Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That is just You begging the question which is usually considered a fallacy. Why do you believe the seller's natural and constitutional rights are being violated? That is just weirder since you presented no valid argument but still want to be taken seriously.
First, I'm not begging any question. Second, what question am I supposedly begging? Third, do you accurately understand the particulars of this case in the first place? There is a lot of confusion on this thread.
The article attached to this OP is confusing!
Rather:
Emilee Carpenter, a New York-based photographer and blogger, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday (6 April) alleging the state’s non-discrimination laws violate her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because she “believes that God created marriage to be a joyful, exclusive union between one man and one woman”.She argued in the lawsuit that she doesn’t want to provide photography that depicts a marriage in a “negative way” or promotes any special occasions between “same-sex or polygamous” couples.To bolster her argument, she said in her lawsuit that she “would not provide wedding photography” for “irreverent themed weddings” — such as “Halloween or vampire-themed weddings” — because she believes weddings are “inherently religious and solemn events”.“Just as the government cannot compel a lesbian baker to create a cake condemning same-sex marriage or an atheist playwright to wax positively about God, New York cannot force Emilee to convey messages she objects to,” the lawsuit said.The legal document said Carpenter has received “at least seven requests” to photograph same-sex weddings in the last year, but Carpenter “declined these requests by not responding to them”.Carpenter file her lawsuit. The ADF said in a statement that “creative professionals” like Carpenter should have the “freedom to create art consistent with their beliefs without fear of the government closing their business or throwing them in jail”.The lawsuit stated that New York law requires Carpenter to “create photographs and blogs celebrating same-sex marriage because she creates photographs and blogs celebrating opposite-sex marriage”. It added the law prohibits her from posting “statements on her business’s own website explaining her religious views on marriage or her reasons for only creating this wedding content”.
Anti-gay wedding photographer cites vampires in legal bid to discriminate
This is the actual suit, filed on the 6th:
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1Jurisdiction and Venue.................................................................................................. 2 Plaintiffs......................................................................................................................... 3Defendants ..................................................................................................................... 3Factual Background ...................................................................................................... 4Emilee’s Christian beliefs motivates everything she does. ...................................... 4 Emilee operates Emilee Carpenter, LLC as a photography business. .................... 5 Emilee tells a visual narrative of God’s design for marriage through her photography and blogging. ........................................................................................ 7 Emilee cannot create photographs, write blogs, or participate in ceremonies contrary to her religious beliefs............................................................................... 14 New York’s law threatens Emilee’s wedding photography and business.............. 18 Attorney General James may independently enforce New York’s law with serious consequences. ........................................................................................................... 24 The Division possesses aggressive enforcement mechanisms and can impose paralyzing penalties................................................................................................. 25 New York’s law imposes overwhelming burdens on Emilee’s wedding photography.............................................................................................................. 31 New York only prosecutes its law against views the government disfavors......... 39 Legal Allegations ......................................................................................................... 45 First Cause of Action First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Association, and Press ......................................................................................................................... 45 Second Cause of Action First Amendment: Free Exercise of Religion ................. 48 Third Cause of Action First Amendment: Establishment Clause ......................... 50 Fourth Cause of Action Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process ............................. 51 Prayer for Relief........................................................................................................... 52
Means nothing since she is not a Religious authority nor has she taken any Religious vows. The laity has no more moral authority than anyone else. Our First Amendment also applies to "religious bigots".Emilee Carpenter, a New York-based photographer and blogger, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday (6 April) alleging the state’s non-discrimination laws violate her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because she “believes that God created marriage to be a joyful, exclusive union between one man and one woman”.
Well the issues is she wants to post "no same sex wedding policy" on her website. So the issue appears what she wants to post and not they are wanting her to post same sex wedding pictures.
I would say that there is no need for her to post such a policy. It is discrimination. Does she have the right to refuse to accept a job from a same sex couple. In my opinion yes. She could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs. I cannot believe anyone who is planning a wedding would not just walk away from her business. They are not going to try and maker her do it.
It seems they are trying to frame the argument in such a way that it sounds really bad
They have made others do it "or else" in other cases.
NY's law is more than likely far more restrictive because NY is currently 100% controlled by progressives.
from the lawsuit that was filed
Specifically, New York laws require Emilee to create photographs and blogs celebrating same-sex marriage because she creates photographs and blogs celebrating opposite-sex marriage. The laws also prohibit Emilee from adopting an editorial policy consistent with her beliefs about marriage. And the laws even make it illegal for Emilee to post statements on her business’s own website explaining her religious views on marriage or her reasons for only creating this wedding content. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.2(a) (forbidding statements that someone’s “patronage” is “unwelcome, objectionable or not accepted, desired, or solicited”).
The key is her editorial policy vs the law which forbids statements that discriminate
now I do not believe that the law requires her to place on her website pictures celebrating same sex marriage
yes it does forbid statements placed on her website that ays she will not create her art based on discrimination.
The lawsuit continues to say that
Emilee faces these risks each day she runs her company. She has already declined to respond to several requests to photograph same-sex weddings.
And New York has already punished other business owners for holding Emilee’s beliefs about marriage
It does seem that they did nothing to her based on that statement.
this is an effort to remove the gender identification issues from the law and they are using her as the poster girl for this effort. I really like to see what did they do that caused her to file this lawsuit other than limit overt statements of discrimination. This law provides discrimination on race. Does that mean she has to have pictures of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, etc, etc
So if a couple does ask her to take photos and she says no and says that because they are same sex she will not do it. yeah there might be a problem if they push it.
To me she is being bankrolled by others who want to challenge the same sex issue
Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James - Complaint.pdf (adflegal.org)
To me this is an issues of can you be overt about it and deny someone based on discrimination of sex, race, religion. etc. Making this an issues because of beliefs of a wedding photographer is a publicity stunt
There would be no need for this "publicity stunt" if people weren't pushed to do things they don't want to do.
The second the activists find out someone has a religious objection to SSM, they get flooded with requests for such services to create complaints.
Maybe but is there a easier way to handle it.
other than to state the obvious reason for not handling it. She operates a business. There are other less obvious ways to turn down a request other than just says it against my religion. IF they flood the business then it is up to the flooder to prove discrimination.
ultimately she filed the lawsuit claiming religious beliefs as the basis. The first part of the lawsuit goes into her artistic feelings about her art.
Why should a person have to lie in a free society?
Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.
The irony of it all is that they are partially making a religious statement to discriminate.
If anybody has a religious belief here, I don't know about that. It looks like there's a bride with too many bridesmaids, and the bridegroom ducked out of the photo-shoot because he has no interest in having HIS face posted on wedding site riding in a limousine with the whole rented tuxedo and bow-tie get-up. I simply can't believe the lesbianism is real. A woman is going to eat all that cake, or go down on another woman without an overpowering urge to vomit. There's a man involved. There's got to be. These ladies always have boyfriends or husbands. They simply don't have the money for all the bridal gowns and cake and diamond rings whatnot without a man for each woman being involved somehow.Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website.
Well the issues is she wants to post "no same sex wedding policy" on her website. So the issue appears what she wants to post and not they are wanting her to post same sex wedding pictures.
I would say that there is no need for her to post such a policy. It is discrimination. Does she have the right to refuse to accept a job from a same sex couple. In my opinion yes. She could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs. I cannot believe anyone who is planning a wedding would not just walk away from her business. They are not going to try and maker her do it.
It seems they are trying to frame the argument in such a way that it sounds really bad
They have made others do it "or else" in other cases.
NY's law is more than likely far more restrictive because NY is currently 100% controlled by progressives.
from the lawsuit that was filed
Specifically, New York laws require Emilee to create photographs and blogs celebrating same-sex marriage because she creates photographs and blogs celebrating opposite-sex marriage. The laws also prohibit Emilee from adopting an editorial policy consistent with her beliefs about marriage. And the laws even make it illegal for Emilee to post statements on her business’s own website explaining her religious views on marriage or her reasons for only creating this wedding content. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.2(a) (forbidding statements that someone’s “patronage” is “unwelcome, objectionable or not accepted, desired, or solicited”).
The key is her editorial policy vs the law which forbids statements that discriminate
now I do not believe that the law requires her to place on her website pictures celebrating same sex marriage
yes it does forbid statements placed on her website that ays she will not create her art based on discrimination.
The lawsuit continues to say that
Emilee faces these risks each day she runs her company. She has already declined to respond to several requests to photograph same-sex weddings.
And New York has already punished other business owners for holding Emilee’s beliefs about marriage
It does seem that they did nothing to her based on that statement.
this is an effort to remove the gender identification issues from the law and they are using her as the poster girl for this effort. I really like to see what did they do that caused her to file this lawsuit other than limit overt statements of discrimination. This law provides discrimination on race. Does that mean she has to have pictures of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, etc, etc
So if a couple does ask her to take photos and she says no and says that because they are same sex she will not do it. yeah there might be a problem if they push it.
To me she is being bankrolled by others who want to challenge the same sex issue
Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James - Complaint.pdf (adflegal.org)
To me this is an issues of can you be overt about it and deny someone based on discrimination of sex, race, religion. etc. Making this an issues because of beliefs of a wedding photographer is a publicity stunt
There would be no need for this "publicity stunt" if people weren't pushed to do things they don't want to do.
The second the activists find out someone has a religious objection to SSM, they get flooded with requests for such services to create complaints.
Maybe but is there a easier way to handle it.
other than to state the obvious reason for not handling it. She operates a business. There are other less obvious ways to turn down a request other than just says it against my religion. IF they flood the business then it is up to the flooder to prove discrimination.
ultimately she filed the lawsuit claiming religious beliefs as the basis. The first part of the lawsuit goes into her artistic feelings about her art.
Why should a person have to lie in a free society?
Well free society does sound nice but in reality a society is never totally free. When people have different opinions then you should be able to express them. In order to keep it civil any society has laws which has to limit that freedom.
When two freedom clash which one is the incorrect one or are they both the right ones?
Free for who, that is the question? Does a free society go both ways? I can accept her desire to not want to do it but she should do it in a non confrontational manner. So, yeah in a free society is is sometimes easier just to lie if it is for a good reason and avoiding hurting the other person or to avoid confrontation.
Still to lie in order to spare someone feeling is not that bad.
Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
Or photograph the wedding so badly that the sexual perverts would refuse to payShe could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs.
Yes, the seller does for the sake of the profit of Lucre. In public accommodation, the buyer also has a First Amendment not just the seller, and the seller proclaimed in public venues when incorporating on for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis what that seller was about. Lucre not morals.Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
She doesn't have to do that. Again, making money doesn't mean you give up your right to free exercise.
Yes, the seller does for the sake of the profit of Lucre. In public accommodation, the buyer also has a First Amendment not just the seller, and the seller proclaimed in public venues when incorporating on for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis what that seller was about. Lucre not morals.Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
She doesn't have to do that. Again, making money doesn't mean you give up your right to free exercise.
She isn't discriminating against anyone fool----------she just isn't pandering to the gay community.Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
No, I mean the profit of Lucre not the profit of the greater glory of our immortal souls.Yes, the seller does for the sake of the profit of Lucre. In public accommodation, the buyer also has a First Amendment not just the seller, and the seller proclaimed in public venues when incorporating on for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis what that seller was about. Lucre not morals.Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
She doesn't have to do that. Again, making money doesn't mean you give up your right to free exercise.
you know when you say "profit of lucre" you are just saying profit of profit, right?
Where in the first amendment does it say a person can hire whoever they want to hire for something like this?
The SSM crowd is harder to work with---far more demanding and melodramatic------------and often seek out those that would prefer to not do work with them as a game and chance to whine.She photographs SSM ceremonies because she wants to make the money, obviously. She doesn't want the pictures on her site because that might scare off the straight couples from hiring her. At the same time, it would probably bring her more income from the SSM crowd.
What to do? What to do?
If the pictures are really good and all that, I doubt that many straight couples would stay away from her. The SSM couples don't stay away because she has straight couples' pictures on her site.
At least my problems aren't this enormous.
No, I mean the profit of Lucre not the profit of the greater glory of our immortal souls.Yes, the seller does for the sake of the profit of Lucre. In public accommodation, the buyer also has a First Amendment not just the seller, and the seller proclaimed in public venues when incorporating on for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis what that seller was about. Lucre not morals.Yes, it does in cases like these. Operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre and for social morals for free instead could prove her Religious sincerity in public accommodation and keep issues like these simple for the Judicature.No, they can't. Why do you believe there is a distinction at law?If they operate on a for-profit basis they must seek to maximize profit not social morals for free under our form of Capitalsim. Anyone serious about their religion would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism. Not-for-profit is a valid incorporation for persons who are actually serious about their religiousity.I agree. Even customers have First Amendment protection from sellers.Yes, she can incorporate on a not for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free under our form of Capitalism and advertise her Religious convictions as a lay person and not a person who has taken any sacred Religious vows.not allowed to use her rights. she has rights too, right?Ah...so a christian so upset because she can't discriminate based on her every moving-target religious beliefs. Ok.....This case is a bit different than the others, because NY's law is far more invasive than the others being enforced in other States.
Christian wedding photographer sues NY over nondiscrimination law
Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time.
The statutes also forbid Carpenter from publishing any sort of editorial stance explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her website. Carpenter said in an interview that her beliefs are inseparable from her work as a wedding photographer and that the laws are violating her First Amendment rights.
“My faith has been really integral to me as a person but also to my business and the way I operate it and the artwork I create,” Carpenter said. “My faith is really the lens through which I view my art.”
So not only does she have to photograph the weddings OR ELSE, she has to post pictures from said SSM ceremonies on her website OR ELSE, and cannot post anything about her religious beliefs on the matter OR ELSE.
Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy.
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a specific wedding cake, or a specific photographer?
No, they don't. they can operate as they see fit.
For profit doesn't mean you have to only care about profit, it's just a tax designation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify suppressing someone's free exercise.
She doesn't have to do that. Again, making money doesn't mean you give up your right to free exercise.
you know when you say "profit of lucre" you are just saying profit of profit, right?
Where in the first amendment does it say a person can hire whoever they want to hire for something like this?
I am not sure what you mean. A buyer is free to buy from any seller in public not private accommodation.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.The SSM crowd is harder to work with---far more demanding and melodramatic------------and often seek out those that would prefer to not do work with them as a game and chance to whine.She photographs SSM ceremonies because she wants to make the money, obviously. She doesn't want the pictures on her site because that might scare off the straight couples from hiring her. At the same time, it would probably bring her more income from the SSM crowd.
What to do? What to do?
If the pictures are really good and all that, I doubt that many straight couples would stay away from her. The SSM couples don't stay away because she has straight couples' pictures on her site.
At least my problems aren't this enormous.
She is obviously more comfortable working with straight couples, and then are certainly photographers more comfortable working with gay couples----shouldn't she be allowed to work with and advertise with who she wants?
I agree to disagree. Capitalism is about lucre not the social externality of the greater glory of our immortal souls.Profit is profit. For or not for profit is merely a designation in the tax code, it has no Constitutional bearing.
a buyer being free to buy doesn't automatically mean a seller is forced to sell.
I agree to disagree. Capitalism is about lucre not the social externality of the greater glory of our immortal souls.Profit is profit. For or not for profit is merely a designation in the tax code, it has no Constitutional bearing.
a buyer being free to buy doesn't automatically mean a seller is forced to sell.
The buyer also has First Amendment protection in public not private accommoation.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
She probably does that badly already for everyone.Or photograph the wedding so badly that the sexual perverts would refuse to payShe could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs.
when did we as a country come to place where we have to publish all sales?I agree to disagree. Capitalism is about lucre not the social externality of the greater glory of our immortal souls.Profit is profit. For or not for profit is merely a designation in the tax code, it has no Constitutional bearing.
a buyer being free to buy doesn't automatically mean a seller is forced to sell.
The buyer also has First Amendment protection in public not private accommoation.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
You are quoting concepts but not actually applying any of them correctly. This is about the Constitutional Right to free exercise, the fact that not all business transactions are Public Accommodations, and that the right to commerce does not override other rights automatically just because you are part of a protected class.
