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.

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.

Opinion.
You can believe and express that.
But you cannot abuse govt, laws or courts to "regulate" religious activity or penalize someone on how they express it.

danielpalos
Are you going to treat all people this same way, and
* demand Atheists set up or join a "religious organization" before they can defend their beliefs "equally as a Christian or other recognized religion"
How is that fair or constitutional to an Atheist?
* require LGBT to finish transition and be medically recognized before proving or defending their beliefs about their identity?

I can understand if you believe this way.
As I know many people who believe Transgender should be documented by medical science similar to claiming a medical disability to get certain benefits.

Do you want Govt to regulate religion now?

Or just you expressing your beliefs, which is your right.

Only the seller is alleging the subjective value of the morals of Religion not the buyer.

???? What danielpalos ????
The LGBT advocates also lobby for these LGBT beliefs as part of moral human values.

AND the liberals are lobbying AGAINST traditional beliefs as "bigoted" and "immoral or wrongful."

Again danielpalos You bring up the SAME/equivalent process and mindset as Christians who do not see their beliefs as a "religion"but believe their message is simply the TRUTH.

Now you show the Liberal/LGBT are taking this same position: Of declaring their way to be "based on the Truth". Not on faith based religion or beliefs.

So I AGREE with you to avoid mixing religious free choice with secular govt and party policy.

Both sides need to comply.

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. The buyer is not insisting the seller engage in lgbtq activities to be a customer and buy products from the seller.

 

[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.

Opinion.
You can believe and express that.
But you cannot abuse govt, laws or courts to "regulate" religious activity or penalize someone on how they express it.

danielpalos
Are you going to treat all people this same way, and
* demand Atheists set up or join a "religious organization" before they can defend their beliefs "equally as a Christian or other recognized religion"
How is that fair or constitutional to an Atheist?
* require LGBT to finish transition and be medically recognized before proving or defending their beliefs about their identity?

I can understand if you believe this way.
As I know many people who believe Transgender should be documented by medical science similar to claiming a medical disability to get certain benefits.

Do you want Govt to regulate religion now?

Or just you expressing your beliefs, which is your right.

Only the seller is alleging the subjective value of the morals of Religion not the buyer.

???? What danielpalos ????

Your mistake is trying to make ANY sense of his horseshit. Please stop.

Your mistake is having nothing but fallacy.

 

[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?

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.

Opinion.
You can believe and express that.
But you cannot abuse govt, laws or courts to "regulate" religious activity or penalize someone on how they express it.

danielpalos
Are you going to treat all people this same way, and
* demand Atheists set up or join a "religious organization" before they can defend their beliefs "equally as a Christian or other recognized religion"
How is that fair or constitutional to an Atheist?
* require LGBT to finish transition and be medically recognized before proving or defending their beliefs about their identity?

I can understand if you believe this way.
As I know many people who believe Transgender should be documented by medical science similar to claiming a medical disability to get certain benefits.

Do you want Govt to regulate religion now?

Or just you expressing your beliefs, which is your right.

Only the seller is alleging the subjective value of the morals of Religion not the buyer.

???? What danielpalos ????
The LGBT advocates also lobby for these LGBT beliefs as part of moral human values.

AND the liberals are lobbying AGAINST traditional beliefs as "bigoted" and "immoral or wrongful."

Again danielpalos You bring up the SAME/equivalent process and mindset as Christians who do not see their beliefs as a "religion"but believe their message is simply the TRUTH.

Now you show the Liberal/LGBT are taking this same position: Of declaring their way to be "based on the Truth". Not on faith based religion or beliefs.

So I AGREE with you to avoid mixing religious free choice with secular govt and party policy.

Both sides need to comply.

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. The buyer is not insisting the seller engage in lgbtq activities to be a customer and buy products from the seller.

Dear danielpalos
The GOVT is establishing LGBT beliefs and bias, and punishing businesses on that basis.

The lawsuit IN THIS CASE is arguing the ***Govt policy*** is unconstitutional.

1. Regulating, punishing and or forcing faith based content biases toward LGBT and banning faith based content which discriminates against free expression of beliefs about Christian marriage.

This lawsuit is against the local govt that is violating Constitutional and Civil Rights and Fourteenth Amendment protections of individual rights to free speech from religious discrimination by creed.

The policy contested is both
* forcing businesses by law to include LGBT content on their websites, even if this is not the services they provide or believe in
* banning businesses from expressing their beliefs on their website

^ Do you understand danielpalos
The plaintiff is suing the Govt for establishing an unconstitutional policy mandating, regulating and banning free speech on the basis of religion and discrimination by creed?

Which type of case do you want to focus on?

Let's address the different violations individually.

The only one that is violating LGBT rights are cases where the business refused to serve the Customer at all based on their LGBT beliefs/affiliation, or the case where a Customer was verbally harassed and lectured religiously.

We agree that this discrimination against a Person (and or the targeting for harassment) is an unlawful violation of the accommodation policy and discriminates on the basis of belief or creed (or class if you treat LGBT and Christians as a class based on creed).

Can we start with where we agree first.

Then compare the various cases to show what makes those cases different from what we would agree on as violating equal accommodations.

Basically you and Kilroy2
Don't believe in any difference between *denying a specific person from receiving ANY services at all (clearly violating the law)
*denying a specific service not provided to ANY person (so they are all refused this nonprovided service and treated the same)
* denying a specific person because they only want the nonprovided service, and do not want any other services the business offers to provide them (so there is no way to serve them or offer an alternative they equally refuse, thus resulting in not serving that customer)

Now with this lawsuit involving Govt,
This involves free speech on a business website mixed with either LGBT or Christian beliefs for or against types of marriages.

I understand if you and Kilroy2 see this as "advertising that a business discriminates against LGBT"

The difference again is whether you see
* LGBT as individual beliefs, and the company is only providing some services based on their beliefs while letting the public know they don't provide other services based on other beliefs
* LGBT as a class, where you read this as not serving LGBT people at all.

The way I resolve this is
* treating the belief that LGBT is a class as a BELIEF in itself, so you have the right to see LGBT as a class but cannot expect others to have the same belief and cannot abuse Govt to force this belief on others
* treating people with this belief as a class, so the same protection can be offered to treat Christians with certain marriage beliefs as a class, and protect both sets of class or creed from infringing on each other by abusing govt to impose one or penalize the other

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

I am not sure what you are referring to. The case in question deals with Commercial not Spiritual activity in public not private accommodation. The seller is selling on a for-profit basis for Lucre not a non-profit basis for Morals.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear emilynghiem,

I am not sure what you are referring to. The case in question deals with Commercial not Spiritual activity in public not private accommodation. The seller is selling on a for-profit basis for Lucre not a non-profit basis for Morals.

Dear danielpalos
The issue within the accommodations law ends up affecting free speech on websites.

Do you remember the Arizona immigration laws that got struck down on Constitutional grounds of overreach?
Or the Houston HERO ordinance that went too far trying to defend against LGBT discrimination?

Both had complications that violated free speech and thus went too far.

* AZ law tried to ban hand signals and communication between drivers and workers
* the Houston ordinance tried to propose fines for "asking questions to a transgender person in the restroom" as harassment with possible fine up to $5,000

So just because the spirit of the law or purpose is "accommodations" (or immigration or other laws),
Does NOT give Govt unbridled authority to override OTHER Constitutional laws and rights.

The laws must be written not to violate or disparage ANY laws or rights,including due process.

danielpalos
This is why
* Hobby Lobby won their case against being forced to provide certain terms of insurance involving certain birth control
* Roe V Wade struck down abortion laws meant to defend right to life, because the laws violated substantive DUE PROCESS

Do you understand that laws, even with good intent and purpose/spirit, cannot be poorly written to violate other rights?

The ACA intended to provide access to health insurance, but ended up getting at least 2-3 areas struck down by courts as unconstitutional:
* the condition that insurance had to provide for certain birth control contested as violating beliefs of company owners
* the lawsuit by states that won refunds back from federal govt in the multi millions
* the unconstitutional spending by Obama without approval through Congress

Just because the spirit of the bill was to help provide health care or "general welfare" through govt doesn't mean the bill can mandate any kind of policy to that end:
It has to provide the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means, and cannot violate other laws and rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

I am not sure what you are referring to. The case in question deals with Commercial not Spiritual activity in public not private accommodation. The seller is selling on a for-profit basis for Lucre not a non-profit basis for Morals.

Dear danielpalos
The issue within the accommodations law ends up affecting free speech on websites.

Do you remember the Arizona immigration laws that got struck down on Constitutional grounds of overreach?
Or the Houston HERO ordinance that went too far trying to defend against LGBT discrimination?

Both had complications that violated free speech and thus went too far.

* AZ law tried to ban hand signals and communication between drivers and workers
* the Houston ordinance tried to propose fines for

Dear emilynghiem,

The current case in question is not about free speech but about forms of discrimination in public not private accommodation.

From Article VI of our federal Constitution:

...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

 

[emilynghiem]

85.23 # 50041856622

Dear emilynghiem,

I am not sure what you are referring to. The case in question deals with Commercial not Spiritual activity in public not private accommodation. The seller is selling on a for-profit basis for Lucre not a non-profit basis for Morals.

Dear danielpalos
The issue within the accommodations law ends up affecting free speech on websites.

Do you remember the Arizona immigration laws that got struck down on Constitutional grounds of overreach?
Or the Houston HERO ordinance that went too far trying to defend against LGBT discrimination?

Both had complications that violated free speech and thus went too far.

* AZ law tried to ban hand signals and communication between drivers and workers
* the Houston ordinance tried to propose fines for

Dear emilynghiem,

The current case in question is not about free speech but about forms of discrimination in public not private accommodation.

From Article VI of our federal Constitution:

...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

It is BOTH danielpalos
For GOVT to make regulations
* REQUIRING or forcing speech, expression and or beliefs on a company WEBSITE
* BANNING explanations of religious beliefs
Is NOT about "regulating the service to customers"
It is
REGULATING website content
Which is freedom of speech and expression

danielpalos
You remind me of having to explain that
Roe V Wade and abortion laws aren't about the abortion itself, but in practice end up
being about "due process and govt enforcement"
In this case, the CONTESTED policy is about Govt regulating free speech on the basis of faith based beliefs.

Just like a calculus problem uses "algebra and arithmetics" within the calculations as part of the mechanism.

In this case, the mechanism addressed by the policy is WEBSITE content.

So that happens to fall under freedom of speech and expression.

You seem to argue that the content of the website is already discriminating against customers. But my and other opposing views to your position, are that businesses should have no issue promoting WHICH types of SERVICES they provide, and which are not provided.

You seem to argue it is only okay if you don't state your religious reasons. But if you do, then it becomes religious discrimination.

That is like saying a Muslim business can refrain from serving pork related products "unless they mention it is against their beliefs."

So you agree with Govt regulating free speech on the basis of religion!

Only if you don't mention religion, then you have free speech.

In other words, you don't have free speech because govt is regulating it.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Yes danielpalos
1. The accommodations means you cannot discriminate against CUSTOMERS based on the Customer's affiliation etc not race, gender, creed/belief etc
2. The accommodations law DOES NOT DICTATE
A. What type of services the businesses will offer
B. Or force certain services to be promoted by website
C. Or ban expressions or explanations from the website

Type of business services offered, and advertising what services are offered, as well as religious expressions by the people at a business

ARE NOT part of accommodations laws

Now I WOULD agree with you that businesses cannot post signs or announcement by website "advertising they refuse CUSTOMERS who are LGBT".
That is promoting violations of accommodations; however, although YOU SEE THIS as what YOU believe the business is doing,

NO, I argue that discriminating against a service is not the same as discriminating against Customers. Why? Because
1. That service isn't provided to ANY customers, so all are treated the same and refused that service not provided there
2. The same Customers, although not getting the unprovided service, are equally accommodated in hiring or buying the same services provided to anyone.

Sorry that you do not make the same distinctions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Yes danielpalos
1. The accommodations means you cannot discriminate against CUSTOMERS based on the Customer's affiliation etc not race, gender, creed/belief etc
2. The accommodations law DOES NOT DICTATE
A. What type of services the businesses will offer
B. Or force certain services to be promoted by website
C. Or ban expressions or explanations from the website

Type of business services offered, and advertising what services are offered, as well as religious expressions by the people at a business

ARE NOT part of accommodations laws

Now I WOULD agree with you that businesses cannot post signs or announcement by website "advertising they refuse CUSTOMERS who are LGBT".
That is promoting violations of accommodations; however, although YOU SEE THIS as what YOU believe the business is doing,

NO, I argue that discriminating against a service is not the same as discriminating against Customers. Why? Because
1. That service isn't provided to ANY customers, so all are treated the same and refused that service not provided there
2. The same Customers, although not getting the unprovided service, are equally accommodated in hiring or buying the same services provided to anyone.

Sorry that you do not make the same distinctions.

I understand only that a laity and secular photographer has no moral authority over others in public accommodation. The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller in public not private accommodation. Why doesn't the seller take sacred religious vows of chastity and poverty instead of change money for the sake of lucre as a business?

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Segregation/desegregation didn't affect free speech on websites.

That isn't what I asked you.

I asked if you were in the position of the
LIBERAL LGBT or PROCHOICE
Forced "by law" to post
CONSERVATIVE or PROLIFE content
On YOUR company website
Would you protest that policy violated free speech?

If you cannot answer this question danielpalos
It is the Bullring for you

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Segregation/desegregation didn't affect free speech on websites.

That isn't what I asked you.

I asked if you were in the position of the
LIBERAL LGBT or PROCHOICE
Forced "by law" to post
CONSERVATIVE or PROLIFE content
On YOUR company website
Would you protest that policy violated free speech?

If you cannot answer this question danielpalos
It is the Bullring for you

Dear emilynghiem,

You are begging that question.

This is a clause in our supreme law of the land:

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

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Things Change Versus Those That Do Not Due Knot "

* Left Wing Thinks Oh Great When Big Tech Pushes Independence To Freely Disassociate *

1. The accommodations means you cannot discriminate against CUSTOMERS based on the Customer's affiliation etc not race, gender, creed/belief etc.

Unlike the intransient qualities of race and gender , creed is transient as well as transigent and creed is therefore not relieved of discrimination .

There is not a distinction between a religion and its tenets and edicts of creed , therefore there is not a difference between creed and religion .

There is not a religious exception within us first amendment for a religion with tenets and edicts of creed that violate non violence principles .

For those parties that negotiate extended contracts for services , disclosure of a disagreeable creed of either party is justification for either party to exercise free association from the self ownership element of individualism principles and excuse themselves from further agreement for contract services .

Where Is Prosecution Of Private Corporations For Violating Net Neutrality Rules ?

" Where Is Prosecution Of Private Corporations For Violating Net Neutrality Rules ? "]/b] * Trading Games * Private corporations are violating net neutrality violations , which are and were no longer covered in agreement section 230 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality A current...

www.usmessageboard.com

Net Neutrality Requires Data Providers To Bill For Data And Not For Information

" Net Neutrality Requires Data Providers To Bill For Data And Not For Information " * Introduction : Internet Backbone Definition For Net Neutrality Debate * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone The Internet backbone might be defined by the principal data routes between large...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[colfax_m]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

 

[martybegan]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

 

[colfax_m]

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

They're taking photos.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that not all businesses are places that should be considered public accommodations. Photographers would definitely be outside an essential service like a restaurant and hotel.

 

[martybegan]

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

They're taking photos.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that not all businesses are places that should be considered public accommodations. Photographers would definitely be outside an essential service like a restaurant and hotel.

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

 

[colfax_m]

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.