CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[jc456]

This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.

Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law

Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.

The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.

“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”

So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.

Once again a conservative starts a thread without facts and purports to grievance a cause which is not what the lawsuit is about.

Christian photographer sues for right to refuse gay customers because she doesn’t work with vampires

emilee carpenter doesn't shoot wedding photos of same sex couples nor has she been asked too. Hell, she doesn't do Halloween or vampire ones either. She wants to post on her website "No gays allowed" as per her chirstian beliefs.

She will lose this case in the same way you can't post "No Asian people allowed" for a public business.

She doesn't want to say "no gays allowed", she wants to say she thinks Same sex relations are against her religion, which they are.

She says the law forces her to post pictures of SSM weddings if she posts pictures of opposite sex weddings, and she says the law prevents her from stating her religious beliefs.

like was already posted, if she has not done any, then using anyone else's she'd be violating other law. She does Heterosexual weddings. what's the deal? Don't gays shoot film?

 

[jc456]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.

Am I the only one here, or are there others?

I'm for everyone's right to be who they are and not forcing your footprint onto society. If one doesn't wish to support a belief that is not theirs, that's their right. PERIOD. Force is not what this country is about.

Exactly.

The leftists who infest this forum are all ABOUT force these days, and the level of their authoritarianism makes them more fascist than it does liberal. They are just too stupid and uneducated to know.

 

[dblack]

I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.

Am I the only one here, or are there others?

I'm for everyone's right to be who they are and not forcing your footprint onto society. If one doesn't wish to support a belief that is not theirs, that's their right. PERIOD. Force is not what this country is about.

Exactly.

The leftists who infest this forum are all ABOUT force these days, and the level of their authoritarianism makes them more fascist than it does liberal. They are just too stupid and uneducated to know.

The problem is a difference of opinion regarding the purpose of government. Many people today, Ds and Rs alike, want government to "run" society. To be the manager, rather than the referee.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what we are supposed to be doing with our Constitutional form of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Kilroy2]

Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.

It's great that that you and I agree on most things Kilroy2
The only part of your reply that I would
have more cautiously clarified:

When you said disagreeing with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service:
1. Agreed that denying ALL or ANY Service to the CUSTOMER is targeting that Customer and treating them with Discrimination
2. However, not providing a certain service to ANY Customer is different.

Again, if someone specializes in cultural decor and cuisine for Hindu wedding ceremonies, they may deny requests for Buddhist or Muslim services or catering which is not what they do.

It is the TYPE of Service they are not providing.

If heterosexual customers hired them to provide services for a "same sex wedding" they would still decline the work.

It isn't the customer being refused, it is the content of their request that is being refused because that business doesn't provide that type of service. Or doesn't believe in it.

Kilroy2
To you it may seem like the same service.
But to people of different spiritual or religious beliefs, this is very different.

It is as against their beliefs as, say, a brother and sister wanting to marry.

If that idea feels unnatural or wrong to you,
that is how some people view same sex relations.

I guess if you just do not see it that way, you cannot understand how other people can have such beliefs.

All you see is throwing these levels all together as "discrimination" where you judge some people for their beliefs as "invalid" "immoral or unjust" "inferior" and "bigoted bases on negative malice, prejudice or judgment of others."

Again, I agree it is wrong to judge and mistreat a PERSON based on beliefs.
But nothing wrong with choosing WHAT TYPES of services or ceremonies to offer.

I am guessing you and otto105
just don't see any difference here.
Like being color blind or tone deaf.

Since you cannot distinguish the SERVICE from the CUSTOMER, no wonder it just looks mean and bigoted against that Customer.

emily the person who doesn't see the difference is you. You're comparing apples to oranges or inventing a strawman argument to fit your needs.

First, if a I open a French Cuisine restaurant and someone comes in requesting Tex-Mex that would not be discrimination.

However, if I open a business selling Honda cars and want to post on my website that I don't do business with a certain group of people that is.


BTW can you post the differences a wedding photographer would do shooting straight weddings to that of same sex ones?

Because to people with those religious or spiritual beliefs IT IS DIFFERENT.
And not only DIFFERENT, but same sex relations are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

You clearly get it if someone else is imposing their beliefs on you.

This is a case where you are trying to impose your beliefs on someone else.

The WHOLE conflict is because people have different beliefs!

So different that you cannot see it.

In comparison with serving "French cuisine vs Tex Mex" it is even more problematic than that:
It is like trying to force a Hindu business to serve beef which is AGAINST their religion,
Or trying to force a Muslim business to
serve pork which is AGAINST their religion.

With Christians who do not believe in same sex relations as normal or healthy, there are some who truly hold that to be against their beliefs, and to them that is a whole separate culture or belief.

It is not the same as hosting or participating or endorsing a traditional wedding with male/female spiritual partners.

To you, it is apparently the same.
You have the right to practice this policy yourself, of treating any weddings the same.

But not forcing that on others who cannot by conscience endorse or participate because it is against their beliefs.

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.

It's great that that you and I agree on most things Kilroy2
The only part of your reply that I would
have more cautiously clarified:

When you said disagreeing with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service:
1. Agreed that denying ALL or ANY Service to the CUSTOMER is targeting that Customer and treating them with Discrimination
2. However, not providing a certain service to ANY Customer is different.

Again, if someone specializes in cultural decor and cuisine for Hindu wedding ceremonies, they may deny requests for Buddhist or Muslim services or catering which is not what they do.

It is the TYPE of Service they are not providing.

If heterosexual customers hired them to provide services for a "same sex wedding" they would still decline the work.

It isn't the customer being refused, it is the content of their request that is being refused because that business doesn't provide that type of service. Or doesn't believe in it.

Kilroy2
To you it may seem like the same service.
But to people of different spiritual or religious beliefs, this is very different.

It is as against their beliefs as, say, a brother and sister wanting to marry.

If that idea feels unnatural or wrong to you,
that is how some people view same sex relations.

I guess if you just do not see it that way, you cannot understand how other people can have such beliefs.

All you see is throwing these levels all together as "discrimination" where you judge some people for their beliefs as "invalid" "immoral or unjust" "inferior" and "bigoted bases on negative malice, prejudice or judgment of others."

Again, I agree it is wrong to judge and mistreat a PERSON based on beliefs.
But nothing wrong with choosing WHAT TYPES of services or ceremonies to offer.

I am guessing you and otto105
just don't see any difference here.
Like being color blind or tone deaf.

Since you cannot distinguish the SERVICE from the CUSTOMER, no wonder it just looks mean and bigoted against that Customer.

emily the person who doesn't see the difference is you. You're comparing apples to oranges or inventing a strawman argument to fit your needs.

First, if a I open a French Cuisine restaurant and someone comes in requesting Tex-Mex that would not be discrimination.

However, if I open a business selling Honda cars and want to post on my website that I don't do business with a certain group of people that is.


BTW can you post the differences a wedding photographer would do shooting straight weddings to that of same sex ones?

Because to people with those religious or spiritual beliefs IT IS DIFFERENT.
And not only DIFFERENT, but same sex relations are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

You clearly get it if someone else is imposing their beliefs on you.

This is a case where you are trying to impose your beliefs on someone else.

The WHOLE conflict is because people have different beliefs!

So different that you cannot see it.

In comparison with serving "French cuisine vs Tex Mex" it is even more problematic than that:
It is like trying to force a Hindu business to serve beef which is AGAINST their religion,
Or trying to force a Muslim business to
serve pork which is AGAINST their religion.

With Christians who do not believe in same sex relations as normal or healthy, there are some who truly hold that to be against their beliefs, and to them that is a whole separate culture or belief.

It is not the same as hosting or participating or endorsing a traditional wedding with male/female spiritual partners.

To you, it is apparently the same.
You have the right to practice this policy yourself, of treating any weddings the same.

But not forcing that on others who cannot by conscience endorse or participate because it is against their beliefs.

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

and, of course, all of that is UTTERLY irrelevant to the matter of an all-powerful state coercing citizens to indulge in speech against their wishes.

 

[Kilroy2]

" Concentration Camps Of Complicity Calling It Liberty "

* Short Memory Ignoring Emphasis On Standards *

When did you ask the question or are you assuming you asked it. You talked about aggression and non violence and now it about association.

You were directly asked whether a baker or a photographer would be able to decline the requests by a wedding party if it were disclosed that the venue would be set with nazi regalia .

The principles of non violence and individualism include free association .

Issue is the left are pushing the religion of their creed to force association , along with a cancel culture , whereas those pushing for individuals to remain independent of bureaucratic dictates are the ones under duress .

There are cake makers and photographers other than those targeted for harassment for choosing to freely dissociate themselves from others based on creed , so find one .

If those whose creed is to respect free association , supposedly to live and let live , begin to prevent bakers or photographers from providing a contracted service with which they disagree , assuming the service is non violent , then the principles of non violence and individualism would incriminate them .

* Over Drawn Expectations For The Ability To Dictate *

well if you believe in free association then fine. IF this association does harm them there will be consequences where freedom to associated is limited.
Baker and photographer can choose who they associate with in a private setting. Yet if they are in a business then they choose to associate in a business environment which is open to the general public and there will be associations and interacting with many different people. You can use location of the business to narrow it and control associations that one will be exposed to.
Freedom of association is like any other freedom. You can sometimes choose but sometimes you do have to give it up in order to achieve whatever goals you set in life. The harm factor in your associations would and should limit that freedom.
Individual freedom vs other peoples freedom in a society. My question to you does that require respect or as a minimum acceptance from all parties involved when dealing in a business environment.

Unlike a public setting where individuals walk in , choose something from a shelf , check out and leave , without ever directly needing to disclose their creed , bakers and photographers are contracted and if that negotiation results in another revealing their creed , the contracted are entitled to decline the service .

yet in post 189 the question was

You have not answered the question as to whether a bakery or photographer would be entitled to invoke free association to dissociate themselves from an obligation to perform a service because of a difference in creed .

now you are changing it to

" Concentration Camps Of Complicity Calling It Liberty "

* Short Memory Ignoring Emphasis On Standards *

When did you ask the question or are you assuming you asked it. You talked about aggression and non violence and now it about association.

You were directly asked whether a baker or a photographer would be able to decline the requests by a wedding party if it were disclosed that the venue would be set with nazi regalia .

The principles of non violence and individualism include free association .

Issue is the left are pushing the religion of their creed to force association , along with a cancel culture , whereas those pushing for individuals to remain independent of bureaucratic dictates are the ones under duress .

There are cake makers and photographers other than those targeted for harassment for choosing to freely dissociate themselves from others based on creed , so find one .

If those whose creed is to respect free association , supposedly to live and let live , begin to prevent bakers or photographers from providing a contracted service with which they disagree , assuming the service is non violent , then the principles of non violence and individualism would incriminate them .

* Over Drawn Expectations For The Ability To Dictate *

well if you believe in free association then fine. IF this association does harm them there will be consequences where freedom to associated is limited.
Baker and photographer can choose who they associate with in a private setting. Yet if they are in a business then they choose to associate in a business environment which is open to the general public and there will be associations and interacting with many different people. You can use location of the business to narrow it and control associations that one will be exposed to.
Freedom of association is like any other freedom. You can sometimes choose but sometimes you do have to give it up in order to achieve whatever goals you set in life. The harm factor in your associations would and should limit that freedom.
Individual freedom vs other peoples freedom in a society. My question to you does that require respect or as a minimum acceptance from all parties involved when dealing in a business environment.

Unlike a public setting where individuals walk in , choose something from a shelf , check out and leave , without ever directly needing to disclose their creed , bakers and photographers are contracted and if that negotiation results in another revealing their creed , the contracted are entitled to decline the service .

obviously you do not know the law

Whether you post a sign or not, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion. Yet there are situation where they can refuse service.

it really is that simple and not a philosophical argument.

 

[Kilroy2]

Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.

The irony of it all is that they are partially making a religious statement to discriminate.

Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!

The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.

isn't she a citizen?

As a citizen she has rights but there are also laws that are required to be followed

even people who commit crimes will have there freedom taken away and yeah they have some rights and are citizens.

 

[Kilroy2]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because to people with those religious or spiritual beliefs IT IS DIFFERENT.
And not only DIFFERENT, but same sex relations are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

We are a nation of Laws not Beliefs.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Amendment I
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.

Exactly danielpalos
1. So the faith based beliefs about LGBT either being "natural and not a choice"
Or "unnatural and a choice that can be changed", are both equally INDIVIDUAL beliefs. And Govt can NEITHER "establish or prohibit" such beliefs.

2. Do you agree that religious freedom should apply equally to "political beliefs and religion?

 

[danielpalos]

Because to people with those religious or spiritual beliefs IT IS DIFFERENT.
And not only DIFFERENT, but same sex relations are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

We are a nation of Laws not Beliefs.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Amendment I
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.

Exactly danielpalos
1. So the faith based beliefs about LGBT either being "natural and not a choice"
Or "unnatural and a choice that can be changed", are both equally INDIVIDUAL beliefs. And Govt can NEITHER "establish or prohibit" such beliefs.

2. Do you agree that religious freedom should apply equally to "political beliefs and religion?

Sure; both the buyer and the seller have First Amendment protection. The difference is, the seller is operating on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis not a for-the-profit-of-the-greater-glory-of-our-immortal-souls basis.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Literacy Matters "

* Still Dodging The Question *

yet in post 189 the question was
You have not answered the question as to whether a bakery or photographer would be entitled to invoke free association to dissociate themselves from an obligation to perform a service because of a difference in creed .
now you are changing it to
obviously you do not know the law
Whether you post a sign or not, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion. Yet there are situation where they can refuse service.
it really is that simple and not a philosophical argument.

Nothing changed , the question and the premises have remained consistent and your cowardice to answer directly that you do in fact believe that a baker or photographer are able able to freely dissociate themselves and decline enslavement , for example when a wedding party decides to disclose its creed and wants to use regalia for the national socialist state of germany for germans .

While race , gender and age are not transient qualities , creed is an intransigent quality .

Any creed that violates non violence principles is not entitled to an exception as a religion , and consequently the adherents of fictional ishmaelism should not be extended citizenship , to enter into the voting booth , though they may travel on temporary visa .

I can tell you that seeing two men kiss is disgusting to me , and I am not sexually attracted to men in any way , and no amount of concentration camp porn indoctrination , which the left would love for me to go through to be cured in their mind , is going to help .

 

[jc456]

As a citizen she has rights but there are also laws that are required to be followed

even people who commit crimes will have there freedom taken away and yeah they have some rights and are citizens.

it's her business. and unless her business license says otherwise, her rights extend to her business. I'm sure her license has a right to refuse service.

A crook is a crook who took something from someone. he/ she violated someone else's rights already. That forfeits the crooks rights immediately when caught.

 

[jc456]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

 

[dblack]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

Rights to what? Are you saying there is a "right to be served equally"? Or even a "right" to be served at all? If that's the case, our "rights" are violated every day, by nearly every business. Such a concept is absurd, and can't be enforced without violating a slew of actual individual rights.

 

[dblack]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

 

[jc456]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

what rights do they have over hers?

 

[dblack]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

what rights do they have over hers?

That's what I'm trying to sort out. There's no such thing as a right to be served by others, equally or otherwise. The concept is insane.

 

[danielpalos]

it's her business. and unless her business license says otherwise, her rights extend to her business. I'm sure her license has a right to refuse service.

Her business is incorporated on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis not on a for-the-profit-of-the-greater-glory-of-our-immortal-souls basis. It matters. She must seek private profit not private morality.