CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

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!

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is a simple thing to remedy:

She needs to explain that, because she's never shot a gay wedding, she can't put photos of same sex marriages on her website. That would require her to put someone else's work on her site and, even if she had permission to do that, it would misrepresent her work.

I've been approached to shoot weddings, and they're the one thing I simply will not do. Hey, the word "Bridezilla" exists for a reason. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples have asked me, and I always decline. One gay couple decided they'd push the issue. Their lawyer advised them that was a bad path for them to try to travel. Why? Because I simply replied "Sorry, I'm already booked that day" and that was the end of it.

I would shut down my photography business before I let someone else dictate what jobs I will and will not shoot...

 

[Ringtone]

The seller is not in business for their religion but for the profit of lucre in public not private accommodation.

You keep saying this as if it's bears some obvious and binding relevance.

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

What?!

 

[danielpalos]

This is a simple thing to remedy:

She needs to explain that, because she's never shot a gay wedding, she can't put photos of same sex marriages on her website. That would require her to put someone else's work on her site and, even if she had permission to do that, it would misrepresent her work.

I've been approached to shoot weddings, and they're the one thing I simply will not do. Hey, the word "Bridezilla" exists for a reason. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples have asked me, and I always decline. One gay couple decided they'd push the issue. Their lawyer advised them that was a bad path for them to try to travel. Why? Because I simply replied "Sorry, I'm already booked that day" and that was the end of it.

I would shut down my photography business before I let someone else dictate what jobs I will and will not shoot...

The difference is you are not expressly being a (religious) bigot about it in public not private accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

The seller is not in business for their religion but for the profit of lucre in public not private accommodation.

You keep saying this as if it's bears some obvious and binding relevance.

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

What?!

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics.

 

[Ringtone]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

Again, a non-argument.

 

[Ringtone]

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics.

What?!

 

[martybegan]

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.

She doesn't want to say "no gays allowed", she wants to say she thinks Same sex relations are against her religion, which they are.

She says the law forces her to post pictures of SSM weddings if she posts pictures of opposite sex weddings, and she says the law prevents her from stating her religious beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Sorry, but a contracted photography service is not a public accommodation, and even if it were, PA laws don't automatically override free exercise.

 

[martybegan]

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.

PA's require the public to have access to the property in question without appointment. That progressives have transformed a PA into "anytime money changes hands" doesn't remove the fact that a PA requires some form of accommodation, i.e. letting the public access your property for the purpose of engaging in commerce, in particular point of sale commerce.

 

[hadit]

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.

If she is operating on for the profit of Lucre over social morals for free basis she has no grounds for complaint.

This is our supreme law of the land:

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

The state cannot compel speech, nor can it prevent it. They have no grounds to prevent her from posting her beliefs on her web page, nor do they have grounds to compel her to post pictures of a gay "wedding".

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes this is overdue to finally get this resolved!

What an extreme case, it can only be used for the better.

We needed the next "Rosa Parks" to stand up against these oppressive backwards policies.

I give credit to leaders like Trump and Cortez for standing up and speaking out without apology. Free speech is what makes America and our democratic process work. Free Press is what allows us to share it publicly to influence others and form a united collective agreement on policy and Constitutional standards of Govt.

Thanks for posting this martybegan

This gives me hope we can still promote the right discussions and education to stop abuses of Govt that are otherwise killing our country and economy.

We can unite and make the necessary corrections. This gives me hope and renews my faith. I will share it with friends who were losing theirs. Thanks!!!

Rosa Parks stood up against actual discrimination.

emillee is creating her own grievance lawsuit.

The NY law discriminates against her religious beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Every single business is not a PA, despite progressives trying to make that the case.

 

[martybegan]

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.

She shouldn't have to. Why is there such a need with progressives for 100% compliance OR ELSE with their social views?

Ask the baker in Colorado how far being civil gets you.

 

[Kilroy2]

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!

first, of course a death threat is not a murder felony but you can still be charged at a low level with an offense based on states coercion laws and some states can charge you with 2nd degree felony of making a death threat, Free speech does not protect anyone who makes death threats and you can be punished. So don't make any death threats.

Granted you won't get life in prison or the death penalty. But they can charge you with felony based on what you say and there are witnesses or a recording.

Yes legally speech is different from action and that is why there are various degrees of felony.

if you say why you are refusing service then what is said is proof of discrimination. Business can and do have rules for service ranging from dress codes to conduct on their property.

Discrimination can be proven if you post or say that certain races, sex, religion, etc are not welcomed and will not be provided any service.

Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Authoritarian State Mandates Against Free Association With Enslavement "

* Mocking Bureaucratic Idiocy With Easy Step Asides *

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
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.

There is not a difference between religion and creed , and as soon as one individual discloses their creed , another individual may choose to freely dissociate themselves as a consequence .

Unlike someone picking up products from a shelf and making a purchase that does not disclose their creed , photography is contract work that requires consent to provide service .

For example , mlb practiced free association of disassociation by relocating it all star game based on a difference of creed .

Those not wanting to photograph same sex civil unions or make cakes should simply set an absurd , non competitive , price for the service with a justification that the task has to be contracted out to someone whose creed of religion makes them willing to do the work .

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

She shouldn't have to. Why is there such a need with progressives for 100% compliance OR ELSE with their social views?

Ask the baker in Colorado how far being civil gets you.

Not all states have the same laws.

Colorado has some anti discrimination gender laws but a baker can probably get away with it on the state level.

you ask why should she have to. I can only assume that it is the law in that state. If she doesn't like it then move to another state that does not have that law. There are a few.

The question should be why do people have to be subjected to discrimination?

Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dictators Wanting It Both Ways "

* Valid Standards Have Definite Rules *

Discrimination can be proven if you post or say that certain races, sex, religion, etc are not welcomed and will not be provided any service.

Prove where discrimination violates non violence principles .

Imagine Trying To Pass Tests Without Discriminating Between Correct Versus Incorrect Answers

" Imagine Trying To Pass Tests Without Discriminating Between Correct Versus Incorrect Answers " * A Corruption Of Split Minds * Eye am testing out other forums . Good luck !

www.usmessageboard.com

* Contract Work Versus Enslavement *

Because someone disagree with same sex lifestyle is not a valid reason to not provide service if your a business open to the general public.

What is the left wing position where the wedding party has decided to deck themselves out in nazi memorabilia ?

Left Wing Cognitive Dissonance To Follow Will Be Too Funny

" Left Wing Cognitive Dissonance To Follow Will Be Too Funny " * Counterculture Holiday Celebrates Adolf Hitler * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture) April 20 has become an international counterculture holiday, where people gather to celebrate and consume cannabis.[3][17][18]...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[martybegan]

" Authoritarian State Mandates Against Free Association With Enslavement "

* Mocking Bureaucratic Idiocy With Easy Step Asides *

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
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.

There is not a difference between religion and creed , and as soon as one individual discloses their creed , another individual may choose to freely dissociate themselves as a consequence .

Unlike someone picking up products from a shelf and making a purchase that does not disclose their creed , photography is contract work that requires consent to provide service .

For example , mlb practiced free association of disassociation by relocating it all star game based on a difference of creed .

Those not wanting to photograph same sex civil unions or make cakes should simply set an absurd , non competitive , price for the service with a justification that the task has to be contracted out to someone whose creed of religion makes them willing to do the work .

As I stated in other posts, they shouldn't have to.

 

[martybegan]

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.

She shouldn't have to. Why is there such a need with progressives for 100% compliance OR ELSE with their social views?

Ask the baker in Colorado how far being civil gets you.

Not all states have the same laws.

Colorado has some anti discrimination gender laws but a baker can probably get away with it on the state level.

you ask why should she have to. I can only assume that it is the law in that state. If she doesn't like it then move to another state that does not have that law. There are a few.

The question should be why do people have to be subjected to discrimination?

Everyone has social views. It just you have to be civil about it in public because rights do not exist solely for one person in a public venue.

The Colorado case in question.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

My question is why should government get involved if the discrimination isn't systemic or government mandated?

And to me the people suing over this should also be trying to get the courts to specifically define a public accommodation.