CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

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

 

[danielpalos]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

 

[martybegan]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

 

[danielpalos]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.

Your seller is trying to establish some Religious standard as a photographer in the pubilc domain.

 

[martybegan]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.

Your seller is trying to establish some Religious standard as a photographer in the pubilc domain.

So what?

As long as government isn't establishing a religious standard there is no constitutional issue.

 

[danielpalos]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

Thanks for acknowledging that the buyers must also have free exercise in the public domain.

 

[martybegan]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

Thanks for acknowledging that the buyers must also have free exercise in the public domain.

Didn't acknowledge anything, please stop claiming victories you didn't earn.

there is no "free exercise" right to commerce.

 

[danielpalos]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.

Your seller is trying to establish some Religious standard as a photographer in the pubilc domain.

So what?

As long as government isn't establishing a religious standard there is no constitutional issue.

In case you missed it:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is not about Religion but appealing to ignorance of public accommodation laws.

 

[danielpalos]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

Thanks for acknowledging that the buyers must also have free exercise in the public domain.

Didn't acknowledge anything, please stop claiming victories you didn't earn.

there is no "free exercise" right to commerce.

Thanks for acknowledging the seller has no "free exercise" right in Commerce to ignore public accommodation laws in the public domain.

 

[dblack]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

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

several STateS.

 

[danielpalos]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

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

several STateS.

Run out of logic and reason so soon?

 

[martybegan]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.

Your seller is trying to establish some Religious standard as a photographer in the pubilc domain.

So what?

As long as government isn't establishing a religious standard there is no constitutional issue.

In case you missed it:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is not about Religion but appealing to ignorance of public accommodation laws.

Free exercise. Not wanting to photograph a same sex wedding when most religions consider same sex relationships sinful is free exercise.

 

[dblack]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

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

several STateS.

Run out of logic and reason so soon?

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

 

[martybegan]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

Thanks for acknowledging that the buyers must also have free exercise in the public domain.

Didn't acknowledge anything, please stop claiming victories you didn't earn.

there is no "free exercise" right to commerce.

Thanks for acknowledging the seller has no "free exercise" right in Commerce to ignore public accommodation laws in the public domain.

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

 

[danielpalos]

Free exercise. Not wanting to photograph a same sex wedding when most religions consider same sex relationships sinful is free exercise.

How do we know it is not merely some political agenda made possible under the common law?

Any practitioner of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) can say anything they want.

Job 34:30 applies.

I make a motion to petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists who may Inquire into the moral rectitude of the seller before that person can be considered credible regarding morals.

 

[danielpalos]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

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

several STateS.

Run out of logic and reason so soon?

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

Have you washed your hands, yet?

 

[danielpalos]

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

No, there is no Religious exemption for appealing to ignorance of the (public accommodation) law.

Jesus the Christ already made that clear regarding this issue.

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

 

[jc456]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.

Your seller is trying to establish some Religious standard as a photographer in the pubilc domain.

actually she's arguing free speech rights. Don't you think that's different?

 

[jc456]

How do we know it is not merely some political agenda made possible under the common law?

that's all part of a free society. we don't torture for information we are not privy to, or entitled to.

 

[jc456]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

The laity have no moral authority; it is why some Religious even have a Pope.

That is up to the religion, and everyone has free exercise, even if not clergy.

Thanks for acknowledging that the buyers must also have free exercise in the public domain.

Didn't acknowledge anything, please stop claiming victories you didn't earn.

there is no "free exercise" right to commerce.

Thanks for acknowledging the seller has no "free exercise" right in Commerce to ignore public accommodation laws in the public domain.

is that a federal thing or a state thing?

there is this from the law,
nothing about sex or sexual orientation let alone marriage.

Public Accommodations at the Federal Level
Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal government prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the following: race, color, religion, national origin, and disability. The federal government does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. However, numerous states protect against age, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination.