NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[Intense]

That's your opinion, and a stumbling block to Gay Marriage Rights. I see nothing ethical in forcing you or anyone to act against your belief. You on the other hand cannot see you imposing your will on others as an imposition. What do you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of the flip??? Do the Rights of a Minority automatically forfeit because you don't get your way??? No. You get over it, pick yourself up and carry on. What goes on in other peoples heads, is beyond your jurisdiction, just like what goes on in your head is beyond mine. Get over it. A Law for Everything and everything for a law is Bullshit, and unenforceable.

What belief am I imposing on others by saying churches shouldn't be given special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws? Churches can chose to marry or not marry anyone they want as long as they are private bodies. At the point at which they offer their facilities for public rental though, they should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

I very much agree with this. It's just not fair that my own tax dollars go towards funding religious-based discrimination. Churches need to play ball by the rules, if they wish to be in the public field.

Maybe the truth of the matter is that Government has no right, to collect for the redistribution of wealth in the first place and that Nobody should be taxed for any services beyond, Governments Constitutional Authority. Maybe, the only true course to expand Government authority, Jurisdiction, is through the Amendment process, and not the Court.
Maybe Government should learn how to play by the rules first, and set the example.
Keep trying to knock down the Barrier that separates Church and State though, exposing yourselves for what you are. Your Totalitarian Utopia ain't gonna happen.

It is you that are discriminating.

 

[Intense]

If you don't consider it acceptable behavior, why do you support it?

What exactly is your definition of Liberty, beyond Everyone on Earth conforming to your warped interpretation of Proper action or perception, fearless leader. Please define free will.

 

[bodecea]

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

 

[martybegan]

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

There is a difference between not serving someone at a hotel/resturant/store, where the public in general is invited, and having someone photograph your wedding. The supreme court actually ruled on this with regards to hotels as they saw hotels picking thier clientele as inturrupting interstate commerce.

There is also a difference in time, and laws. Back in the 60's segregation was ingrained both in the public sphere and the private sphere, with the public bans being the most troublesome. There a black person had ZERO recourse, as the courts, the police, and the white population in general was against them.

In modern times, in the case of both blacks and homosexuals, the legal impediments are basically non existant. The law works equally well for all parties in general. With the removal of legal barriers and restrictions in the public square, another tactic to force private entities to be non-discriminitory comes into play, that wasnt possible 40 years ago. Boycott and coersion by market.

To me the proper thing the plantiff in the wedding photographer case should have done was advertise far and wide that this company would not do same sex ceremonies. that would probably mean that no other same sex couples would patronize said photographer, and people who think thier refusal is wrong would likely not patronize them either.

If a woolworth tried to not serve any group nowadays, they would be boycotted in a heatbeat. The government would have to respond at all.

 

[manifold]

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To me the proper thing the plantiff in the wedding photographer case should have done was advertise far and wide that this company would not do same sex ceremonies. that would probably mean that no other same sex couples would patronize said photographer, and people who think thier refusal is wrong would likely not patronize them either.

Probably would not have been a smart move on the couples part as that would have opened them up either to criminal prosecution for defamatory statements by the photograph or a Civil Suit where the couple could have been subject to damages. In slander/libel cases something being true is not always a valid defense - statements, publications, and advertising used to damage an individual or business can still be found as slanderous or libelous making the person subject to court action.


The law in that state was that sexual orientation is not a valid reason to discriminate, the business owner was dumb enough to tell the truth in violation of the law. The couple reported them to the appropriate agency.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

The law in New Mexico made no such distinction between retail outlets and actually specifies those that provide services to the public fall under the same requirements. So under the law passed by the State there is no difference.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

To me the proper thing the plantiff in the wedding photographer case should have done was advertise far and wide that this company would not do same sex ceremonies. that would probably mean that no other same sex couples would patronize said photographer, and people who think thier refusal is wrong would likely not patronize them either.

Probably would not have been a smart move on the couples part as that would have opened them up either to criminal prosecution for defamatory statements by the photograph or a Civil Suit where the couple could have been subject to damages. In slander/libel cases something being true is not always a valid defense - statements, publications, and advertising used to damage an individual or business can still be found as slanderous or libelous making the person subject to court action.


The law in that state was that sexual orientation is not a valid reason to discriminate, the business owner was dumb enough to tell the truth in violation of the law. The couple reported them to the appropriate agency.


>>>>

I just love it that honesty got them in trouble, while lying would have probably gotten them off.

I don't think slander/libel would be an issue, as the lesbian couple in question would just be spreading the words of the photographer, they dont do "gay weddings."

I agree they violated the law as it currently stands. What they need to do is challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and they probably have a good case against it.

 

[manifold]

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

The law in New Mexico made no such distinction between retail outlets and actually specifies those that provide services to the public fall under the same requirements. So under the law passed by the State there is no difference.


>>>>

I know that. And I disagree with the law.

It happens.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree they violated the law as it currently stands. What they need to do is challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and they probably have a good case against it.

They did, the case was Elane Photography v. Willock, as far as I can tell they lost.

http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

The law in New Mexico made no such distinction between retail outlets and actually specifies those that provide services to the public fall under the same requirements. So under the law passed by the State there is no difference.


>>>>

I know that. And I disagree with the law.

It happens.

I agree with you.

I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general whether they be based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, etc... Public Accommodation laws should apply to government entities (and may limit the ability of government entities to do business with discriminatory private entities) but not to private entities themselves as the government should respect the individuals right of free association. If a photographer doesn't want to shoot black or Jewish or Same-sex or Old or Irish or etc. weddings that should be their choice.

Personal opinion though and what the law requires are two different things.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I agree they violated the law as it currently stands. What they need to do is challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and they probably have a good case against it.

They did, the case was Elane Photography v. Willock, as far as I can tell they lost.

http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf



>>>>

They lost in district court.

I find the arguments used by the judge to be a bit on the absurd side. Basically it means that in New Mexico if the person in question is a "protected class" I basically have to provide services to them, even if they are engaged in acts that I find morally objectionable. So if I offer a general photography service, and some santaria people wanted me to film thier ritual sacrifice (allowed by law) I could not say no, even if I were an animal rights activist and were morally opposed to such acts. In the case, I would be discriminating based upon thier religous beliefs.

Cases like this lead down a dangerous path, where you are basically forcing people in ANY situation to be in scenarios they find morally objectionable, even if no real damage is done to any given party.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree they violated the law as it currently stands. What they need to do is challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and they probably have a good case against it.

They did, the case was Elane Photography v. Willock, as far as I can tell they lost.

http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf



>>>>

They lost in district court.

I was not able to find the results of any appeal or if one was actually filed. If that is the only court decision to date, then it stands.

I find the arguments used by the judge to be a bit on the absurd side. Basically it means that in New Mexico if the person in question is a "protected class" I basically have to provide services to them, even if they are engaged in acts that I find morally objectionable. So if I offer a general photography service, and some santaria people wanted me to film thier ritual sacrifice (allowed by law) I could not say no, even if I were an animal rights activist and were morally opposed to such acts. In the case, I would be discriminating based upon thier religous beliefs.

Sure you can say no. Never been an issue.


However if you say "No, I won't film your religion" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film black people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film you old people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film homosexuals" - Then you have an issue.

Cases like this lead down a dangerous path, where you are basically forcing people in ANY situation to be in scenarios they find morally objectionable, even if no real damage is done to any given party.

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.




** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

They did, the case was Elane Photography v. Willock, as far as I can tell they lost.

http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf



>>>>

They lost in district court.

I was not able to find the results of any appeal or if one was actually filed. If that is the only court decision to date, then it stands.

I find the arguments used by the judge to be a bit on the absurd side. Basically it means that in New Mexico if the person in question is a "protected class" I basically have to provide services to them, even if they are engaged in acts that I find morally objectionable. So if I offer a general photography service, and some santaria people wanted me to film thier ritual sacrifice (allowed by law) I could not say no, even if I were an animal rights activist and were morally opposed to such acts. In the case, I would be discriminating based upon thier religous beliefs.

Sure you can say no. Never been an issue.


However if you say "No, I won't film your religion" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film black people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film you old people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film homosexuals" - Then you have an issue.

Cases like this lead down a dangerous path, where you are basically forcing people in ANY situation to be in scenarios they find morally objectionable, even if no real damage is done to any given party.

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.




** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

>>>>

I agree on the medical issues thing. Also the government itself should be neutral on all things. I will even extend it to transportation and utilities.

When it comes to resturants and hotels I can understand the governments interest in keeping up trade, also when it comes to travel denying a person lodging means they have to go somewhere else.

Where I cannot see it extend to is non essential tasks, such as wedding photography. The injury to the plantiff in this case is simply not enough to warrant suing or recovering any damages or fees.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They lost in district court.

I was not able to find the results of any appeal or if one was actually filed. If that is the only court decision to date, then it stands.





Sure you can say no. Never been an issue.


However if you say "No, I won't film your religion" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film black people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film you old people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film homosexuals" - Then you have an issue.

Cases like this lead down a dangerous path, where you are basically forcing people in ANY situation to be in scenarios they find morally objectionable, even if no real damage is done to any given party.

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.




** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

>>>>

I agree on the medical issues thing. Also the government itself should be neutral on all things. I will even extend it to transportation and utilities.

Transportation (airlines & trains) and utilities normally operate under government contract. If they conduct business in a discriminatory manner, the government would then be able to restrict their actions on awarding contracts. So if Delta did not want to let black people fly on their airplanes - fine with me. They just would not be eligible for TSA and FAA services.

When it comes to resturants and hotels I can understand the governments interest in keeping up trade, also when it comes to travel denying a person lodging means they have to go somewhere else.

I don't. If McDonald's doesn't' want to serve Jewish people, then that should be their choice - unless they are under contract (such as a food court in a Military Exhcange) in which case the government can deem them ineligible.

Where I cannot see it extend to is non essential tasks, such as wedding photography. The injury to the plantiff in this case is simply not enough to warrant suing or recovering any damages or fees.

So then we are in the sticky area of defining "non essential" tasks. Is it "essential" to restrict the private business practices of McDonalds when there is a Burger King across the street? Or a Holiday Inn when there is a Comfort Inn around the corner?



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I was not able to find the results of any appeal or if one was actually filed. If that is the only court decision to date, then it stands.





Sure you can say no. Never been an issue.


However if you say "No, I won't film your religion" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film black people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film you old people" - Then you have an issue.

However if you say "No, I won't film homosexuals" - Then you have an issue.





Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.




** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

>>>>

I agree on the medical issues thing. Also the government itself should be neutral on all things. I will even extend it to transportation and utilities.

Transportation (airlines & trains) and utilities normally operate under government contract. If they conduct business in a discriminatory manner, the government would then be able to restrict their actions on awarding contracts. So if Delta did not want to let black people fly on their airplanes - fine with me. They just would not be eligible for TSA and FAA services.

When it comes to resturants and hotels I can understand the governments interest in keeping up trade, also when it comes to travel denying a person lodging means they have to go somewhere else.

I don't. If McDonald's doesn't' want to serve Jewish people, then that should be their choice - unless they are under contract (such as a food court in a Military Exhcange) in which case the government can deem them ineligible.

Where I cannot see it extend to is non essential tasks, such as wedding photography. The injury to the plantiff in this case is simply not enough to warrant suing or recovering any damages or fees.

So then we are in the sticky area of defining "non essential" tasks. Is it "essential" to restrict the private business practices of McDonalds when there is a Burger King across the street? Or a Holiday Inn when there is a Comfort Inn around the corner?



>>>>

I can understand your position on leaving up to the business itself as long as government is not involved. However I think the point for large businesses such as those is moot anyway because any denial of service due to race/sex/religion/orientation would probably create such a huge backlash that it would be economic suicide for them to try it.

For a small niche business such as the photographer, the stigma would be easier to overcome, especially if they catered only to like minded people.

 

[Sheldon]

I can understand your position on leaving up to the business itself as long as government is not involved. However I think the point for large businesses such as those is moot anyway because any denial of service due to race/sex/religion/orientation would probably create such a huge backlash that it would be economic suicide for them to try it.

For a small niche business such as the photographer, the stigma would be easier to overcome, especially if they catered only to like minded people.

Yeah exactly. It just doesn't make much business sense in today's society, imo. The amount of customers gained by putting up a "No Blacks" sign on a restaurant or whatever would be dwarfed by the amount of business lost. Even for a small business, with how many ratings websites there are and how fast word spreads on the web, I think it would be hard for them to over-come.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can understand your position on leaving up to the business itself as long as government is not involved. However I think the point for large businesses such as those is moot anyway because any denial of service due to race/sex/religion/orientation would probably create such a huge backlash that it would be economic suicide for them to try it.

Which is why Public Accommodation laws are rarely needed. (IMHO of course.)

For a small niche business such as the photographer, the stigma would be easier to overcome, especially if they catered only to like minded people.

Probably, but then I'm not interested in "punishing" the photographer for anything.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

 

[manifold]

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious fucking assholes for making a big deal out of it.

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?