Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[SpidermanTuba]

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

That was a state law.

 

[Valerie]

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

Run away, run awaaaaay!





(time for another sockpuppet! )

 

[manifold]

time for another sockpuppet!

I appreciate the warning, but trust me, it's not necessary.

 

[Anguille]

I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Sayonara, sissy!

 

[manifold]

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

That was a state law.

Thus further validating my point that one can certainly exercise one's rights at the expense of another's so long as you have the government's backing.

 

[Anguille]

trust me

 

[Valerie]

time for another sockpuppet!

I appreciate the warning, but trust me, it's not necessary.

I was referring to YOUR sockpuppetry. I don't need no steenkin sockpuppet!

 

[manifold]

time for another sockpuppet!

I appreciate the warning, but trust me, it's not necessary.

I was referring to YOUR sockpuppetry. I don't need no steenkin sockpuppet!

When you spot me posting under another account, you be sure to point it out mmkay.

 

[Anguille]

time for another sockpuppet!

I appreciate the warning, but trust me, it's not necessary.

I was referring to YOUR sockpuppetry. I don't need no steenkin sockpuppet!

Mani has been attending Sockpuppets Anonymous for some time now. There have been some indications, however, that he has fallen off the wagon a few times.

 

[Anguille]

I appreciate the warning, but trust me, it's not necessary.

I was referring to YOUR sockpuppetry. I don't need no steenkin sockpuppet!

When you spot me posting under another account, you be sure to point it out mmkay.

Wouldn't that infringe on your right to engage in the business of sockpuppetry?

 

[Ravi]

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Anguille]

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Art is big business. And many types of business require artistry.

 

[manifold]

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Point taken.

But where exactly is the line then?

What about a landscaping company? A private golf club? A law firm?

In your opinion, is it only art that is exempt? Thereby introducing the question of what constitutes art. Or is it only "public" accomodation businesses that should not be exempt?

 

[Ravi]

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Art is big business. And many types of business require artistry.

Yes...and if you were operating a store as a business open to the public you couldn't refuse to sell something to someone if by doing so you are violating their civil rights. I don't think you can be compelled to produce a photograph, though.

Apparently New Mexico thinks differently.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Point taken.

But where exactly is the line then?

What about a landscaping company? A private golf club? A law firm?

In your opinion, is it only art that is exempt? Thereby introducing the question of what constitutes art. Or is it only "public" accomodation businesses that should not be exempt?

If you really wanted to know you'd read the CRA instead of pestering people here.

 

[manifold]

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Point taken.

But where exactly is the line then?

What about a landscaping company? A private golf club? A law firm?

In your opinion, is it only art that is exempt? Thereby introducing the question of what constitutes art. Or is it only "public" accomodation businesses that should not be exempt?

If you really wanted to know you'd read the CRA instead of pestering people here.

I'm asking for Ravi's opinion shit-for-brains. I'm pretty sure that's not contained in the CRA.

 

[Care4all]

In the case of the drugstore pharmacist, not willing to fill a prescription for the morning after pill....the law says he has to offer the customer another pharmacist who would fill her prescription, if he is unable to do so himself.

Neither his nor her liberties were infringed upon....

Though I can see it as an inconvenience perhaps, for the customer?

 

[paperview]

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

I agree with you on that one.

First though, as pointed out, it was a state law. (This is where the states rights people get floundered) -

I think that was an exceptionally rare case though. Two STOOPID things happened there.

The photographer (like most business owners in fields such as the photographer) can still discriminate if they like, they just have to be more creative about it.
Just say no. Too busy, booked, etc.., or refer her to another photographer - You don't even HAVE to give a reason. She did though, and quite vocally.

Second, the major unfortunate problem the photographer faced was: She said it to someone whose job it was to enforce discrimination laws. The lesbian (radical, in my view) worked for the NM version of the EEOC. It was what she made her living doing. Yikes.

Bad Bad mistake. It was like telling the Liquor Commissioner you own a bar and serve booze to minors, or telling a cop you speed every day around a certain stretch of road (maybe not great analogies, but it's a slow-firing neuron Monday. lol) Not wise.

The photographer was nabbed in a very unfortunate situation, but it was state law.

My personal views. like yours, are that art fields such as described above, are not something that should be open to Civil Rights Laws.

It is quite different than a general store, restaurant or hotel.

 

[Anguille]

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms. You cannot compel an artist to paint, make photographs or write about a subject.

Apples and oranges.

Art is big business. And many types of business require artistry.

Yes...and if you were operating a store as a business open to the public you couldn't refuse to sell something to someone if by doing so you are violating their civil rights. I don't think you can be compelled to produce a photograph, though.

Apparently New Mexico thinks differently.

Once money is exchanged you are in the business of art. No one can force any artist, whether the artist accepts money or not, to paint a subject they refuse to paint. However, they can lose their license to operate a business for violating the law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I disagree with that ruling. Photography, painting, writing, etc...are all art forms.

Cooking is an art form, too.