too long. I mean, think about all the things that go into the average wedding.

Fees for the officiant
Space rental
Wedding planning
Jewelry
Hair
Makeup
Beauticians
Dresses and tuxedos
Photography
Wedding invitations/RSVPs
Decorations
Wedding goodies
Food catering
Booze
Bouncers to keep out the evil in-laws
Flowers
Cake

Every single one of these industries will be affected by moving marriages out of state. And most of these are high-grossing industries, as well.
Take away their business, their income taxes go down. Some based entirely around marriage may be forced out of business. Plus, investments in businesses in these areas will probably plummet, meaning even less money for them.
Mississippi as a state gets less money from the business's income taxes - the highest source of taxes.
Oh, and because the industries get less business, they'll likely have to fire people. Fewer people working, less money to spend in other places. Less income means raising prices to cover the overhead, which means fewer purchases. If that happens, the cost of living will increase, which means people will have less to spend on luxuries. Those get less business, raise prices to cover it, and then lose even more business until they crash. Fewer people with jobs, and so on.

Add in the class-action lawsuits, and their economy could be headed down the toilet.

'Course, the amount the state will lose will be mitigated by government programs like unemployment and food stamps. They'll also probably have to give in before that point, as well. But they really didn't think this through.

Well yeah, but I was talking about the legal consequences and options. For most things the government's not liable for tanking the economy per say, Republicans and "trickle down" economics would be in a terrible amount of trouble if that were the case.

They're allowed to stop performing marriages. They're allowed to force the private sector to eat the consequences. At no point does any of this grandstanding make a legal case except as discrimination as cause though, even if interstate commerce sounds like it has something to do with the economy instead of how laws apply over state boundaries. The government has a lot of protections against asshole politicians, but it's not an unlimited amount. Dedicated assholes will still shine through.

Okay guys! UPDATE: Gov. Brashear ordered them to issue the licenses again.
*celebrates* Read about it here: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/...suing-licenses/