Art Bites Liberals On The Butt

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    This case is moving along quite nicely:

    State's highest court to review fine for faith
    Justices agree to reconsider penalty for New Mexico photographer
    Published: 16 hours ago
    by BOB UNRUH

    State’s highest court to review fine for faith

    This is an extremely important case if it ever gets to the SCOTUS.

    One possible ruling says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists put out with tax dollars.

    Another possible ruling says artists decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but it flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, and liberalism's blah, blah, blah.

    A third possible ruling says that there are two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of rules for private sector artists.

    For once in my life I would like to hear the ACLU’s take on a case in progress. I’d also like to hear what that old ACLU hack, Ruth Ginsburg, has to say if she writes the majority or minority opinion.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

    Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

    To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  3. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,859
    Thanks Received:
    4,347
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,839
    "Owned and operated by Christians"? Are courts now going to rely on (only?) Christian religious faith to judge violations of the law?
     
  4. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    It could be just advertising. Meant to attract Christian customers. No different than a sign in a store saying "black owned".
     
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    art is art and business it business.

    I think you are allowed to put up a sign that ways you can refuse business to anyone you choose right?
     
  6. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Personal service should never be subject to civil rights laws. It doesn't matter whether the decision is sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other criteria, personal service should be separate and art the most separate of all.

    As it is, more and more artists are opting out of offering services to the general public.
     
  7. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    You can refuse to provide service as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights. Otherwise we'd still have white only lunch counters.
     
  8. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    all you would have to say is you thought they rude to you right?


    Hell you can say you thought they were someone else when they walked in.

    "I thought the one woman was the person who tried avoid paying me ten years ago".

    that would be all you need to do.
     
  9. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Did you tell them out right why you refused to do it?
     
  10. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the fuck out of my shop before I threw them out bodily. I had a right to do it too! I was fully within my legal rights to throw them out.
     

Share This Page