CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[martybegan]

There is no reason for them to do that. Making a profit does not negate your constitutional rights.

Yes, it does. It means the profit of Lucre is the bottom line not the greater glory of our immortal souls.

That is nowhere in the Constitution.

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

Does the photographer advertise, "kosher" photography?

They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.

The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

Splitting hairs. Once you concede that government is a "business partner", that if you dare to open your business to the public you give up self-determination, the battle is lost.

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

Yep, the "public accommodation" conceit is the problem

I know we disagree on this. to me the expansion of the PA concept to every transaction is the issue.

Foot in the door. You've already lost, you're just negotiating terms of surrender.

Absolutism is the best way to die smiling in front of the firing squad.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it's not. People don't walk in and expect point of sale services like food, furniture, a movie or a hotel room.

Simply operating in a commercial building could qualify; can anyone go into that photography studio and ask for photography services?

photography isn't point of sale. if you want to quibble they can call themselves by appointment only, which many do.

That is beside the point. You need to cite the law that says that. Link?

If that is the case, why is this a problem. Is the photographer in question only available by appointment?

 

[martybegan]

No, it's not. People don't walk in and expect point of sale services like food, furniture, a movie or a hotel room.

Simply operating in a commercial building could qualify; can anyone go into that photography studio and ask for photography services?

photography isn't point of sale. if you want to quibble they can call themselves by appointment only, which many do.

That is beside the point. You need to cite the law that says that. Link?

If that is the case, why is this a problem. Is the photographer in question only available by appointment?

This isn't about what the laws say, at least some of them in some States. It's what the laws should say.

And the Federal Definition of a PA is far more stringent then most State definitions, which in Blue States equate "any time money changes hands"

 

[danielpalos]

They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.

The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.

The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.


A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.

 

[colfax_m]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.

A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.

Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.

 

[colfax_m]

we have bars in KC where white people cant go or they get the shit kicked out of them,,

Those people who attack those patrons should be prosecuted for assault.

That’s an easy one.

 

[danielpalos]

This isn't about what the laws say, at least some of them in some States. It's what the laws should say.

And the Federal Definition of a PA is far more stringent then most State definitions, which in Blue States equate "any time money changes hands"

If, morals are the profit for the seller over Lucre under our form of Capitalism, why any reluctance to operate on a not-for-profit-of-Lucre basis in public accommodation?

 

[progressive hunter]

we have bars in KC where white people cant go or they get the shit kicked out of them,,

Those people who attack those patrons should be prosecuted for assault.

That’s an easy one.

deflection,,,

what about getting that gay wedding cake made in dearborn mich.???

your outrage has only one direction,,,

 

[martybegan]

They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.

The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.

The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.


A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.

You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.

Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.

 

[martybegan]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.

A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.

Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.

They are being denied pork due to religious reasons. Any other butcher would have pork.

You say SSM and OSM are equal, these people do not.

Just like Jews say pork isn't beef.

 

[martybegan]

This isn't about what the laws say, at least some of them in some States. It's what the laws should say.

And the Federal Definition of a PA is far more stringent then most State definitions, which in Blue States equate "any time money changes hands"

If, morals are the profit for the seller over Lucre under our form of Capitalism, why any reluctance to operate on a not-for-profit-of-Lucre basis in public accommodation?

because they shouldn't have to. profit or not for profit has no basis in anything but the tax code.

 

[colfax_m]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

To most religions same sex marriage isn't marriage. It simply doesn't exist. If a Jewish butcher can't be forced to sell pork, how can a Christian photographer be forced to service a Same Sex Wedding?

They offer meat. Meat is meat. You are saying same sex marriages are the same as opposite sex marriages, which is crazy because the concept of a same sex marriage is extremely new.

It’s hard to encapsulate how bad of an analogy this is.

A customer is not being discriminated against if they’re not being served a product no one else is being served. That can’t be considered discrimination since every customer is being treated equally.

Not every customer is treated equally by the photographer. They, for some reason, feel compelled to bestow their customers with their personal approval.

They are being denied pork due to religious reasons. Any other butcher would have pork.

You say SSM and OSM are equal, these people do not.

Just like Jews say pork isn't beef.

I don’t think you understand the issue of what discrimination means here.

Disfrimination of products offered is different than discrimination on who the product is offered to.

 

[Kilroy2]

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Your statement is very simple minded, anyway.

This issue is one of forced speech, not public accommodation. As a business owner, I follow these public accommodation laws and do not refuse to sell a product in my inventory to a person based upon a number of factors inherent to that person. By that same token, they cannot force ME to submit an official endorsement for how they use that product.

This is not about forced free speech as even free speech has its limitations.

force submission of an official endorsement on how they use that product. How is endorsement even an issue?

 

[danielpalos]

They want to offer marriage photography to opposite sex marriage, which until only recently was the only form of marriage.

The government has no interest in forcing them to do otherwise.

The photographer has no profit in denying or disparaging the privileges and immunities of buyers.


A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public (non-profit corporation).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

If this was as important for moral purposes as the seller alleges, they would not operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis.

You use these words as if you have any understanding of what they mean.

Making profit doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.

You have no valid argument regardless. You must understand the concept even less. How typical for Right-Wingers who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. Why doesn't the photographer simply work privately from home? Location, location, location is for true Capitalists not false Capitalists.

 

[justinacolmena]

Photography, and especially professional photography, is forbidden in many Christian churches.

 

[Pellinore]

Imagine for a moment that the photographer refused to photograph (etc.) the couple because they were Black. This would, obviously, be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act, because being Black is a protected class. However, if the photographer refused because they were (for example) Raiders fans, that would be fine, because team affiliation isn't protected.

Sexual preference (and, for what it's worth, gender identity) aren't explicitly listed on there, but a lot of states include one or both in their similar state laws. What's more, 'sex' is listed as a protected class, and last June, the Supreme Court ruled that that includes being gay or transgender. Here's a link; sorry in advance for the ghastly white-on-mint-green website design choices: Supreme Court Expands Protected Classes Under Title VI — Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson

I would imagine that the same concept would apply to refusing service. I expect the photographer to lose.

 

[emilynghiem]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

Dear colfax_m
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.

These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".

As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.

ALL customers are refused that service.

 

[emilynghiem]

Imagine for a moment that the photographer refused to photograph (etc.) the couple because they were Black. This would, obviously, be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act, because being Black is a protected class. However, if the photographer refused because they were (for example) Raiders fans, that would be fine, because team affiliation isn't protected.

Sexual preference (and, for what it's worth, gender identity) aren't explicitly listed on there, but a lot of states include one or both in their similar state laws. What's more, 'sex' is listed as a protected class, and last June, the Supreme Court ruled that that includes being gay or transgender. Here's a link; sorry in advance for the ghastly white-on-mint-green website design choices: Supreme Court Expands Protected Classes Under Title VI — Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson

I would imagine that the same concept would apply to refusing service. I expect the photographer to lose.

1. Race is genetic and does not change
2. LGBT identity and orientation is not genetically proven but is changeable and faith based. So it is more like a spiritual belief, identity or affiliation
3. There is no legal dispute over discriminating against the PERSON "for identifying or affiliating as LGBT" -- that part is clearly against the accommodations policy.
4. The issue is whether businesses can decline a TYPE of SERVICE, where "same sex" weddings/marriages would constitute a different TYPE of service from traditional husband/wife marriages recognized in religions while same sex marriages are not.
5. And this lawsuit takes it further: with govt regulations or fines compelling businesses to force LGBT images/content on their website amd services through their program (and ban other content)

 

[colfax_m]

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

It’s not that the marriage is different, it’s that your beliefs are that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to have it in your eyes.

It’s an act of selfishness to me.

Imagine if a restaurant cooked a gorgeous meal and decided that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to eat it, replying that this is a (for example) white people meal and not a (for example) black people meal. It’s the same meal, the only thing that’s changed is the recipient.