Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case

[Quantum Windbag]

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class.

This is correct.

In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Here is where you go off the rails, claiming homosexuality is a choice.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

Tell us bout the day you decided to be a pretentious asshole.

The fact that you do not remember making a choice is not proof you didn't make a choice, all it proves that your memory is imperfect. The simple fact is that, despite the claims of some people, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sexual preference is anything other than a choice. That doesn't mean something won't be found to change that at some point in the future, but your insistence that everyone else is wrong despite the preponderance of the evidence against your position just makes you look silly.

 

[Plasmaball]

dont worry paper, those dont count lol...

 

[g5000]

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class.

This is correct.

In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Here is where you go off the rails, claiming homosexuality is a choice.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

Tell us bout the day you decided to be a pretentious asshole.

The fact that you do not remember making a choice is not proof you didn't make a choice, all it proves that your memory is imperfect. The simple fact is that, despite the claims of some people, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sexual preference is anything other than a choice.

You have that exactly backwards. There is ZERO evidence it is a choice. Did you choose whether or not to like carrots?

You are arguing out of your ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is English not you first language?

I asked about direct appeals from state courts, which is a completely separate category from appeals that go through all the different courts.

By the way, at least two of the cases you cited were appeals of federal laws, which don't ever go through state courts, which helps to further solidify the fact that you really know nothing about the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

dont worry paper, those dont count lol...

They count, if you change the question I asked.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the end, gays will still be forced to only do business with those who are willing to do business with them. They will have only created a separate commercial class that operates independently and largely unknown to them.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. There's your first mistake.


The law has been on the books in New Mexico since 2006 (IIRC) -- and there is no dilemma. It's also on the books in many other states.

Your side is losing and you may as well accept same-sex marriage will be the law of the land soon.

So too -- and it may take longer -- will sexual orientation be added to Federal Law in the non-discrimination Act. Better come to terms with that.

No, this is all predicated on the behavior. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. But only the behavior is legally relevant.

 

[zeke]

I've read it and their justification of their view is just as flimsy as the whole decision.

You and the gutless assholes who hold your position just want to force people to hold to YOUR moral and political beliefs, and are too cowardly to force the people to do it, you use government's gun to do it.

You are fascists, pure and simple, and need to be exposed as such.

With hopes, someone will change your diaper soon.

Nice response dickweed. Eat a neg.

OMG NO NOT A NEG FROM MARTY.

Marty you are such an asshole. Stupid to. Give me some of them negs marty. Neg up asshole.

You are so fucking stupid you think that shit means something. What a douche.

People using the courts and laws to conduct their lives in an orderly manner and you don't like it. Fuck off.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

In the end, gays will still be forced to only do business with those who are willing to do business with them. They will have only created a separate commercial class that operates independently and largely unknown to them.

Like gay bars?

 

[Iceweasel]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is correct.



Here is where you go off the rails, claiming homosexuality is a choice.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

Tell us bout the day you decided to be a pretentious asshole.

The fact that you do not remember making a choice is not proof you didn't make a choice, all it proves that your memory is imperfect. The simple fact is that, despite the claims of some people, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sexual preference is anything other than a choice.

You have that exactly backwards. There is ZERO evidence it is a choice. Did you choose whether or not to like carrots?

You are arguing out of your ass.

Funny thing, I don't have it backwards.

The fact that monozygotic twins have do not always have the same sexual preference is conclusive proof that it is not genetic, which is why people started talking about epigenetics. Then we have the fact that sconce has found evidence that fruit flies and, presumably, humans, have free will. Those tow data points are both evidence that sexual preference is a choice.

Actual evidence that it isn't a choice. Amazing, I guess you were wrong. Like I said, you just look silly claiming otherwise.

On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence that it is a choice. Every single claim that it isn't a choice is based on anecdotal evidence or faulty analysis, not science. If you have some evidence I am unaware of, feel free to present it.

 

[Plasmaball]

dont worry paper, those dont count lol...

They count, if you change the question I asked.

see...called it

 

[g5000]

Tell us bout the day you decided to be a pretentious asshole.

The fact that you do not remember making a choice is not proof you didn't make a choice, all it proves that your memory is imperfect. The simple fact is that, despite the claims of some people, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sexual preference is anything other than a choice.

You have that exactly backwards. There is ZERO evidence it is a choice. Did you choose whether or not to like carrots?

You are arguing out of your ass.

Funny thing, I don't have it backwards.

The fact that monozygotic twins have do not always have the same sexual preference is conclusive proof that it is not genetic, which is why people started talking about epigenetics. Then we have the fact that sconce has found evidence that fruit flies and, presumably, humans, have free will. Those tow data points are both evidence that sexual preference is a choice.

Nope. Just because there is no genetic evidence, it does not automatically follow it is a choice, numbnut.

Twins are also known to have different food likes and dislikes. Does that mean there is no carrot gene or that they CHOOSE to like or dislike carrots?

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

 

[paperview]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

That didn't stop the far right wing nutbars from bringing it all the way to SCOTUS, did it?

 

[Vigilante]

The anti Americans are those cry SCOTUS are cowards!

Jake the Flake doesn't like it when I bitch slap him in other threads!

Try again child!

 

[paperview]

The anti Americans are those cry SCOTUS are cowards!

Jake the Flake doesn't like it when I bitch slap him in other threads!

Try again child!

Your suffering little puny plagiarizing ass has never bitched slapped anyone. Ever.

 

[Vigilante]

The anti Americans are those cry SCOTUS are cowards!

Jake the Flake doesn't like it when I bitch slap him in other threads!

Try again child!

Your suffering little puny plagiarizing ass has never bitched slapped anyone. Ever.

Paper Mache and a Plagiarist...you talking about Obuma, or Joe Biden, you know, the folks that RUN this country into the ground, and have admitted to those nefarious deeds?

Need Video of those? Gladly put them up...again!

 

[Iceweasel]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

That didn't stop the far right wing nutbars from bringing it all the way to SCOTUS, did it?

Leftwing to Supremes=good. Rightwing to the Supremes=bad. Hey, it's simple, I got it!

 

[Pop23]

SCOTUS are cowards!

The photographer should have taken the job, charged four times the going rate and donated the proceeds to anti gay marriage groups.

A win/win

I would post a sign in my shop saying if I am forced to do so, my policy will be that my proceeds will be donated to such groups.

No more worries.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They said a black photographer cannot be forced to photograph a KKK event, but a KKK member could be forced to photograph a black event. The reason being that blacks are a protected class and the Klan is not.

I don't see how anyone could see this unevenness as being acceptable.

That’s because there’s nothing ‘uneven’ about it.

A protected class of persons are those determined immune to certain types of discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants' and employees' sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business.

Laws Enforced by EEOC

African-Americans constitute a protected class as a consequence of their race. The Klan is not a race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, and is therefore not entitled to protected status.