What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
5,910
Reaction score
6,128
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people.

Right. She can discriminate, as long as she doesn't say that's what she's doing. That sure sounds like a free speech issue.
She is not a government agency and she is not discriminating in employment. She does not have to say anything about SSM anymore than you do.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
5,910
Reaction score
6,128
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
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.

Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!

The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.
A business can refuse service to anyone they so desire as long as they are not taking tax $$.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,029
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,130
In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people.

Right. She can discriminate, as long as she doesn't say that's what she's doing. That sure sounds like a free speech issue.
She is not a government agency and she is not discriminating in employment. She does not have to say anything about SSM anymore than you do.
OK. How is that relevant?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,029
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,130
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.

Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!

The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.
A business can refuse service to anyone they so desire as long as they are not taking tax $$.
And as long as they don't cite one of the "protected classes" as their reason.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
5,910
Reaction score
6,128
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people.

Right. She can discriminate, as long as she doesn't say that's what she's doing. That sure sounds like a free speech issue.
She is not a government agency and she is not discriminating in employment. She does not have to say anything about SSM anymore than you do.
OK. How is that relevant?
Not worth my time, troll.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,029
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,130
In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people.

Right. She can discriminate, as long as she doesn't say that's what she's doing. That sure sounds like a free speech issue.
She is not a government agency and she is not discriminating in employment. She does not have to say anything about SSM anymore than you do.
OK. How is that relevant?
Not worth my time, troll.
Heh.. ok. Just doesn't make any sense. Has nothing to do with the issue.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
773
Points
140
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.

What is more burdensome, a Same sex couple having to find another baker or photographer, or a baker or photographer having to go against their moral code or face either tens or hundreds of thousands in fines or damages, or leaving the trade/profession they desire?

The PA laws put into place to fight racial discrimination weren't about hurt feelings, they were about removing systemic economic discrimination, of which things like lunch counters and water fountains were symptoms of the greater issue, not the greater issue themselves.

The problem we have is one side doesn't accept anything but total capitulation.

How about just saying "I am busy" instead of posting on your website that you do not take photos of same sex marriages. Then recommending another baker or photographer. Instead of bringing a lawsuit for the clear purpose of overturning a law that has been in the books since the 50's. Granted the law was amended to include same sex couple a couple of years ago.

There is no winner in this game. The desired outcome should be understatement on both sides. How about being civil about it and agree to disagree. Allow both sides to go about their business without discrimination. Can people agree that other people also have rights.

Overt discrimination between people should be dealt with. IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex, race, religion or political preference, then that is wrong. Seems to me it would be negative publicity. Granted it could also get them business from like minded people.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,029
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,130
.

Overt discrimination between people should be dealt with. IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex, race, religion or political preference, then that is wrong. Seems to me it would be negative publicity. Granted it could also get them business from like minded people.

It would be extremely negative. They'd get "canceled". There's no need for intrusive laws.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
970
Points
210
You're not pointing that out. Your reference to Facebook and "censoring" trumpsters is not the same as posting "No gays allowed" on a store front.

Are you stating that their the same?

"No gays allowed"?! That's rather slippery of you, Agent otto. ;)
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
6,895
Reaction score
2,194
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex,
I don't know how they stay in business baking cakes and taking wedding photographs of women only, because the vast majority of women are married to men; most have little or no interest in going down on another woman and eating cake. The whole wedding business is lesbian cake decorating and photography only, with all the bridesmaids gone wild, but they won't "come out of the closet" with all their medieval bridal gowns and bridesmaids dresses to admit it.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
18,297
Reaction score
10,031
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
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.
Once again a conservative starts a thread without facts and purports to grievance a cause which is not what the lawsuit is about.

Christian photographer sues for right to refuse gay customers because she doesn’t work with vampires

emilee carpenter doesn't shoot wedding photos of same sex couples nor has she been asked too. Hell, she doesn't do Halloween or vampire ones either. She wants to post on her website "No gays allowed" as per her chirstian beliefs.

She will lose this case in the same way you can't post "No Asian people allowed" for a public business.
So, it's freedom of speech issue.
She can exercise her freedom of speech anytime, but using a public accommodation (her business) as the vehicle is not one of them.
Interesting. So, as a "public accommodation", Facebook has no right to censor Trumpsters, right?
Say on subject. Her business is an public accommodation and cannot be used to discriminate.

Right. I'm pointing out to you why the "public accommodation" conceit is a really bad idea.
You're not pointing that out. Your reference to Facebook and "censoring" trumpsters is not the same as posting "No gays allowed" on a store front.

Are you stating that their the same?
So, who, in this particular case is posting "no gays allowed" on their store front?


You do realize there is a difference between reality and an overactive imagination, don't you?
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,614
Reaction score
3,511
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
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.
Once again a conservative starts a thread without facts and purports to grievance a cause which is not what the lawsuit is about.

Christian photographer sues for right to refuse gay customers because she doesn’t work with vampires

emilee carpenter doesn't shoot wedding photos of same sex couples nor has she been asked too. Hell, she doesn't do Halloween or vampire ones either. She wants to post on her website "No gays allowed" as per her chirstian beliefs.

She will lose this case in the same way you can't post "No Asian people allowed" for a public business.
So, it's freedom of speech issue.
She can exercise her freedom of speech anytime, but using a public accommodation (her business) as the vehicle is not one of them.
Interesting. So, as a "public accommodation", Facebook has no right to censor Trumpsters, right?
Say on subject. Her business is an public accommodation and cannot be used to discriminate.

Right. I'm pointing out to you why the "public accommodation" conceit is a really bad idea.
You're not pointing that out. Your reference to Facebook and "censoring" trumpsters is not the same as posting "No gays allowed" on a store front.

Are you stating that their the same?

Exactly. Glad you noticed.
Well, then your just misguided and wrong.
Right back at ya. You nitwits want to put government in charge of sorting out all these social issues. Giving them that kind of power will come back to haunt you.
She was the one who started a business which is a public accommodation under commerce.

She can not post any "No so and so allowed"

She wants the right to announce her refusal to service people covered by anti-discrimination law.


Simple.
^ READ the laws being contested.
Nothing contested about serving customers in the store, that is well established and agreed on.

What is contested is forcing and banning WEBSITE content for the business in violation of freedom of speech and religion and causing discrimination by creed.

Did you read the specific arguments in this case?

Very different from other cases of wedding cakes that are confusing which involve speech, action, behavior or people.

This involves speech, not people.

The laws require LGBT content and ban explanations of religious beliefs!

How can govt regulate free speech and religion using fines and bans on businesses!

otto105
Please make sure you and I are talking about the same things. Your other posts seem reasonable where I agree with what you mean by your objections.

I would likely agree with you on content and principle if we don't miscommunicate and talk about two totally different things. Thanks!

I don't see where this is a free speech issue. She in her personnel life can freely associate with whomever she wants too.

In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people. I don't really see the difference if people are denied services offered either by entering her store physically or going online. Service denied is service denied.
Free speech is on her business website.

Govt cannot regulate the topics of free speech online.
And cannot regulate religious beliefs and expression.

otto105
Are you making a distinction between someone expressing their beliefs online?

Versus the act of refusing to serve a customer "solely on that person's beliefs"

Versus a business or business owner that doesn't practice or provide services for same sex weddings or relations.

Like having a business that
* only mediates Civil disputes but not criminal
* only sews, alters, buys or sells Women's clothing but not Men's or Children's
* only produces or sells Christian music or movies, books etc
* only sells or provides services or supplies for Halloween but not Christmas

For businesses that only provide select services, ANY customer coming into the store can access the same. And NO customer (regardless of belief, identity or orientation) is able to get services that business does not offer.

It is NOT discriminating against the Customer, but selecting what type of services that business offers.

otto105
If a Catholic Bookstore only sells Christian books their owners approve of, is it discriminating against Muslim customers because they won't sell products that relate to Islam?

No, because
1. ANY Customer, whether Muslim, Atheist, Jewish or no affillation, can buy Catholic books the store offers.
2. NO Customer can buy Muslim books or items there because the store doesn't provide those for sale to ANYONE

ALL Customers are treated the same, and can buy Catholic books but not buy Muslim books.

As for the website issue:
If a Catholic bookstore puts prayers and theology from their Church online as part of their business philosophy, such as stating the owners support PROLIFE beliefs and education and will donate X % of profits to help Mothers and Children through XYZ nonprofit programs.
Are you saying the govt laws can BAN that?
Are you saying the govt can REQUIRE the store to INCLUDE "Prochoice" Beliefs equally as "Prolife" Beliefs?

If a Store "advertises they are Prolife"
Are you arguing this means they "Discriminate against Prochoice customers"?

If a store sells VEGAN supplies and food,
Are you saying they "Discriminate against people who believe in eating meat"?

Again:
1. ALL Customers can still go there and buy VEGAN products, regardless if Customers are Vegan or not
2. NO Customers can buy meat products there, whether Vegan or Carnivores or Omnivores.
ALL Customers are treated the same, and can buy the same products but NOBODY can buy animal products the business doesn't support or believe in

If this VEGAN business advertises their beliefs in healthy products that do not use animals or artifical hormones or engineering, etc
Are you saying they "discriminate against people who eat meat"?

So if the govt banned them from publishing their philosophy and beliefs online, and if they FORCED the company to sell animal based meat products "against their beliefs" would you agree with that policy?

Or would you argue the business has the right to sell VEGAN products only, and has free speech and free expression of religion to teach and promote Vegan practices on their website?
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
18,297
Reaction score
10,031
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.

Am I the only one here, or are there others?
Why do you support the photographer?
Why are you utterly stupid?

I support free speech as well as basic human autonomy and the state has no business demanding people express views that are not theirs. THis has been a basic liberal ideal for ages.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,614
Reaction score
3,511
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
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.

Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!

The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.
Dear Kilroy2
and otto105
Again, big difference between not providing a SERVICE versus rejecting a CUSTOMER on the basis of beliefs.

We all agree the accommodations laws mean serving all Customers without discriminating against PEOPLE because of their affiliation identity class creed race gender etc.

But two more conflicts are causing this dispute
1. Discriminating against faith based services that someone does or does not believe in
2. Freedom of speech to express one's beliefs

otto105
Can you tell me if you would allow Govt to regulate if religious people can promote beliefs on their website that they:
1. Don't believe in open communions but members only
2. Don't believe in cremations but burials
3. Don't believe in polygamy or polyamorous relations but monogamy amd sex for procreation only

If Planned Parenthood can run their clinics, and even get federal funding, while advertising they support abortion and birth control,
Why can't people advertise they oppose these things?

Again, three different issues
1. Govt regulating religious expression by bans or fines or other penalty
2. Govt regulating free speech
3. Distinction between beliefs, speech and "actual physical actions refusing Customers"

otto105
And Kilroy2
Where is the Due Process to prove someone is physically discriminating?

If people mouth off about politics and denounce Liberal Democrats, have you any proof they "intend, will, or have committed" discrimination by "refusing such Customers at the door."

Free speech to promote or denounce beliefs is DIFFERENT from the actual act of refusing Customers.

And refusing certain Services is DIFFERENT from refusing a Customer based on beliefs.

And NOW we add 1-2 more layers on top, where Govt policy not only attempts to punish or regulate free speech on websites, but on the basis of religion!

Sorry if you cannot make these distinctions.

You remind me of Rightwing Prolife who cannot distinguish "prochoice" from "proabortion."

The freedom to choose without criminal punishment is SEPARATE from the actual act of intending or carrying out abortion.

You are advocating the punishment of free choice on the level of "free speech to express beliefs" as if that is the same as the actual action.

Legally, speech is different from action.

Even when speech is abused to make a felony "death threat" you cannot be charged for murder just for saying things in words!
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,614
Reaction score
3,511
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.
However religious issues are First Amendment issues.
Both Blackrook
and Concerned American

This bad legal regulation managed to violate both the freedom of speech clause and the free exercise of religion by discriminating against one belief by establishing favor or bias toward the other.
Thus it also violates Civil Rights laws against Discrimination by Creed.

Not either or, but a fine messy mix of all the above!

Three strikes with one case!
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.

Am I the only one here, or are there others?
Why do you support the photographer?
Why are you utterly stupid?

I support free speech as well as basic human autonomy and the state has no business demanding people express views that are not theirs. THis has been a basic liberal ideal for ages.
Not at all. I merely wanted to understand your point of view.

The buyer does not lose their First Amendment rights either; especially not in public, not private accommodation.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
But two more conflicts are causing this dispute
1. Discriminating against faith based services that someone does or does not believe in
2. Freedom of speech to express one's beliefs
The seller is not in business for their religion but for the profit of lucre in public not private accommodation.

Operating on a not-for-profit basis and advertising as "Christian photographer" should be a requirement in public accommodation.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$230.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top