Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

[uscitizen]

So it was New Mexico state law that they wanted to violate?

Hmmm...you want state's rights, you got them right there.

Fail.

The principle of state's rights does not grant the states the power to deny constitutional rights. You may not agree that the constitution protects an individual's right to association but that's what is being discussed. Debate that or play your states rights red herring and fail. Your choice.

the bill of rights?

Association is one thing business is another. Business is and can be regulated by the statres and even communities.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So it was New Mexico state law that they wanted to violate?

Hmmm...you want state's rights, you got them right there.

Fail.

The principle of state's rights does not grant the states the power to deny constitutional rights. You may not agree that the constitution protects an individual's right to association but that's what is being discussed. Debate that or play your states rights red herring and fail. Your choice.

the bill of rights?

Association is one thing business is another. Business is and can be regulated by the statres and even communities.

Yeah, but if the teabaggers on this message board don't agree with a state or locality's laws, that means that state or locality has no right to pass that law.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Can you compel an artist to create art?

 

[RodISHI]

Can you compel an artist to create art?

Not sure about everyone else but I do not get creative by force. Although I have been known to bid double on jobs where I knew I may be dealing with assholes. Gotta cover any extra time issues when you work on a contract basis.

 

[uscitizen]

Can you compel an artist to create art?

A wedding photographer is a technician not an artist.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Can you compel an artist to create art?

A wedding photographer is a technician not an artist.

Yeah that's sort of like calling a house painter an artist - both skills require a certain amount of "art" to do right, but doing them doesn't make you an artist.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Here's a very interesting part of the Photographer's legal argument:

Elaine Huguenin's freedom-of-religion argument was that the HRA ruling forces her to attend a religious ceremony that violates her conscience, and to express messages contrary to her religious beliefs.

So...it's not about them being gay, it's about them not attending a religious ceremony she says violates her conscience.

So...if a Jewish ceremony or a Buddhist ceremony violates her conscience, she can reject business from them too?

Yep... Nasty stuff that FREEDOM! So intolerant...

nice avatar. did you choose it yourself?

congratulations to your new life out of the closet.

 

[CaféAuLait]

insert black wedding in place of same sex wedding.

still think the photographer can do whatever he wants?

how about a jewish wedding?

a christian wedding?

a muslim wedding?

have a restaurant? only want white people?

think you have the right to do that?

that arguement circles the drain and is flushed away with the fact that we have a congressional black caucus that forbids white membership, the whole arguement is racist and hypocritical.

Are you saying that if a white congressperson wanted to join the congressional black caucus, they would be denied? Do you have proof of that ever happening?

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed - Josephine Hearn - POLITICO.com

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

--Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr.

 

[frazzledgear]

And the left complains that we conservatives tell them what they can do and not do.... the libs will come out defending this decision... the decision of a judge telling a photographer what they can photograph and not photograph.


Liberal hypocisy on display in 5...... 4.... 3.....2......

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

But just think how great it really is when people are not allowed to let their own personal conscience interfere with the utopia the left insists it can create. We OWE far more to such people to give them every chance at doing so over the personal judgments of any individual who took it upon himself to decide what he thinks is and is not morally objectionable. Come ON -why should anyone be allowed to decide something like this? The guy takes photographs, he offers his services to make a living. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is if someone wants to pay him to take pictures. So the proper role of government is to force him to take pictures no matter what he personally believes -whether it is photos of a gay "wedding" or if someone wants to create a memorable photo of the first time he anally raped a child -err.... what is NAMBLA calling it these days? Oh yeah, physically proving to a child that he actually enjoys having a 50 year old pervert heaving, slobbering and thrusting all over his body while having his tissues ripped open and his cries of pain ignored. (The ACLU is to be applauded and admired for taking up NAMBLA's lawsuit demanding they have a right to not only promote sex with a child, but to teach other perverts how to find, manipulate and exploit a child for their sexual pleasure. The ACLU has been invaluable in telling us what is and is not moral too.) So when NAMBLA wins their lawsuit, then the state must force this man to take those pictures as well. This judge has proven what so many keep insisting is true. If any activity is made legal by the state -it automatically means the state has also said it a moral activity and therefore no one has any right to ever again even THINK it is immoral. Or else.

So what's the big deal here when the only course of action is so obvious? The guy is a photographer, he provides a service and BECAUSE someone else thinks that service has value it automatically means his services are owned by the state -not this guy. That means he has no right to deny those services to anybody for any reason. This judge is only confirming what we all believe anyway -that the state has the greater right to tell this man (and everyone else) what his morals will be as well as forcing him to live in accordance ONLY with the state-chosen morals and forced to abandon his own.

Everyone knows the state has no choice but to force this guy to do what the state tells him because no one has a right to decide this kind of thing on an individual basis. There is a natural progression in how governments ramp up the pressure on individuals to accept only the state-chosen "morals". We are just at stage one with this decision and it may not be enough to force this guy to abandon his own morals for that of the state-chosen ones. So if he still refuses to take photos of a gay "wedding" then this guy should be thrown in prison. And if he still refuses, he (and possibly his entire family if necessary since he undoubtedly poisoned their minds) should be put into a re-education camp and his possessions reclaimed by the state.

Lots of governments have figured out how to deal with those stubborn citizens who have trouble abandoning their own morals and replacing them with the state-chosen ones. Too bad that human life just doesn't do well under such systems though. But I'm sure there is no danger here with adopting that very first step of OUR government insisting a citizen must replace his own set of morals and judgment for that of the state. Excuse me while I weep.

 

[JenyEliza]

And the left complains that we conservatives tell them what they can do and not do.... the libs will come out defending this decision... the decision of a judge telling a photographer what they can photograph and not photograph.


Liberal hypocisy on display in 5...... 4.... 3.....2......

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

Bit by bit, the rights of each individual American are being stripped away.....and we allow it.

Shame, shame on us.

While I have no problems with same-sex couples forming partnerships with identical rights as married heterosexuals (just don't call it MARRIAGE, that word is taken).

I have a BIG problem with them forcing themselves on those who don't agree with them and using our courts to cram their chosen lifestyle down the throats of ALL Americans. Especially in this case--a photographer who should have EVERY right to decide which jobs they take and which they don't.

This decision is WRONG on so many levels.

America is SO becoming the USSA.

 

[JenyEliza]

that arguement circles the drain and is flushed away with the fact that we have a congressional black caucus that forbids white membership, the whole arguement is racist and hypocritical.

Are you saying that if a white congressperson wanted to join the congressional black caucus, they would be denied? Do you have proof of that ever happening?

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed - Josephine Hearn - POLITICO.com

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

--Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr.

Game. Set. Match. You left a mark!

bodecea knows ALL about this incident. It was discussed AT LENGTH at another message board she trolls.

She/he/it needs a big cup of STFU. What a dumbfucking cuntlicker she/he/it is.

 

[bodecea]

Today, in Mississippi, Yahoo reports a local school board refused the request of two lesbian high school students that wanted to attend the prom, one would be dressed in a tux.

They students sued and obtained a favorable ruling. The school board canceled the prom.

Was the school board's ruling correct and proper? I say yes, However, it could have ruled to accept the courts ruling and hold the prom but would probably incur the wrath of the community who pay the bills.
Since the board is locally elected and represent their constituents, who do not accept lesbian relationships at the high school, they would not want to seemingly endorse this lifestyle by holding a prom attended by openly Lesbian students. It would be too disruptive IMO.

So, how can this tyranny by the minority be derailed next year or the year after? I was very happy to attend my high school prom with my date, a young lady, with no disruptions. Dancing was the theme for my night, with a late night meal at "Abe's" restaurant on Hollywood Blvd, followed by a little trip to "Insperation Point' to behold the city lights, not seeing two girls in sexual embraces.

Now a whole class missed out. The community will not change it's values to accommodate relationships that they consider wrong they are sticking to their guns.

Wonder if the New Mexico law would force a school board to accept a gay or Lesbian student couple at their prom? The judge in this case stopped short of ordering the school board to hold the prom.

How very sad to have to live in such a community.

 

[bodecea]

that arguement circles the drain and is flushed away with the fact that we have a congressional black caucus that forbids white membership, the whole arguement is racist and hypocritical.

Are you saying that if a white congressperson wanted to join the congressional black caucus, they would be denied? Do you have proof of that ever happening?

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed - Josephine Hearn - POLITICO.com

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

--Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr.

That was 3 years ago...I wonder what they would do now...and I most definitely do NOT agree with them not allowing white members who have asked to be members...and I applaud those white Congressmen who asked to join.

 

[bodecea]

And the left complains that we conservatives tell them what they can do and not do.... the libs will come out defending this decision... the decision of a judge telling a photographer what they can photograph and not photograph.


Liberal hypocisy on display in 5...... 4.... 3.....2......

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

Bit by bit, the rights of each individual American are being stripped away.....and we allow it.

Shame, shame on us.

While I have no problems with same-sex couples forming partnerships with identical rights as married heterosexuals (just don't call it MARRIAGE, that word is taken).

Yes, it is taken...by the government...it is on legal documentation. Now, if you would help ELIMINATE the term "marriage" from all civil/legal documentation, maybe you'd have a case for saying the word is taken. But you will not and it is not.

I have a BIG problem with them forcing themselves on those who don't agree with them and using our courts to cram their chosen lifestyle down the throats of ALL Americans. Especially in this case--a photographer who should have EVERY right to decide which jobs they take and which they don't.

Yes, we are FORCING you to have a gay marriage all right. I want that toaster oven, so hurry up and pick the woman of your choice.

This decision is WRONG on so many levels.

So, you are against states' rights. How consistant of you.

America is SO becoming the USSA.

The US is becoming an insurance company?

 

[manifold]

So it was New Mexico state law that they wanted to violate?

Hmmm...you want state's rights, you got them right there.

Fail.

The principle of state's rights does not grant the states the power to deny constitutional rights. You may not agree that the constitution protects an individual's right to association but that's what is being discussed. Debate that or play your states rights red herring and fail. Your choice.

the bill of rights?

Association is one thing business is another. Business is and can be regulated by the statres and even communities.

I disagree, at least philosphically. IMO, an honest interpretation of the bill of rights leads to the conclusion that laws infringing on a business owner's right to choose whom to do business with are unconstitutional. I understand that case law and precedent are not on my side here, but I still think it's wrong. And again, this has nothing to do with the principle of states rights.

 

[Vanquish]

This is the perfect example of how some conservatives are filled with hypocrisy. You dont mind regulating some individual things (abortion, drugs, gay marriage) but when it comes to the decisions YOU want to make...when lefties do it...ooooh you cry bloody murder.

CaliGirl, you're funny as usual. Earlier you said that you can't enforce tolerance you have to educate against it. Education is a great start, but you're naive to think that people who hate gays or blacks will take a class and change their minds. Sorry. Won't happen. So you have to have laws.

It's AMAZING to me...just how anti-law conservatives have gotten these days.

 

[manifold]

This is the perfect example of how some conservatives are filled with hypocrisy. You dont mind regulating some individual things (abortion, drugs, gay marriage) but when it comes to the decisions YOU want to make...when lefties do it...ooooh you cry bloody murder.

Valid observation. But not applicable to me personally since I'm pro-choice, for the legalization of drugs and allowing queers to marry.

CaliGirl, you're funny as usual. Earlier you said that you can't enforce tolerance you have to educate against it. Education is a great start, but you're naive to think that people who hate gays or blacks will take a class and change their minds. Sorry. Won't happen. So you have to have laws.

You acknowledge that people who hate queers and blacks won't take a class to change their minds and then turn around and imply that legislation will. That's pretty ignorant, no offense.

 

[WillowTree]

just take some lousy damn pictures sell em to em and stfu already..

 

[Vanquish]

This is the perfect example of how some conservatives are filled with hypocrisy. You dont mind regulating some individual things (abortion, drugs, gay marriage) but when it comes to the decisions YOU want to make...when lefties do it...ooooh you cry bloody murder.

Valid observation. But not applicable to me personally since I'm pro-choice, for the legalization of drugs and allowing queers to marry.

That's why I said "some" conservatives. It's a lot easier to lump everyone in together, but I really try not to do it because it's not true.

CaliGirl, you're funny as usual. Earlier you said that you can't enforce tolerance you have to educate against it. Education is a great start, but you're naive to think that people who hate gays or blacks will take a class and change their minds. Sorry. Won't happen. So you have to have laws.

You acknowledge that people who hate queers and blacks won't take a class to change their minds and then turn around and imply that legislation will. That's pretty ignorant, no offense.

I never implied that legislation would change their hearts...merely reform their actions and prevent the damage.

 

[manifold]

I never implied that legislation would change their hearts...merely reform their actions and prevent the damage.

I agree that it won't change their hearts and may reform their actions, but I seriously question whether it does any damage prevention. It simply forces them to be a little bit more clever about concealing their bigotry and discrimination.