CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[colfax_m]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

 

[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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Point of sale item that has no attachment to any event, unlike photographs of a wedding, or a cake made specifically for a wedding. Even if they use it as a wedding cake later without McDonald's knowledge.

The person making the burger isn't there to celebrate anything.

When it's a restaurant, it sure does. The event in question here is a date. That meal is made specifically for those people.

If the person making the burger isn't celebrating their budding romance, then the photographer isn't celebrating the marriage they're photographing.

A big mac is a big mac, it isn't a date big mac.

Wedding photographs are wedding photographs.

There is personal interaction and attendance required by the photographer.

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

 

[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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

 

[hadit]

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.

So, it's freedom of speech issue.

She can exercise her freedom of speech anytime, but using a public accommodation (her business) as the vehicle is not one of them.

Interesting. So, as a "public accommodation", Facebook has no right to censor Trumpsters, right?

Say on subject. Her business is an public accommodation and cannot be used to discriminate.

Posting a statement of faith is not dicriminating.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

 

[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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

 

[colfax_m]

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

They're not celebrating just by being there. That's an absurd statement. They're performing a job. No one thinks that they're there because they approve of the marriage. They're there because they're being paid to take photos.

Churches are not bound by public accommodation laws. Performing a marriage is an actual religious exercise for some. Taking a photo of one is not.

 

[martybegan]

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

They're not celebrating just by being there. That's an absurd statement. They're performing a job. No one thinks that they're there because they approve of the marriage. They're there because they're being paid to take photos.

Churches are not bound by public accommodation laws. Performing a marriage is an actual religious exercise for some. Taking a photo of one is not.

"Join us in celebrating" is a very common statement on wedding invitations.

A photographer photographing an event isn't a PA either.

Performing a marriage is a function of the clergy in some religions, lay people can do it in others. Taking a photo of a same sex wedding when one is against them can be considered sinful. Who are you or the government to make that decision for the person?

Again, if your side can't compromise on something this limited and quite frankly, unimportant, why should we try to work with your side at all in a civil matter?

If you want "all or nothing" what should you expect in return?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

 

[danielpalos]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

 

[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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

Government constructs that still cannot ignore constitutional rights.

So if a permit or license required you to use slaves at your establishment that would be OK?

 

[martybegan]

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

The photographer isn't a celebrant. They're just there to take pictures.

Taking pictures is not a religious exercise. No more so than fixing a leaking pipe or preparing a hamburger.

They are celebrating along with the attendees by their mere presence.

Free exercise doesn't just involve actual religious exercises such as ceremonies.

And you still haven't answered by question about forcing Churches to minister to same sex weddings or not.

Churches don't operate on a for-the-Profit-of-Lucre basis.

Making money does not eliminate free exercise.

 

[colfax_m]

"Join us in celebrating" is a very common statement on wedding invitations.

A photographer photographing an event isn't a PA either.

Performing a marriage is a function of the clergy in some religions, lay people can do it in others. Taking a photo of a same sex wedding when one is against them can be considered sinful. Who are you or the government to make that decision for the person?

Again, if your side can't compromise on something this limited and quite frankly, unimportant, why should we try to work with your side at all in a civil matter?

If you want "all or nothing" what should you expect in return?

The photographer isn't a wedding guest. They're being paid to be there.

Appears that a public accommodation is very broadly defined. The photographer's own lawsuit makes a compelling argument that they are indeed a place of public accommodation. See page 20.
EmileeCarpenterComplaint.pdf

Anything can be considered sinful. You're okay with forcing someone to make a meal for a same sex couple on a date which they might consider sinful. You didn't seem to have a problem making that decision for the person.

 

[colfax_m]

A big mac is a big mac, it isn't a date big mac.

It is when you bake it for two people who are purchasing them for their date.

 

[martybegan]

"Join us in celebrating" is a very common statement on wedding invitations.

A photographer photographing an event isn't a PA either.

Performing a marriage is a function of the clergy in some religions, lay people can do it in others. Taking a photo of a same sex wedding when one is against them can be considered sinful. Who are you or the government to make that decision for the person?

Again, if your side can't compromise on something this limited and quite frankly, unimportant, why should we try to work with your side at all in a civil matter?

If you want "all or nothing" what should you expect in return?

The photographer isn't a wedding guest. They're being paid to be there.

Appears that a public accommodation is very broadly defined. The photographer's own lawsuit makes a compelling argument that they are indeed a place of public accommodation. See page 20.
EmileeCarpenterComplaint.pdf

Anything can be considered sinful. You're okay with forcing someone to make a meal for a same sex couple on a date which they might consider sinful. You didn't seem to have a problem making that decision for the person.

They are producing a product celebrating the event. To them that is endorsing the event, and they don't want to endorse it.

They are not arguing the PA point, although they should. Just because they are limiting THIS lawsuit to the website expression issues doesn't mean they don't want to fight the other things later.

It's called drawing a line somewhere, something SJW's refuse to do.

Point of sale? PA laws apply. Wedding cakes or photographs? Nope. Hotel room for the night? Yes. Hotel conference room for a SSM or a say a S&M expo? No. Attendees for a SSM ceremony or S&M expo at another venue staying in your hotel? Yes.

 

[martybegan]

A big mac is a big mac, it isn't a date big mac.

It is when you bake it for two people who are purchasing them for their date.

Nope. As McDonalds is a PA and the guy making the burger is making hundreds just like it and never seeing it again once it goes in the box, the comparison is simply invalid.

Almost all of the people in question in these suits don't want to deny point of sale services at all, just contracted services for specific events they find morally objectionable.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

US federal law doesn't trump free exercise without a compelling interest, and only then they must find the least intrusive means of interfering with free exercise.

And a photographer working on contract isn't a public accommodation.

The seller needs a permit or license to operate in public accommodation.

You have no "gospel Truth" only fallacy which is no better than bearing false witness (unto God).

And said permit or license requirements can't override free exercise.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to the terms for operating in public accommodation and declared to be operating on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis. Why bother to distinguish if it means nothing?

A wedding photographer is not a PA.

It is if the photographer had to apply for a business permit or license.

Government constructs that still cannot ignore constitutional rights.

So if a permit or license required you to use slaves at your establishment that would be OK?

That is your red herring not mine.

This is part of 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.