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

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Incorrect.

This is very much an equal rights issue:

By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to -13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other
protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

The issue therefore concerned the Constitutionality of the New Mexico measure whose sole focus and intent was to protect the civil liberties of residents of New Mexico, including gay Americans.

You MUST be a fag. It is NOT. a civil rights issue you damned fool.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ruining the pictures is one thing ruining the day is more satisfactory and cannot be undone.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If the people insisted on trying force me to photograph and be a part of something I didn't believe in that went against my religious beliefs and the government backed them in it so be it you might be able to force me to take the photographs but you dam sure cant force me to take good ones.

That's what I have said all along. The fags say that I have no choice. Cool. I will be paid to shoot the most awful "wedding" pictures you could ever imagine and I would have a signed contract that specifically stated "NO refunds".

Fags want to play rough - play rough.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Ruining the pictures is one thing ruining the day is more satisfactory and cannot be undone.

For the life of me I don't understand these perverted assholes. Why not have a great day, hire a fag baker, a fag wedding planner, a fag photographer, fag limo driver and some fag mail order minister and have the "wedding" you desire among all your favorite fag friends and family.

No. This us all about. SHOWING the normal public that WE will succumb to their perverted bullshit.

Not in my lifetime. Perversion is NOT a civil right.

 

[Papageorgio]

The lower court decision in the photography case was a very good decision and contained the blueprint for future photographers to act within their beliefs.

True. The bigots are free to still be bigots, they just have to be more creative with how they discriminate.

The lower court did provide some guidance in that.

Yes they are, on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[Katzndogz]

A disobedient slave can be a fearsome thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you oppose gay marriage, you show this by not attending them as a guest. If you're a florist or baker, you are open to all patrons. Get over it.

You do understand that photographers actually have to attend the entire wedding, don't you? That means that Christians can force atheist to go to church and listen to a sermon about how all atheists are going to hell, or a gay person to attend a pray away the gay service, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Is that really the kind of country you want to live in?

A white person will actually be forced to sit at the lunch counter with a black person. Is that the world you want to live in?

Last time I looked around no one was forcing anyone to sit at lunch counters, did I miss something? That does bring up a good point, do you want to live in a country where people can force you to eat lunch in a place you don't want to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Incorrect.

This is very much an equal rights issue:

By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to -13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other
protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

The issue therefore concerned the Constitutionality of the New Mexico measure whose sole focus and intent was to protect the civil liberties of residents of New Mexico, including gay Americans.

Yet, despite your incredible stupidity, the Supreme Court did not say it was constitutional.

 

[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.

Incorrect.

This is very much an equal rights issue:

By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to -13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other
protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

The issue therefore concerned the Constitutionality of the New Mexico measure whose sole focus and intent was to protect the civil liberties of residents of New Mexico, including gay Americans.

That's still wrong no matter how hard you beat your chest. The fact that it's a state issue means that it isn't a federal issue, meaning not a Constitutional issue. The state can pass any "equal rights" laws they want but that doesn't make it a Constitutional right or protection. I realize you can't connect the dots, maybe it's too emotional?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Learn to spell dickweed.

and of course, as always, go fuck yourself with a rusty tire-iron.

 

[martybegan]

Neat but you are not the gop.

Where did I claim to be?

Sigh

What are you talking about?