CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[martybegan]

But the person in question is religious, and has the right to free exercise.

In private acommodation not public accommodation; it is why the seller was required to declare whether or not they would be operating on a for-profit basis. The seller could have freely chosen to operate on a non profit basis in order to "be more religious" about her business for the public good.

Where in the constitution does it mandate giving up free exercise if you want to profit?

 

[martybegan]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: 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. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

Yes, it does; simply because that was a requirement to sell in "Caesar's market".

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies along with ad hominems. You need valid arguments for rebuttal.

No, it doesn't.

And back to the accusations of fallacies.

Yes, it does. And, you need a valid rebuttal not a diversion.

Being forced to provide services in this case isn't ceasar's call.

 

[danielpalos]

But the person in question is religious, and has the right to free exercise.

In private acommodation not public accommodation; it is why the seller was required to declare whether or not they would be operating on a for-profit basis. The seller could have freely chosen to operate on a non profit basis in order to "be more religious" about her business for the public good.

Where in the constitution does it mandate giving up free exercise if you want to profit?

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Any questions?

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. Mark 12:17

 

[danielpalos]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: 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. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

Yes, it does; simply because that was a requirement to sell in "Caesar's market".

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies along with ad hominems. You need valid arguments for rebuttal.

No, it doesn't.

And back to the accusations of fallacies.

Yes, it does. And, you need a valid rebuttal not a diversion.

Being forced to provide services in this case isn't ceasar's call.

No one is forcing the seller to operate on a for-profit basis instead of a for-moral basis in public accommodation.

 

[emilynghiem]

The buyer is not being forced by GOVT
to accommodate THAT particular business which has a different type of service and beliefs.

The seller proclaimed to be operating on a for-profit basis not a for-moral basis in public accommodation. Was that seller bearing false witness to Government?

For profit, nonprofit, and not for profit business are all different.

But anyone can argue or express moral beliefs.

What nonprofits cannot do is political lobbying.

Religious nonprofits aren't supposed to lobby but they do. This has been contested but hard to enforce because people are social and rely on leaders that cross over the different roles and realms.

There is no law forbidding for profit businesses from preaching as they wish.

That is why businesses can promote BLM or Rainbow flag messages that inclusion of LGBT a positive moral or ethical social policy.

danielpalos
It is more honest and accurate advertising for the business to represent that it does not provide same sex related services.

You are trying to abuse govt to force a business to advertise something it doesn't provide or believe in, which is false advertising, or close their business which is denying "equal privileges and protections" to them "because of their creed" thus "discriminating by creed."



Again the reason we do not see this the same way
1. You only consider Christian/traditional marriage beliefs to be "moral/religious" but you do NOT treat LGBT beliefs as moral or faith based beliefs EQUAL under law. So the LGBT beliefs can get Govt to back them against the Christian beliefs, but not vice versa, instead of protecting both beliefs EQUALLY from infringing ON EACH OTHER.
2. You see LGBT as victims of systemic oppression or discrimination that Govt needs to protect, but don't see Christian beliefs as under threat of attack, oppression or discrimination.

The difference is I see both as beliefs to be protected from infringement by the other.

I do not seek to correct injustice by inflicting the same injustice on the other side. Two wrongs don't fix the problem.

You see it as a onesided wrong that requires onesided punishment or penalty.
But I see it as correcting the MUTUAL problem of BOTH sides discriminating against the other beliefs, separating from each other, and not abusing Govt to endorse one side over the other but keeping these separate from each other. Like allowing political parties to discriminate and only serve members that agree to the advertised policies.

They NEED to advertise honestly what they believe in or else it is false advertising.

As for religious beliefs and expression, the Hobby Lobby case and RFRA both defend the right to these and require the least restrictive measures if govt has a compelling interest.

There is no law forbidding customers from getting services from another Vendor.

So the least restrictive means would be to refer Customers to another Vendor, or offer to subcontract the work to someone else who provides that service.

 

[emilynghiem]

But the person in question is religious, and has the right to free exercise.

In private acommodation not public accommodation; it is why the seller was required to declare whether or not they would be operating on a for-profit basis. The seller could have freely chosen to operate on a non profit basis in order to "be more religious" about her business for the public good.

Where in the constitution does it mandate giving up free exercise if you want to profit?

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Any questions?

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. Mark 12:17

1. Any laws under commerce must still respect Amendments 1-10 and 14 etc.
2. By the 9th Amendment on enumeration and the 10th Amendment on rights reserved to people and states, federal govt cannot violate other laws provisions or protections, but must respect these EQUALLY as part of the law of the land.
3. With ACA ruling, the Court struck down the Commerce clause argument. So this does not apply to just "any type of commerce or business."
4. Again danielpalos
You have a bias for LGBT beliefs and against Christian as "moral beliefs" and are not treating both sets of beliefs the same or equal under law. You see one side as the victim and the other side as the oppressor instead of seeing both as equally "faith based beliefs" discriminating against the other.

If the opposite situation were affected by this law, if LGBT counseling businesses advertised they don't believe in exgay therapy, don't provide that service, and only showed examples of people they served who are LGBT not any exgay.

What if the law required LGBT counselors NOT to explain their beliefs that "LGBT orientation cannot change" and it is "immoral or damaging to counsel people otherwise", and forced them to include equal examples of exgay people who received spiritual therapy to change their orientation?

Can you see that would be protested?

I'm saying the same objections apply to both sides' beliefs, which Govt cannot regulate, penalize or force without violating 1st and 14th Amendment rights and protections.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no law forbidding for profit businesses from preaching as they wish.

The seller in this case is not a preacher. Photographers have no special moral authority to preach what they are not selling.

 

[danielpalos]

Any laws under commerce must still respect Amendments 1-10 and 14 etc.

They do. The seller also agreed to operate on a for-profit basis not a for-moral basis in public accommodation. False witness bearers have no legal protection.

 

[emilynghiem]

Any laws under commerce must still respect Amendments 1-10 and 14 etc.

They do. The seller also agreed to operate on a for-profit basis not a for-moral basis in public accommodation. False witness bearers have no legal protection.

??? Do you mean a religious organization?
So if atheists are not citing a religion then they have no morals?
If the only people who have rights to express moral policies are "religious organizations" then shouldn't the entire Democratic Party preaching it is immoral to deny rights to marriage or immigration or health care be required to refile and register as a Religious Organization?

Good point, I argue similar myself!

Again the Hobby Lobby case defended business owners from govt policies violating their beliefs. That is one example.

Can you answer the example I gave if this policy were applied to LGBT counseling services, forcing them not to deny or discriminate against exgay customers?

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all. The seller should have applied for a Religious exemption (for a small additional fee) to operate in a religious manner in public accommodation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not at all. The seller should have applied for a Religious exemption (for a small additional fee) to operate in a religious manner in public accommodation.

????
This is still "govt regulating free speech AND religion" if you are required to register as a religious organization in order to "express your personal beliefs"

1. If the business is seeking or representing itself for religious donations, then they should register. But they are just expressing their beliefs behind their business.
2. Businesses can require their own employees not to express political or religious slogans or statements in public when representing that company. But they also have the freedom to let their associates endorse messages if they want.
3. For example: BLM, Rainbow flags or LGBT, and kneeling for the flag or anthem
A. Some companies endorsed this, and even promoted employees wearing BLM or other emblems
B. Some companies prohibit their workers from any slogans or statements not approved as company policy

Are you saying the companies have to file for religious organizations before they can preach BLM or LGBT beliefs and morals?

danielpalos
Do public schools need to file as religious organizations before they preach
"Moral Policy" on inclusion of LGBT, on CRT, or Climate change?

Are you being fair and applying this rule
of yours to ALL people, groups, businesses or institutions that "preach morals."

It seems, again, you do not see, consider or treat your own set of beliefs as "morals" but selectively target "the other group's beliefs" by a DIFFERENT set of rules than you apply to your own beliefs.

That is fine if you have this bias.

But be aware that is causing this conflict.

And why conservatives argue that liberals like you are abusing govt to preach your beliefs while regulating, barring or penalizing others if they do what you do!

 

[danielpalos]

You are being disingenuous and still resorting to bigotry in public accommodation.

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

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

A Religious exemption would exempt your firm from the religious test clause. And, inform the Government of Your intent to operate in a manner that may seem to deny and disparage services to nonbelievers in public accommodation, allegedly for the sake of private morals and not on a for-profit basis.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are being disingenuous and still resorting to bigotry in public accommodation.

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

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

A Religious exemption would exempt your firm from the religious test clause. And, inform the Government of Your intent to operate in a manner that may seem to deny and disparage services to nonbelievers in public accommodation, allegedly for the sake of private morals and not on a for-profit basis.

You are requiring "moral beliefs" of a business by requiring them to "include and endorse same sex rituals they do not provide or believe in"

You are the one "preaching" your belief that "same sex rituals" are the same as "traditional marriage rituals" when half the nation says no, they are not the same and govt cannot force anyone to change their beliefs or express otherwise.

danielpalos
I defend BOTH the LGBT and the Christian beliefs, both the pro and anti views of same sex marriages
FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER

I do not support Govt either
* (A) forcing LGBT websites to post "spiritual healing to include testimonies of exgays
* (B) forcing Christian owned businesses to post "same sex" wedding images or services on their websites

The difference between you and me, you support Govt forcing B but not A.
While I argue AGAINST forcing either A or B.

So you are the one discriminating by only enforcing "accommodations" for LGBT but not others, while I argue Govt should not be involved in violating or excluding ANYONE'S beliefs.

I believe in defending LGBT and Christian beliefs equally, by treating these both as creeds.

So neither can be discriminated against by creed.

This protects both LGBT and Christian beliefs from Infringing on EACH OTHER equally defending BOTH.

 

[danielpalos]

You are requiring "moral beliefs" of a business by requiring them to "include and endorse same sex rituals they do not provide or believe in"

Not at all. You are requiring the buyer to have the moral beliefs of the seller to sell to the buyer. The buyer also has First Amendment protection.

And, we have In God We Trust on our Lucre for the benefit of for-profit merchants in public accommodation.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

If she owns her own business, then I agree with the photographer, even though I'm not religious, it is her right since it's HER business.

As long as she isn't engaging in anything illegal that is causing harm to anyone, or faking her business documents, then she can do with HER business what she pleases!! And if she wants to specialize in straight, christian weddings......that's HER choice, not the governments!

This is the PERFECT example of cities/states turning communist.

 

[danielpalos]

If she owns her own business, then I agree with the photographer, even though I'm not religious, it is her right since it's HER business.

As long as she isn't engaging in anything illegal that is causing harm to anyone, or faking her business documents, then she can do with HER business what she pleases!! And if she wants to specialize in straight, christian weddings......that's HER choice, not the governments!

This is the PERFECT example of cities/states turning communist.

The issue is, the seller is operating in public not private accommodation and had to get a license to operate. The seller agreed to not discriminate in order to operate in public accommodation. There is nothing stopping the seller from operating from home instead of public accommodation where location, location, location matters.

§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

If she owns her own business, then I agree with the photographer, even though I'm not religious, it is her right since it's HER business.

As long as she isn't engaging in anything illegal that is causing harm to anyone, or faking her business documents, then she can do with HER business what she pleases!! And if she wants to specialize in straight, christian weddings......that's HER choice, not the governments!

This is the PERFECT example of cities/states turning communist.

The issue is, the seller is operating in public not private accommodation and had to get a license to operate. The seller agreed to not discriminate in order to operate in public accommodation. There is nothing stopping the seller from operating from home instead of public accommodation where location, location, location matters.

§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

You might want to tell the owners of BLACK businesses this....since I've never seen a black business cater to any white person. In fact, I've been CHASED out of a black store because I am white.

Also......tell that to the Asian owned businesses!!


And by the way, it does NOT matter if she's public or private. It's HER business. If the anti-gay bakeries can do it, she can do it also!! She has the right to sell her services to whomever she chooses, thats HER prerogative.

The city/state is in violation of her rights. I hope she gets a ton of money from it.

 

[danielpalos]

If she owns her own business, then I agree with the photographer, even though I'm not religious, it is her right since it's HER business.

As long as she isn't engaging in anything illegal that is causing harm to anyone, or faking her business documents, then she can do with HER business what she pleases!! And if she wants to specialize in straight, christian weddings......that's HER choice, not the governments!

This is the PERFECT example of cities/states turning communist.

The issue is, the seller is operating in public not private accommodation and had to get a license to operate. The seller agreed to not discriminate in order to operate in public accommodation. There is nothing stopping the seller from operating from home instead of public accommodation where location, location, location matters.

§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

You might want to tell the owners of BLACK businesses this....since I've never seen a black business cater to any white person. In fact, I've been CHASED out of a black store because I am white.

Also......tell that to the Asian owned businesses!!


And by the way, it does NOT matter if she's public or private. It's HER business. If the anti-gay bakeries can do it, she can do it also!! She has the right to sell her services to whomever she chooses, thats HER prerogative.

The city/state is in violation of her rights. I hope she gets a ton of money from it.

In other words, you really don't care about morals or the law; just your bigotry.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are requiring "moral beliefs" of i.va business by requiring them to "include and endorse same sex rituals they do not provide or believe in"

Not at all. You are requiring the buyer to have the moral beliefs of the seller to sell to the buyer. The buyer also has First Amendment protection.

And, we have In God We Trust on our Lucre for the benefit of for-profit merchants in public accommodation.

Nope danielpalos
The Buyer IS NOT FORCED to use that business!

Where are you getting this?

Why are you acting like the Buyer isn't free to choose a business that provides those services?

When doctors or clinics don't provide abortion, or breast surgery, or transgender reassignment, do clients "waste time or money" to SUE them to FORCE them by law to "accommodate them."

Don't people choose providers specializing in these services, and advertising them because they want to attract that market demand?

Who is "forcing" the Buyer to go to this particular photographer, and why can't they go elsewhere?

Would you go to a pet photographer to film a sports event that requires live action shots?

If doctors don't believe in abortion, are you saying they have no right to express their beliefs on their websites?

 

[emilynghiem]

If she owns her own business, then I agree with the photographer, even though I'm not religious, it is her right since it's HER business.

As long as she isn't engaging in anything illegal that is causing harm to anyone, or faking her business documents, then she can do with HER business what she pleases!! And if she wants to specialize in straight, christian weddings......that's HER choice, not the governments!

This is the PERFECT example of cities/states turning communist.

The issue is, the seller is operating in public not private accommodation and had to get a license to operate. The seller agreed to not discriminate in order to operate in public accommodation. There is nothing stopping the seller from operating from home instead of public accommodation where location, location, location matters.

§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

danielpalos

1. First, the business is NOT discriminating "against serving the customer". Because the customer can still get photography services for events or activities or subjects the business provides for any and all customers. This could include pet photography, portraits, school photos, holiday cards, etc.

The business is required to "serve all customers" but not required to serve them a product or service the business does not provide.

2. The business is only declining specific services that are against the owner's beliefs. That is discriminating in selecting what TYPE of services or events to cover.

The same POLICY applies to ALL CUSTOMERS.

Any customer, LGBT or not or other, can pay for and hire the advertised services.

NO customer, whether heterosexual or LGBT or other affiliation, can get "same sex" wedding/marriage services because it is THAT ACTIVITY or RITUAL that violates the beliefs of the business owner.

ALL customers would be refused this service because the business would not provide it to ANYONE.

If the business only provided "same sex wedding" photography to Conservatives but not to Liberals, they would be discriminating "because other people ARE getting same sex weddings covered."

But NOBODY is getting those services!