CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

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.

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Right of refusal exists , no shoes, no shirt no service. Precedent is set it’s not discrimination

Only if you consider a fallacy of false cause to be the equivalent.

 

[danielpalos]

I get that part. I don't agree it's the job of government, but suppressing certain kinds of unpopular bigotry is the goal. I just don't see how it has anything to do with rights.

especially the forfeiture of one's own rights to appease another. religious rights are equal here.

Yes, and the buyer also has a First Amendment. Only right wingers ignore that fact.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Right of refusal exists , no shoes, no shirt no service. Precedent is set it’s not discrimination

I have posted that business can have a policy for refusal of service as it is fairly obvious. They can refuse service but not based on discrimination.

just curious, were you ok with someone losing a job because they voted for Trump?

Are you?

 

[danielpalos]

The goal is to guarantee those rights and not pander to bigotry.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So you agree the state has no business violating the fundamental rights of the photographer, right?

Nor of the buyer, right?

 

[DudleySmith]

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.

NY will lose this one. The morons don't have any sense.

Nah, he'll lose, one way or another; these vermin are out to exterminate Christians like their Red Chinese owners are.

 

[dblack]

I get that part. I don't agree it's the job of government, but suppressing certain kinds of unpopular bigotry is the goal. I just don't see how it has anything to do with rights.

especially the forfeiture of one's own rights to appease another. religious rights are equal here.

Yes, and the buyer also has a First Amendment. Only right wingers ignore that fact.

Put down the bong. The First Amendment has nothing to do with buying and selling.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

You're insane. I mean that sincerely.

Thank goodness you have nothing but fallacy. I mean that sincerely as well.

 

[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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

You're insane. I mean that sincerely.

Thank goodness you have nothing but fallacy. I mean that sincerely as well.

Batshit crazy. And a troll to boot.

 

[danielpalos]

I get that part. I don't agree it's the job of government, but suppressing certain kinds of unpopular bigotry is the goal. I just don't see how it has anything to do with rights.

especially the forfeiture of one's own rights to appease another. religious rights are equal here.

Yes, and the buyer also has a First Amendment. Only right wingers ignore that fact.

Put down the bong. The First Amendment has nothing to do with buying and selling.

You put it down first. Why is the photographer complaining?

 

[DudleySmith]

We seem to be way beyond the point when LGBTQ asked to be "tolerated."

Now, we're required to participate.

Participating isn't even enough. You must advertise your approval and participation.

New York should be thrown out of court and pay damages to the photographer

People should LEAVE New York and leave its streets empty.

They've been exporting their poor just like Mexico has and California is doing. They just import more criminal illegal aliens, count them in their Census numbers so they don't lose seats in Congress, same as California does.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

You're insane. I mean that sincerely.

Thank goodness you have nothing but fallacy. I mean that sincerely as well.

Batshit crazy. And a troll to boot.

Yes, you are.

 

[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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

You're insane. I mean that sincerely.

Thank goodness you have nothing but fallacy. I mean that sincerely as well.

Batshit crazy. And a troll to boot.

Yes, you are.

mkay

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Correct, Kilroy2
There must be DUE PROCESS to convict someone of a crime befoe enforcing loss of rights.

Where we still disagree is
1. You believe refusing to provide "same sex" weservices to same-sex

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.

Nor should the business be micromanaged by people abusing govt to enforce faith based LGBT rituals or practices that are not universal or neutral.
The LGBT culture is biased based on faith based preferences and beliefs.

The common standard we agree on is not to deny Customers that enter a business storefront open to the public.

But where beliefs start disagreeing is
1. On same sex relations being different from heterosexual (and transgender internal identity different from genetically defined physical gender)
2. The expression and content of services is separate from the customer.
3. And thus whether a person operating as a business can limit the expression or content of a service or "be forced or fined by govt" to engage in LGBT messages or events.

danielpalos
Regardless if I agree with LGBT beliefs or claim it violates beliefs, I certainly don't want that mandated by govt!

I would not want govt mandating Christianity or Muslim beliefs and biases against anyone. I believe in treating LGBT with the same respect as Christians.

That is not Your job and you have no Religious authority. The laity is simply that.

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

This IS the problem I am talking about danielpalos
1. The INDIVIDUALS affected by these laws and cases have THEIR OWN rights to their beliefs:
The people running businesses believe in providing services for traditional Christian and husband/wife marriages.
The people who believe LGBT is natural and "same sex marriages are no different from traditional Christian marriages" have THEIR beliefs that are personal preferences and faith based.


BOTH people being equal under law "have no religious authority" to IMPOSE on others against the will consent or beliefs of others.

They only have equal rights to DEFEND their beliefs, expression and exercise from being violated, infringed upon, disparaged or discriminated against BY GOVT.

danielpalos
1. The LGBT have the right to refuse to use those businesses and to take their businesses elsewhere. The Govt is NOT forcing them to use a business that discriminates against them.
2. However, in this case, the Govt is forcing a business to
A. Provide a service they do not believe in that violates their beliefs
B. Censor or ban free speech on their website to express or market their services
C. Censor or ban their freedom of religious expression or exercise

You do not have religious or govt authority to take your LGBT beliefs in same sex marriage and force that on anyone else through Govt!

Well stated danielpalos

I AGREE with your argument about rights of people, and respectfully show this applies equally to both the business operators and the customers, both Christian and LGBT beliefs policies and expression, and both same sex and traditional Christian marriage.

You are right that nobody should mix spiritual or religious authority "over their own beliefs" with GOVT policy to force their beliefs on others.

In this case, curiously enough or by karma, now it's the LGBT advocates that are trying to impose those beliefs through govt to force others to comply.

Before, people were complaining Christians kept doing this, with pushing right to life and defense of marriage laws.

Now, the LGBT are caught imposing their beliefs on others THROUGH GOVT.

So the same arguments apply to LGBT as to Christian beliefs.

Thanks danielpalos
I agree Govt authority should not be abused.
And BOTH beliefs need to stay the right of people, keep Govt out of these beliefs amd keep BOTH beliefs out of Govt.

The Tenth Amendment it is!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to operate on a for-profit basis not on a moral basis in public accommodation.

Even if it is a privilege, and regardless if it is a privilege or a right, neither or both, whatever you call it:
Does the Govt have the right to respect or grant this ability
ONLY to businesses and people who agree and believe in providing same sex services?

danielpalos
Are you suggesting Govt has authority to regulate expressions on websites, and goods and services provided,
on the basis of creed?

Many people either believe SOME cases of LGBT are not born or natural, but SOME are caused by unnatural abuses and can be changed, where these are faith based and private matters that govt cannot regulate; while others believe ALL cases of LGBT are unnatural and not normal.

People on BOTH sides do not believe in the arguments, beliefs or proof from the other people defending the other beliefs.

Shouldn't Govt treat these people and beliefs EQUALLY, where people need to choose and follow their own beliefs and not harass or force their beliefs on others through laws or lawsuits?

Ironic you are now acting in the same role that Christians did when discriminating against LGBT. Now you are advocating the LGBT use Govt to impose your beliefs over Christians, claiming it is defense.

But Govt is not making you take your business to places that don't provide those services. There are LGBT businesses that provide them. Why would you discriminate against LGBT businesses by not patronizing the ones who support LGBT?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Correct, Kilroy2
There must be DUE PROCESS to convict someone of a crime befoe enforcing loss of rights.

Where we still disagree is
1. You believe refusing to provide "same sex" weservices to same-sex

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.

Nor should the business be micromanaged by people abusing govt to enforce faith based LGBT rituals or practices that are not universal or neutral.
The LGBT culture is biased based on faith based preferences and beliefs.

The common standard we agree on is not to deny Customers that enter a business storefront open to the public.

But where beliefs start disagreeing is
1. On same sex relations being different from heterosexual (and transgender internal identity different from genetically defined physical gender)
2. The expression and content of services is separate from the customer.
3. And thus whether a person operating as a business can limit the expression or content of a service or "be forced or fined by govt" to engage in LGBT messages or events.

danielpalos
Regardless if I agree with LGBT beliefs or claim it violates beliefs, I certainly don't want that mandated by govt!

I would not want govt mandating Christianity or Muslim beliefs and biases against anyone. I believe in treating LGBT with the same respect as Christians.

That is not Your job and you have no Religious authority. The laity is simply that.

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

This IS the problem I am talking about danielpalos
1. The INDIVIDUALS affected by these laws and cases have THEIR OWN rights to their beliefs:
The people running businesses believe in providing services for traditional Christian and husband/wife marriages.
The people who believe LGBT is natural and "same sex marriages are no different from traditional Christian marriages" have THEIR beliefs that are personal preferences and faith based.


BOTH people being equal under law "have no religious authority" to IMPOSE on others against the will consent or beliefs of others.

They only have equal rights to DEFEND their beliefs, expression and exercise from being violated, infringed upon, disparaged or discriminated against BY GOVT.

danielpalos
1. The LGBT have the right to refuse to use those businesses and to take their businesses elsewhere. The Govt is NOT forcing them to use a business that discriminates against them.
2. However, in this case, the Govt is forcing a business to
A. Provide a service they do not believe in that violates their beliefs
B. Censor or ban free speech on their website to express or market their services
C. Censor or ban their freedom of religious expression or exercise

You do not have religious or govt authority to take your LGBT beliefs in same sex marriage and force that on anyone else through Govt!

Well stated danielpalos

I AGREE with your argument about rights of people, and respectfully show this applies equally to both the business operators and the customers, both Christian and LGBT beliefs policies and expression, and both same sex and traditional Christian marriage.

You are right that nobody should mix spiritual or religious authority "over their own beliefs" with GOVT policy to force their beliefs on others.

In this case, curiously enough or by karma, now it's the LGBT advocates that are trying to impose those beliefs through govt to force others to comply.

Before, people were complaining Christians kept doing this, with pushing right to life and defense of marriage laws.

Now, the LGBT are caught imposing their beliefs on others THROUGH GOVT.

So the same arguments apply to LGBT as to Christian beliefs.

Thanks danielpalos
I agree Govt authority should not be abused.
And BOTH beliefs need to stay the right of people, keep Govt out of these beliefs amd keep BOTH beliefs out of Govt.

The Tenth Amendment it is!

I agree to disagree. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis to earn Lucre, not a social benefit of the greater glory of our immortal souls. And, the buyer also has a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

The seller is there to Sell, not practice religious forms of bigotry on a for-profit basis in public not private accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to operate on a for-profit basis not on a moral basis in public accommodation.

Even if it is a privilege, and regardless if it is a privilege or a right, neither or both, whatever you call it:
Does the Govt have the right to respect or grant this ability
ONLY to businesses and people who agree and believe in providing same sex services?

danielpalos
Are you suggesting Govt has authority to regulate expressions on websites, and goods and services provided,
on the basis of creed?

Many people either believe SOME cases of LGBT are not born or natural, but SOME are caused by unnatural abuses and can be changed, where these are faith based and private matters that govt cannot regulate; while others believe ALL cases of LGBT are unnatural and not normal.

People on BOTH sides do not believe in the arguments, beliefs or proof from the other people defending the other beliefs.

Shouldn't Govt treat these people and beliefs EQUALLY, where people need to choose and follow their own beliefs and not harass or force their beliefs on others through laws or lawsuits?

Ironic you are now acting in the same role that Christians did when discriminating against LGBT. Now you are advocating the LGBT use Govt to impose your beliefs over Christians, claiming it is defense.

But Govt is not making you take your business to places that don't provide those services. There are LGBT businesses that provide them. Why would you discriminate against LGBT businesses by not patronizing the ones who support LGBT?

The seller should join a religious order and take sacred vows and practice photography for free, for the "sisterhood" if she feels that strongly about her religious beliefs.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree to disagree. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis to earn Lucre, not a social benefit of the greater glory of our immortal souls. And, the buyer also has a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

The seller is there to Sell, not practice religious forms of bigotry on a for-profit basis in public not private accommodation.

Again with this slogan-spouting blathersmack about religious bigotry sans a constitutional justification for the state to violate the photographer's fundamental rights anywhere in sight and as if ideological dissent were not the very essence of liberty!

I'm telling you folks, you cannot reason with the collectivist mind set. They are mindless, statist bootlicks who will not live and let live. They must be defeated. In the end, the only thing these morons will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Moving on. . . .

 

[dblack]

I agree to disagree. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis to earn Lucre, not a social benefit of the greater glory of our immortal souls. And, the buyer also has a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

The seller is there to Sell, not practice religious forms of bigotry on a for-profit basis in public not private accommodation.

Again with this slogan-spouting blathersmack about religious bigotry sans a constitutional justification for the state to violate the photographer's fundamental rights anywhere in sight and as if ideological dissent were not the very essence of liberty!

I'm telling you folks, you cannot reason with the collectivist mind set. They are mindless, statist bootlicks who will not live and let live. They must be defeated. In the end, the only thing these morons will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Moving on. . . .

Lucre, man. Lucre!

 

[danielpalos]

Again with this slogan-spouting blathersmack about religious bigotry sans a constitutional justification for the state to violate the photographer's fundamental rights anywhere in sight and as if ideological dissent were not the very essence of liberty!

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the Seller in public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree. The seller is operating on a for-profit basis to earn Lucre, not a social benefit of the greater glory of our immortal souls. And, the buyer also has a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.

The seller is there to Sell, not practice religious forms of bigotry on a for-profit basis in public not private accommodation.

Again with this slogan-spouting blathersmack about religious bigotry sans a constitutional justification for the state to violate the photographer's fundamental rights anywhere in sight and as if ideological dissent were not the very essence of liberty!

I'm telling you folks, you cannot reason with the collectivist mind set. They are mindless, statist bootlicks who will not live and let live. They must be defeated. In the end, the only thing these morons will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Moving on. . . .

Lucre, man. Lucre!

It is all Right-Wingers are good for under Capitalism.