Going after PA laws applied wrongly to any business transaction is for another lawsuit.
There’s zero reason this suit couldn’t make that claim.
Zero.
You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.
The seller was even more "oppressive".
Not even close. Having to find another photographer is not worse than either going against your morals, or paying a gigantic fine, or giving up the profession/business you worked for.
Why is that seller operating in the public domain when morals allegedly mean soo much to that seller? The Religious who may feel that strongly have no problem cloistering themselves for the sake of their morals and morality.
Hmmmm
danielpalos
1. Maybe they trust that in a free country like America that celebrates religious freedom and diversity, people of all cultures and beliefs can advertise businesses, goods and services that meet a certain market demand or audience and customer base.
2. Like people who sell MAGA or BLM flags or masks. People who only sell VEGAN products completely cruelty free, and promote "on their WEBSITES their MORAL BELIEFS" so they can reach customers they want to serve and not market to people looking for products or services not offered.
3. By your reasoning
danielpalos
Are you saying that LGBT or Transgender who only compromise less than 1-5% of the population "shouldn't promote their beliefs in public"?
If very few need to have access to restrooms based on their INTERNAL gender identity instead of their genetic chromosome gender markings,
does this mean they shouldn't "push their beliefs out in public and expect equal accommodations" if it "means that much to them" and they are going to run into public opposition that outnumbers them.
How is free speech and right to express beliefs and morals or Personal Identity
"Limited" by
* how much a moral or message means to someone's identity, beliefs or affiliation?
* restricted by the size of the group or population that person identitifies with
By your statement, you would allow discrimination against "certain people or beliefs" on the basis of
* majority rule outnumbering the individual
* the importance of their moral beliefs to them as a reason to "keep this private" and not "out in public"
Do you see you would not ask LGBT people
to put up with such treatment or arguments!
Can you admit you treat LGBT people differently because you see them as an "abused class" but you do NOT see Christians with their beliefs as having the same rights or protections as LGBT because you do not see them as abused or discriminated against.
Isn't that the issue?
Because you recognize a social/systemic pattern of "discrimination against LGBT" you support laws or policies that ONLY address LGBT, but you do not apply the same protections to Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc. Only LGBT or other groups/class members you worry are targeted for discrimination.
