CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

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

A fallacy of False cause by a false alleged Christian?

Free speech means the seller should advertise "kosher" (or its equivalent) photography services to true believers.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No appeal to ignorance of the law is also a part of that same free society.

 

[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.

is that a federal thing or a state thing?

Does it matter? Non-sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

 

[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.

danielpalos what do you disagree with? that's what the law says.

 

[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.

No appeal to ignorance of the law is also a part of that same free society.

you have no right to see her ledgers, bank accounts, or any other business material. you seem to still be confused.

 

[jc456]

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

A fallacy of False cause by a false alleged Christian?

Free speech means the seller should advertise "kosher" (or its equivalent) photography services to true believers.

post that link.

 

[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?

Does it matter? Non-sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

indeed. I posted why after the initial post.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

 

[martybegan]

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.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

 

[dblack]

The First Amendment was never meant to give religious people special exemptions from laws they don't like. It was meant to prevent government from legislating religion. To keep the state from establishing an official religion, and from persecuting religions they don't like.

That's not what's going on here. It's not a matter of freedom of religion. If you want to employ the First Amendment, it's much better argued as a freedom of speech issue, because the real "crime" is her statement regarding why she's refusing to serve some people. If she'd kept her reasons to herself, she'd never have been charged. But it's also about the more fundamental freedoms of association and self determination - the freedom to conduct business, or not, as we choose, with whoever we want.

Citing it as a violation of religious freedom is like arguing Christian slaves shouldn't have to work on Sunday.

 

[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.

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.

danielpalos what do you disagree with? that's what the law says.

When are you going to learn how to read, Festus?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No appeal to ignorance of the law is also a part of that same free society.

you have no right to see her ledgers, bank accounts, or any other business material. you seem to still be confused.

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. not enough logic and reason to around on the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

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

A fallacy of False cause by a false alleged Christian?

Free speech means the seller should advertise "kosher" (or its equivalent) photography services to true believers.

post that link.

Free speech is not the same as "free action".

 

[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.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

Neither does a laity and secular seller in public accommodation.

 

[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.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment was never meant to give religious people special exemptions from laws they don't like. It was meant to prevent government from legislating religion. To keep the state from establishing an official religion, and from persecuting religions they don't like.

That's not what's going on here. It's not a matter of freedom of religion. If you want to employ the First Amendment, it's much better argued as a freedom of speech issue, because the real "crime" is her statement regarding why she's refusing to serve some people. If she'd kept her reasons to herself, she'd never have been charged. But it's also about the more fundamental freedoms of association and self determination - the freedom to conduct business, or not, as we choose, with whoever we want.

Citing it as a violation of religious freedom is like arguing Christian slaves shouldn't have to work on Sunday.

The seller could always advertise being a "kosher" photographer as free speech. Potential clients have no requirement to ask a seller about their religious views in public accommodation.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

Actually danielpalos
All people are prone to favor our own biases. No humans I ever met were so perfectly objective and neutral to avoid discrimination.

We all are going to favor our own beliefs, people or groups we know personally from experience over ones we don't know,
or prefer to work with those we agree with.

This isn't just "false Christians" who fail to treat all people equally.

Everyone will favor people we know, trust or like/agree with over people we don't.

That is why we rely on other people or groups to handle the other people or cases we don't want to deal with.

It is important to organize and delegate, since every person or group will cater to their own biases and beliefs.

All Christianity calls us to do is FORGIVE others as we want to be forgiven. To LOVE others means to care for their souls.

No person on Earth is so unconditional and universal to care for everyone equally.
We have limits to our physical time, space and energy. We can only do so much.

That is why it takes everyone forgiving our differences, so we can organize in groups and delegate the work and responsibilities collectively and still cover all society.

Nobody can be as perfect and universal as God represents.

We are all biased or fall short.

The key is forgiving these shortcomings
And admitting we need to work together
For this very reason. So together, we can cover all ground equally, despite the biases that each person or group has.

This is going to occur and happen.
Instead of judging and fighting, we just
Forgive, accept and work with the fact that different groups have their different biases in creeds, and beliefs. And use each one to serve their respective roles or sector in society. Not punish people for their different beliefs if that's how they are.

 

[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.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

Actually danielpalos
All people are prone to favor our own biases. No humans I ever met were so perfectly objective and neutral to avoid discrimination.

We all are going to favor our own beliefs, people or groups we know personally from experience over ones we don't know,
or prefer to work with those we agree with.

This isn't just "false Christians" who fail to treat all people equally.

Everyone will favor people we know, trust or like/agree with over people we don't.

That is why we rely on other people or groups to handle the other people or cases we don't want to deal with.

It is important to organize and delegate, since every person or group will cater to their own biases and beliefs.

All Christianity calls us to do is FORGIVE others as we want to be forgiven. To LOVE others means to care for their souls.

No person on Earth is so unconditional and universal to care for everyone equally.
We have limits to our physical time, space and energy. We can only do so much.

That is why it takes everyone forgiving our differences, so we can organize in groups and delegate the work and responsibilities collectively and still cover all society.

Nobody can be as perfect and universal as God represents.

We are all biased or fall short.

The key is forgiving these shortcomings
And admitting we need to work together
For this very reason. So together, we can cover all ground equally, despite the biases that each person or group has.

This is going to occur and happen.
Instead of judging and fighting, we just
Forgive, accept and work with the fact that different groups have their different biases in creeds, and beliefs. And use each one to serve their respective roles or sector in society. Not punish people for their different beliefs if that's how they are.

That is why we have the (public accommodation) Laws and the Expense of Government since morals for free seem too difficult for Original Sinners.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

Neither does a laity and secular seller in public accommodation.

Actually their choice if it comes from Religious belief should be paramount, then reviewed for a compelling government interest in infringing, and if so any remedy has to be as unobtrusive of their rights as possible.

 

[martybegan]

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.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear about same sex relations being sinful.