Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[ChrisL]

Did she say it or didn't she? She actually admitted she hadn't read it, right?

Why don't you actually READ the article instead of whatever shit you heard on Hate Radio?

I don't listen to talk radio, pawn. If I listen to the radio, it's to listen to music. I'm not an old lamer like you.

 

[paulitician]

Un-American Communism/Progressivism at its worst. This needs to be looked into. Those responsible for this fine should be investigated and possibly prosecuted themselves. This is not what America is about. Where you stand on this particular issue isn't the point. This 'fine' is an Un-American criminal act.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't listen to talk radio, pawn. If I listen to the radio, it's to listen to music. I'm not an old lamer like you.

No, you just parrot what Rush Limbaugh says and you never listen to him, really.

 

[JoeB131]

Un-American Communism/Progressivism at its worst. This needs to be looked into. Those responsible for this fine should be investigated and possibly prosecuted themselves. This is not what America is about. Where you stand on this particular issue isn't the point. This 'fine' is an Un-American criminal act.

America is about being homophobic bigots?

Don't think so.

They run a business. They offer a service. They should provide that service when someone offers good money for it.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

None of this bothers me because frankly, every aspect of ObamaCare was talked to death for months before they finally passed the final form.

Anyone who says "I had no idea ______ was in there" is just lying.

I guess Nancy Pelosi, et al., are liars then! Her famous words, "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it."

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read that in context or do you just repeat what Rush told you to say?

Did she say it or didn't she? She actually admitted she hadn't read it, right?

You didn't go read it did you? Try it, seriously.

 

[paulitician]

Un-American Communism/Progressivism at its worst. This needs to be looked into. Those responsible for this fine should be investigated and possibly prosecuted themselves. This is not what America is about. Where you stand on this particular issue isn't the point. This 'fine' is an Un-American criminal act.

America is about being homophobic bigots?

Don't think so.

They run a business. They offer a service. They should provide that service when someone offers good money for it.

Not the point. This 'fine' needs to be thoroughly investigated. Those responsible may have to be prosecuted. It's Un-American.

 

[JoeB131]

Not the point. This 'fine' needs to be thoroughly investigated. Those responsible may have to be prosecuted. It's Un-American.

Why, it totally works for me. They offered something, and then they reneged on it because they didn't like who the customer was.

 

[paulitician]

Not the point. This 'fine' needs to be thoroughly investigated. Those responsible may have to be prosecuted. It's Un-American.

Why, it totally works for me. They offered something, and then they reneged on it because they didn't like who the customer was.

Yes, but it would work for you. You're an Un-American Communist/Progressive.

 

[BlackSand]

State and county legislation has added gays to their PA laws. It IS the law in those places.

The SCOTUS had the opportunity to take up one of these baker/florist/photographer cases...they chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled against the bigots.

Provide a link to where the language has been added to the law ... Which ruled against bigots in favor of other bigots.

.

What To Make Of The Supreme Court s Decision Not To Hear That Anti-Gay Photographer s Case ThinkProgress

New Mexico is not Pennsylvania ... And you still haven't provided a link where any law has been changed ... Try again.

.

WTF are you talking about? PA stands for Public Accommodation.

Where was the law changed ... You linked to a story where SCOTUS decided not to review the decision of a lower court. The public accommodations law in New Mexico still doesn't include sexual orientation or gender identification as a protected class.

Here is New Mexico's Public Accommodations Law ...

"49-8-3. Equal right in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement. No person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the state of New Mexico shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privilege thereof, and no person shall directly or indirectly publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail or cause to be published, circulated, issued, displayed, posted or mailed within the state of New Mexico written, painted or printed communication, notice of advertisement to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of a place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, or that the patronage or custom thereat of any person belonging to or purporting to be of any particular race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited. The production of any such written, painted or printed communication, notice of advertisement, purporting to relate to any such place and to be made by any person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, superintendent, manager, agent or employee thereof, shall be presumptive evidence in any proceedings that the same was authorized and published by such person.

49-8-4. Exclusion, segregation and discrimination prohibited in places of accommodation, resort or amusement. Any exclusion or segregation of or discrimination against any person on account of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the state of New Mexico shall be unlawful. 49-8-5. “Places of public accommodation,” “resort” or “amusement” defined. A place of public accommodation, resort of amusement within the meaning of this act

[49-8-1 to 49-8-6] shall be deemed to include inns, taverns, roadhouses, hotels, motels and tourist courts, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, restaurants, eating houses and any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises, buffets, saloons, barrooms and any store, park or inclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold; ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice, ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bathhouses, theaters, motion picture houses, music halls, concert halls, circuses, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors, swimming pools, public libraries, garages, all public conveyances operated on land, water or in the air as well as the stations and terminals thereof; public halls and public elevators of the buildings and structures occupied by tow [2] or more tenants, or by owner and one [1] or more tenants. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private, or to conflict with existing federal statutes relative to the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians."

It doesn't say anything about sexual orientation or gender identification.



.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but it would work for you. You're an Un-American Communist/Progressive.

Not really guy.

Let me put this in terms you understand. I offer to write you a resume. You need a resume by Monday. I meet with you tomorrow and then find out you are a Libertarian Lunatic. I shut off my computer and walk out of the meeting. You miss out on the oppurtunity to apply for that job.

IN short, I violated the business I offer. I said I offered a service and then didn't provide it. You suffered a material loss in that refusal. You'd have every right to sue me and file complaints against me. .

 

[Seawytch]

N.M. Supreme Court: Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

The SCOTUS did not hear the appeal, leaving the lower court ruling in place.

Here are the Facts: Title II Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion and nation of origin. PA (that's Public Accommodation not Pennsylvania) laws have also been expanded to include disability.

States have also expanded their PA laws to include things like gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, weight, height, etc.

You can try really, really hard to get rid of them all...I'm sure that Muslim or gay family in that small town in Mississippi will be just fine...or you can quit whining and bitching because, in some places, these laws protect gays on par with Christians.

Until I don't have to serve a Christian in all 50 states, ya'll can quit whining because you have to serve gays in a handful.

 

[Katzndogz]

Elayne Photography still does not have to photograph same sex weddings. The ruling made that clear. What they may not do is advertise themselves as wedding photographers.

 

[bodecea]

Un-American Communism/Progressivism at its worst. This needs to be looked into. Those responsible for this fine should be investigated and possibly prosecuted themselves. This is not what America is about. Where you stand on this particular issue isn't the point. This 'fine' is an Un-American criminal act.

America is about being homophobic bigots?

Don't think so.

They run a business. They offer a service. They should provide that service when someone offers good money for it.

Not the point. This 'fine' needs to be thoroughly investigated. Those responsible may have to be prosecuted. It's Un-American.

How is it Un-American? Just like making business's treat all law-abiding tax-paying citizens equally is un-American?

 

[Kosh]

Un-American Communism/Progressivism at its worst. This needs to be looked into. Those responsible for this fine should be investigated and possibly prosecuted themselves. This is not what America is about. Where you stand on this particular issue isn't the point. This 'fine' is an Un-American criminal act.

America is about being homophobic bigots?

Don't think so.

They run a business. They offer a service. They should provide that service when someone offers good money for it.

Not the point. This 'fine' needs to be thoroughly investigated. Those responsible may have to be prosecuted. It's Un-American.

How is it Un-American? Just like making business's treat all law-abiding tax-paying citizens equally is un-American?

The far left cont8inues to prove that they run on a narrative not based in reality..

 

[JoeB131]

Elayne Photography still does not have to photograph same sex weddings. The ruling made that clear. What they may not do is advertise themselves as wedding photographers.

Sounds kind of stupid to me. pretty much eliminating 90% of your potential business because you hate gays is dumb.

 

[bodecea]

Elayne Photography still does not have to photograph same sex weddings. The ruling made that clear. What they may not do is advertise themselves as wedding photographers.

Sounds kind of stupid to me. pretty much eliminating 90% of your potential business because you hate gays is dumb.

It's within their rights to be dumb. It is not within their rights to discriminate against fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens because of who they are.

 

[HenryBHough]

Now the biggest decision will be choosing the charity which will be given the excess contributions to the fund that's paying off the fine. I think it probably won't be Planned Infanticide......

 

[SwimExpert]

[QUOTE="MaryL, post: 10168717, member: 34685]Really?[/quote]

Yes, really.

Vulgar hateful people that jump to conclusions

Please tell us more about yourself. This seems to describe you to a T.

You aren't really in a moral position to pass judgment or attempt to censure other people's opinions.

But you are, right? You're the arbiter of morality for all of us.

Would you like to apologize?

No.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where was the law changed ... You linked to a story where SCOTUS decided not to review the decision of a lower court. The public accommodations law in New Mexico still doesn't include sexual orientation or gender identification as a protected class.

Here is New Mexico's Public Accommodations Law ...

"49-8-3. Equal right in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement. No person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the state of New Mexico shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privilege thereof, and no person shall directly or indirectly publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail or cause to be published, circulated, issued, displayed, posted or mailed within the state of New Mexico written, painted or printed communication, notice of advertisement to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of a place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, or that the patronage or custom thereat of any person belonging to or purporting to be of any particular race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited. The production of any such written, painted or printed communication, notice of advertisement, purporting to relate to any such place and to be made by any person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, superintendent, manager, agent or employee thereof, shall be presumptive evidence in any proceedings that the same was authorized and published by such person.

49-8-4. Exclusion, segregation and discrimination prohibited in places of accommodation, resort or amusement. Any exclusion or segregation of or discrimination against any person on account of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the state of New Mexico shall be unlawful. 49-8-5. “Places of public accommodation,” “resort” or “amusement” defined. A place of public accommodation, resort of amusement within the meaning of this act

[49-8-1 to 49-8-6] shall be deemed to include inns, taverns, roadhouses, hotels, motels and tourist courts, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, restaurants, eating houses and any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises, buffets, saloons, barrooms and any store, park or inclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold; ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice, ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bathhouses, theaters, motion picture houses, music halls, concert halls, circuses, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors, swimming pools, public libraries, garages, all public conveyances operated on land, water or in the air as well as the stations and terminals thereof; public halls and public elevators of the buildings and structures occupied by tow [2] or more tenants, or by owner and one [1] or more tenants. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private, or to conflict with existing federal statutes relative to the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians."

It doesn't say anything about sexual orientation or gender identification.



.

Actually here is the New Mexico Pubic Accommodation law... with a link.

2011 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 28: Human Rights
Article 1: Human Rights, 28-1-1 though 28-1-15
Section 28-1-7 Unlaw discriminatory practice

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

A. an employer, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or other statutory prohibition, to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote or to discriminate in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment against any person otherwise qualified because of race, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation; provided, however, that 29 U.S.C. Section 631(c)(1) and (2) shall apply to discrimination based on age; or, if the employer has fifteen or more employees, to discriminate against an employee based upon the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity;

B. a labor organization to exclude a person or to expel or otherwise discriminate against any of its members or against any employer or employee because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition;

C. any employer, labor organization or joint apprenticeship committee to refuse to admit or employ any person in any program established to provide an apprenticeship or other training or retraining because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation;

D. any person, employer, employment agency or labor organization to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, to use any form of application for employment or membership or to make any inquiry regarding prospective membership or employment that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;

E. an employment agency to refuse to list and properly classify for employment or refer a person for employment in a known available job, for which the person is otherwise qualified, because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification, or to comply with a request from an employer for referral of applicants for employment if the request indicates either directly or indirectly that the employer discriminates in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

NM Stat 28-1-7 Section 28-1-7 Unlawful discriminatory practice. 2011 New Mexico Statutes US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia​

***********************************************

Here is a link to New Mexico Statute 49-8-3 -->> NM Stat 49-8-3 Section 49-8-3 Officers meeting vacancies. 2011 New Mexico Statutes US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

Title = New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 49: Land Grants
Section 49-8-3: Officers; meetings, vacancies

>>>>

 

[JFK_USA]

The end result is that this couple will pay the fine and never host a same sex wedding. That's what happened.

So they will lose $13,000 today and another $13,000 the next time the discriminate and consequently lose the profits from same sex weddings that do no harm to anyone? All while they wrap themselves in the deceptively illegal cloak of 'religious freedom'.

That is freedom. The very essence of freedom. They will not be fined again. Their answer is we will host the reception but no longer permit weddings in our home. Obviously they don't want profits from same sex weddings. They never did.

I refused to paint the portraits of a lesbian couple they lost. I was at the bakery last week when the baker turned down a wedding cake for a same sex couple who thought they could tantrum to get their way.

Business practices are changing. Gays better get used to hearing the word NO.

Freedom for you is oppression to gay people trying to get services Available to the general public.