Concerned American
Diamond Member
However religious issues are First Amendment issues.Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
However religious issues are First Amendment issues.Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious 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.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.
A business can refuse service to anyone they so desire as long as they are not taking tax $$.Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.
The irony of it all is that they are partially making a religious statement to discriminate.
Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!
The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.
OK. How is that relevant?She is not a government agency and she is not discriminating in employment. She does not have to say anything about SSM anymore than you do.In regard to her business, she wants to advertise that she is discriminating against a group of people.
Right. She can discriminate, as long as she doesn't say that's what she's doing. That sure sounds like a free speech issue.
And as long as they don't cite one of the "protected classes" as their reason.A business can refuse service to anyone they so desire as long as they are not taking tax $$.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.
Not worth my time, troll.OK. How is that relevant?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.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.
Heh.. ok. Just doesn't make any sense. Has nothing to do with the issue.Not worth my time, troll.OK. How is that relevant?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.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.
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.
.
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.
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?
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.IF the baker or photographer refuses to sell there product based on sex,
So, who, in this particular case is posting "no gays allowed" on their store front?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.Say on subject. Her business is an public accommodation and cannot be used to discriminate.Interesting. So, as a "public accommodation", Facebook has no right to censor Trumpsters, right?She can exercise her freedom of speech anytime, but using a public accommodation (her business) as the vehicle is not one of them.So, it's freedom of speech issue.Once again a conservative starts a thread without facts and purports to grievance a cause which is not what the lawsuit is about.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.
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.
Right. I'm pointing out to you why the "public accommodation" conceit is a really bad idea.
Are you stating that their the same?
Free speech is on her business website.^ READ the laws being contested.She was the one who started a business which is a public accommodation under commerce.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.Well, then your just misguided and wrong.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.Say on subject. Her business is an public accommodation and cannot be used to discriminate.Interesting. So, as a "public accommodation", Facebook has no right to censor Trumpsters, right?She can exercise her freedom of speech anytime, but using a public accommodation (her business) as the vehicle is not one of them.So, it's freedom of speech issue.Once again a conservative starts a thread without facts and purports to grievance a cause which is not what the lawsuit is about.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.
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.
Right. I'm pointing out to you why the "public accommodation" conceit is a really bad idea.
Are you stating that their the same?
Exactly. Glad you noticed.
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.
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.
Why do you support the photographer?I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.
Am I the only one here, or are there others?
Why are you utterly stupid?Why do you support the photographer?I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.
Am I the only one here, or are there others?
Dear Kilroy2Compelling 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.
Both BlackrookHowever religious issues are First Amendment issues.Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.
Not at all. I merely wanted to understand your point of view.Why are you utterly stupid?Why do you support the photographer?I totally support same sex marriage. I also totally support the photographer, here.
Am I the only one here, or are there others?
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.
The seller is not in business for their religion but for the profit of lucre in public not private accommodation.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