Art Bites Liberals On The Butt

[Katzndogz]

I always have trouble understanding why anyone would WANT to work with someone who doesn't want to work with them. Is there some sort of shortage of qualified photographers in New Mexico? Or is it, perhaps, that using the law to force acceptance, agreement, and silence on others is the REAL agenda behind homosexual "marriages"?

That's why. They specifically targeted this photographer, probably because he used Christian in his advertising. That's like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

Very likely. Photography is an art, and you can't tell me there isn't a preponderance of liberals in ANY art field, so I really doubt they were unable to find someone accommodating of them and their relationship, had they wanted to.

Gays do the same thing when they enroll their children in Catholic school and complain about the religious instruction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

State's highest court to review fine for faith

And the New Mexico Supreme Court will likely uphold the lower court’s ruling, as the opinion is consistent and reasonable.

As the court correctly notes, the State’s anti-discrimination law in no way preempts a practice protected by the First Amendment, and Elane Photography is clearly subject to public accommodation laws prohibiting discrimination:

[T]he [New Mexico Human Rights Act] prohibits discriminating in services offered to the public, but it does not require Elane Photography to identify with its clients or publically showcase client photographs. Elane Photography generally retains copyright on all photographs and displays them on Elane Photography’s website, but as Willock points out, these are “discretionary business practices.” Elane Photography could choose not to retain the copyright or otherwise display the photographs for viewing. Without Elane Photography taking further actions to broadcast or disseminate the Willock photographs, Elane Photography’s conduct in accepting or refusing services does not express a message. As a result, regulating Elane Photography’s discriminatory conduct does not violate the First Amendment.

We conclude that Elane Photography is a public business and commercial
enterprise. The NMHRA was meant to reflect modern commercial life and expand protection from discrimination to include most establishments that typically operate a business in public commerce. As a result, Elane Photography constitutes a public accommodation under the NMHRA definition and cannot discriminate against any class protected by the NMHRA.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf

There is consequently no such thing as a ‘fine for faith.’

Those who support Elane Photography’s acts of discrimination do so motivated solely by their animus toward homosexuals, having nothing to do with ‘religious freedom’ whatsoever. The ‘religious freedom’ argument is but a façade behind which they conceal their hate and ignorance.

 

[daveman]

State's highest court to review fine for faith

And the New Mexico Supreme Court will likely uphold the lower court’s ruling, as the opinion is consistent and reasonable.

As the court correctly notes, the State’s anti-discrimination law in no way preempts a practice protected by the First Amendment, and Elane Photography is clearly subject to public accommodation laws prohibiting discrimination:

[T]he [New Mexico Human Rights Act] prohibits discriminating in services offered to the public, but it does not require Elane Photography to identify with its clients or publically showcase client photographs. Elane Photography generally retains copyright on all photographs and displays them on Elane Photography’s website, but as Willock points out, these are “discretionary business practices.” Elane Photography could choose not to retain the copyright or otherwise display the photographs for viewing. Without Elane Photography taking further actions to broadcast or disseminate the Willock photographs, Elane Photography’s conduct in accepting or refusing services does not express a message. As a result, regulating Elane Photography’s discriminatory conduct does not violate the First Amendment.

We conclude that Elane Photography is a public business and commercial
enterprise. The NMHRA was meant to reflect modern commercial life and expand protection from discrimination to include most establishments that typically operate a business in public commerce. As a result, Elane Photography constitutes a public accommodation under the NMHRA definition and cannot discriminate against any class protected by the NMHRA.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf

There is consequently no such thing as a ‘fine for faith.’

Those who support Elane Photography’s acts of discrimination do so motivated solely by their animus toward homosexuals, having nothing to do with ‘religious freedom’ whatsoever. The ‘religious freedom’ argument is but a façade behind which they conceal their hate and ignorance.

What would we do without liberals to read everyone's minds?

Let's say you're an artist of some sort, Jonesy. Would you be okay with having to accept a commission from, say, the Westboro Baptist Church?

Remember, if you refuse, it's discrimination.

 

[Flanders]

Those who support Elane Photography’s acts of discrimination do so motivated solely by their animus toward homosexuals, having nothing to do with ‘religious freedom’ whatsoever. The ‘religious freedom’ argument is but a façade behind which they conceal their hate and ignorance.

To C_Clayton_Jones: In all things liberals always pick the part they like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In this case you are ignoring “ . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. . .” Motive matters not at all; the government cannot prohibit the NON-VIOLENT free exercise of religion. There is no justification for the government infringing on anyone’s religious freedom. If you and others want to legislate love there is a solution available. It’s called a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree you have the right to be an ass.

It gave me a lot of satisfaction. They should have apologized for asking and left, instead they begged for trouble. Paint our portrait or we'll sue you! They were practically on their knees begging to be thrown out.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

 

[AmyNation]

It gave me a lot of satisfaction. They should have apologized for asking and left, instead they begged for trouble. Paint our portrait or we'll sue you! They were practically on their knees begging to be thrown out.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

What? Where did I say he should be forced to provide a service to homosexuals?

 

[AmyNation]

However, I think you walk a fine line in the religious freedom category. I don't think anyone wants to return to a time where shops had signs barring people based on things like race and religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

What? Where did I say he should be forced to provide a service to homosexuals?

I asked what you thought of the idea of private businesses setting their own rules.
In NYC, a business can't allow smoking.

And this:

"Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Taylor Marsh: Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King

 

[AmyNation]

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

What? Where did I say he should be forced to provide a service to homosexuals?

I asked what you thought of the idea of private businesses setting their own rules.
In NYC, a business can't allow smoking.

And this:

"Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Taylor Marsh: Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It gave me a lot of satisfaction. They should have apologized for asking and left, instead they begged for trouble. Paint our portrait or we'll sue you! They were practically on their knees begging to be thrown out.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What? Where did I say he should be forced to provide a service to homosexuals?

I asked what you thought of the idea of private businesses setting their own rules.
In NYC, a business can't allow smoking.

And this:

"Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Taylor Marsh: Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

Business owners aren't individuals?

 

[AmyNation]

I asked what you thought of the idea of private businesses setting their own rules.
In NYC, a business can't allow smoking.

And this:

"Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Taylor Marsh: Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

Business owners aren't individuals?

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

Business owners aren't individuals?

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

 

[AmyNation]

Business owners aren't individuals?

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the **** 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.

They caught you a a bad moment so you spewed hate all over them? Classy.

Yep, threw them right out on their asses. Why? Because I could and I knew I could. They came in demanding what they were not entitled to demand and claiming discrimination when I wouldn't immediately roll over.

The way you describe the incident, I'm guessing their behavior warranted your response. Don't ya just love it when someone wants to push that old "the customer is always right" thing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it.


My guy and I headed for Ashford and Simpson's club down the block from the Limelight once upon a time...and the doorperson says it's 'ladies night'....gay night....and sort of gave us the heads-up and the option....

...system seemed to work.....

Nobody is forced to do anything they choose not to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

 

[gallantwarrior]

What? Where did I say he should be forced to provide a service to homosexuals?

I asked what you thought of the idea of private businesses setting their own rules.
In NYC, a business can't allow smoking.

And this:

"Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Taylor Marsh: Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

I'm not sure I understand the differentiation. Isn't the business owner also an individual?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it.


My guy and I headed for Ashford and Simpson's club down the block from the Limelight once upon a time...and the doorperson says it's 'ladies night'....gay night....and sort of gave us the heads-up and the option....

...system seemed to work.....

Nobody is forced to do anything they choose not to.

I've been to gay bars that made me feel enormously unwelcome and intrusive simply because I was a woman. I didn't get a lawyer and sue them, and wouldn't have even if they had refused me service on that basis. I just don't go there any more. I feel no major compulsion to make their business into what I want, rather than what they want.

But then, I feel no need for affirmation of my identity by public acclaim.

 

[AmyNation]

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

You never said "artistic services" and considering the original question I was responding to involved smoking, I didn't realize you talking about this specific situation.

As has already been brought up, artists are and should be, IMO, an exception to the rule.