CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[jc456]

She could overcharge them or just tell them that it is a problem for her because of her beliefs.

Or photograph the wedding so badly that the sexual perverts would refuse to pay

She probably does that badly already for everyone.

then why would they want her? she'd just go out of business naturally. You are instead focused that she is good at her work. so you already contradict yourself by just posting.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

when did we as a country come to place where we have to publish all sales?

We as a country didn't, what has happened is that some people have decided that total compliance or else is the only way to go.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

Again you are just quoting something and not connecting it to anything.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

Again you are just quoting something and not connecting it to anything.

That is expressly why I don't take right wingers seriously about Capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics. You can only be, Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you need valid arguments not appeals to ignorance of the law.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

Again you are just quoting something and not connecting it to anything.

That is expressly why I don't take right wingers seriously about Capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics. You can only be, Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you need valid arguments not appeals to ignorance of the law.

That doesn't respond to my statement. You just reference something and don't even try to connect it to what the discussion is about.

 

[dblack]

I hope liberals are paying attention to these debates. And, to the overlapping efforts of Trumpsters to apply the same logic against them re: censorship.

Attempting to make discrimination against the law was a mistake. We need to rethink it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

Again you are just quoting something and not connecting it to anything.

That is expressly why I don't take right wingers seriously about Capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics. You can only be, Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you need valid arguments not appeals to ignorance of the law.

That doesn't respond to my statement. You just reference something and don't even try to connect it to what the discussion is about.

That is your non sequitur begging the question. Both are usually considered fallacies.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

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

Again you are just quoting something and not connecting it to anything.

That is expressly why I don't take right wingers seriously about Capitalism, economics, the law, morals, or politics. You can only be, Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you need valid arguments not appeals to ignorance of the law.

That doesn't respond to my statement. You just reference something and don't even try to connect it to what the discussion is about.

That is your non sequitur begging the question. Both are usually considered fallacies.

More referencing concepts without connecting them to the discussion at hand.

 

[BS Filter]

It's never been about gay rights. It has always been about submission and censorship.

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[dblack]

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

You guys aren't appreciating daniel's post properly. They're koans. He's showing us the way to enlightenment. Or maybe just lighting up. Hard to say.

 

[danielpalos]

I hope liberals are paying attention to these debates. And, to the overlapping efforts of Trumpsters to apply the same logic against them re: censorship.

Attempting to make discrimination against the law was a mistake. We need to rethink it.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

That is a fallacy since you don't provide an argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion. I can easily claim you simply understand incorrectly.

You seem to believe only the seller has rights and not the buyer, in public accommodation.

All you provide is references to various concepts but do nothing to substantiate their applicability to the situation.

A person has a Constitutional right to Free Exercise, they do not have a Constitutional right to the services of a specific photographer or baker.

The buyer also has First Amendment protection from the seller.

No, they don't. Nothing in the first amendment applies to a seller wanting a specific cake or photographer.

The issue is can the government force a person to provide a contracted, easily replaceable good service that goes against said person's moral code, thus impacting their free exercise rights.

well that is the issue, forfeiting one's rights over another's and demofks really don't care about your rights. They opening admit so. Snowflakes.

 

[otto105]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.