SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[bodecea]

Why do you want to force people to associate with those they do not want to?

Just live your life, find another photographer/caterer and be done with it.

Jesus, you people are so ******* self centered and self important it sickens me.

How did the gay couple know PRIOR to going to the business that they were anti-gay?

They are not "anti-gay" they just don't want to work at a gay wedding. and who the **** cares about prior notice? Are gay people so ******* wimpy that the need to go to one more ******* photographer is such a burden on your widdle feewings?

Man up.

So...how was the gay couple supposed to know that when they walked into their shop to hire them?

 

[Asclepias]

Why do you want to force people to associate with those they do not want to?

Just live your life, find another photographer/caterer and be done with it.

Jesus, you people are so ******* self centered and self important it sickens me.

How did the gay couple know PRIOR to going to the business that they were anti-gay?

They are not "anti-gay" they just don't want to work at a gay wedding. and who the **** cares about prior notice? Are gay people so ******* wimpy that the need to go to one more ******* photographer is such a burden on your widdle feewings?

Man up.

If they dont want to work a gay wedding then they have that right. The law has the right to penalize them. They should man up and take their penalty and stop whining.

 

[martybegan]

In this case the business had zero respect for the public. They should have put up signs announcing they hate gay people. If they want to run a straight club they are more than welcome. However, since this is a business that caters to the public and not just those in their church group they have to accommodate everyone.

I agree with you in saying that there is no way someone is getting my money if they hate/dislike me. On the other hand it is funny they lost and will have to either remove their religious beliefs from their business and treat everyone equally. (Weird that religious beliefs and equality are at odds in that sentence.)

They don't want to work at gay weddings. Again, when I see progressive statists such as you forcing black people to cater KKK weddings, then I will be satisfied.

I think you miss the point that you cant cater to the general public "sometimes". You are free to close up shop if you are truly committed to your religious beliefs. No one is forcing you to cater anything. Its a choice you are making in order to stay in business. You will play by the rules of business. If you dont the only person that is forcing anything is you due to your incredibly infantile and stupid decisions..

So societies need for forcing people to provide a service they find against their morals trumps the individuals rights? This is a ******* wedding photographer. This isn't a case of life or death, or limited availability of service. It isn't like all the lunch counters in a town being white only, or denying the one black ballplayer on a team a room at a hotel.

A person should not be denied their livelihood solely because they don't want to work for someone. The only case this is acceptable is any form of government contract, because the government HAS to be non discriminatory.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes. If they have a business license, they can't say "I'm not serving you because you are a white supremist." It's not that hard to fathom.

Why do you want to force people to associate with those they do not want to?

Just live your life, find another photographer/caterer and be done with it.

Jesus, you people are so ******* self centered and self important it sickens me.

They are looking for Validation where none Exists Naturally...

They will NEVER be Happy, no matter how many Laws are passed, how many Rights of others are Infringed to try to please them...

You will Recited like Gospel that you LOVE that they are Gay and that day, the will still not have the Validation they so Desperately Need.

Because they are Inherently Invalid.



peace...

People who think like you are dying off. In the not too distant future, it is you who will feel the need to seek validation. And of course, we will give it to you.

Whenever you come to your senses, just let us know.

 

[martybegan]

How did the gay couple know PRIOR to going to the business that they were anti-gay?

They are not "anti-gay" they just don't want to work at a gay wedding. and who the **** cares about prior notice? Are gay people so ******* wimpy that the need to go to one more ******* photographer is such a burden on your widdle feewings?

Man up.

If they dont want to work a gay wedding then they have that right. The law has the right to penalize them. They should man up and take their penalty and stop whining.

So you want to place people who disagree with you into poverty? Talk about winning hearts and minds. its easier for the couple just to find another photographer and to stop being self centered whiny assholes.

 

[martybegan]

How did the gay couple know PRIOR to going to the business that they were anti-gay?

They are not "anti-gay" they just don't want to work at a gay wedding. and who the **** cares about prior notice? Are gay people so ******* wimpy that the need to go to one more ******* photographer is such a burden on your widdle feewings?

Man up.

So...how was the gay couple supposed to know that when they walked into their shop to hire them?

Where is the right to not feel slightly offended in the constitution?

They found out, and they should have moved on. simple.

 

[rightwinger]

How about nutting up and just going to another photographer?

How much of a bunch of pansies are these people?

I know

What part of "We don't serve fags here" don't they understand?

The people in question never used such language, and from all evidence were very cordial in their denial to provide the service.

You are the one adding the hatred and the animosity, not the people being deprived of their rights.

It is the same sentiment

We saw it during Jim Crow. Business turning away negros because they did not approve of them...you know, negros were dirty and all
Buisiness has a right to serve who they want. Negros don't like it, go somewhere else

What is different?

 

[Asclepias]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

In this case the business had zero respect for the public. They should have put up signs announcing they hate gay people. If they want to run a straight club they are more than welcome. However, since this is a business that caters to the public and not just those in their church group they have to accommodate everyone.

I agree with you in saying that there is no way someone is getting my money if they hate/dislike me. On the other hand it is funny they lost and will have to either remove their religious beliefs from their business and treat everyone equally. (Weird that religious beliefs and equality are at odds in that sentence.)

You guys are a broken record. If someone doesn't agree with you they're a "hater".
Well your president just a few years ago was a hater then.

No one called you a hater. I disagree with some of your post. You calling the president a hater doesnt excuse the fact that the retarded business owners broke the law. If they wanted to dictate their customer base to exclude gay people they should have either created a business entity that allowed them to do so. My guess is they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[martybegan]

I know

What part of "We don't serve fags here" don't they understand?

The people in question never used such language, and from all evidence were very cordial in their denial to provide the service.

You are the one adding the hatred and the animosity, not the people being deprived of their rights.

It is the same sentiment

We saw it during Jim Crow. Business turning away negros because they did not approve of them...you know, negros were dirty and all
Buisiness has a right to serve who they want. Negros don't like it, go somewhere else

What is different?

Actually during the Jim Crow era Businesses DIDN'T have the right to serve who they wanted. Segregation was part of the local laws. it was government mandated.

 

[Asclepias]

They are not "anti-gay" they just don't want to work at a gay wedding. and who the **** cares about prior notice? Are gay people so ******* wimpy that the need to go to one more ******* photographer is such a burden on your widdle feewings?

Man up.

If they dont want to work a gay wedding then they have that right. The law has the right to penalize them. They should man up and take their penalty and stop whining.

So you want to place people who disagree with you into poverty? Talk about winning hearts and minds. its easier for the couple just to find another photographer and to stop being self centered whiny assholes.

I dont care if they live in poverty or not since they seem to be assholes. However, I want them to obey the law just like everyone else or find another way to make ends meet like everyone else. They need to man up and get with the program. Not the other way around.

 

[Asclepias]

The people in question never used such language, and from all evidence were very cordial in their denial to provide the service.

You are the one adding the hatred and the animosity, not the people being deprived of their rights.

It is the same sentiment

We saw it during Jim Crow. Business turning away negros because they did not approve of them...you know, negros were dirty and all
Buisiness has a right to serve who they want. Negros don't like it, go somewhere else

What is different?

Actually during the Jim Crow era Businesses DIDN'T have the right to serve who they wanted. Segregation was part of the local laws. it was government mandated.

Herein is where you guys seem to get confused. The mandate has changed. You will give everyone equal access to your services or find another hobby.

 

[bodecea]

How about nutting up and just going to another photographer?

How much of a bunch of pansies are these people?

So...you don't think people should stand up for the already established law? Ok...that's you.

Its a law that is wrong. you shouldn't be able to make a person decide between making a living and compromising their belief structure, in particular in services that are not mandatory, and where there is plenty of other providers.

So...civil disobedience. OK, they were doing it right then. But their civil disobedience didn't quite end up the way they wanted, did it? The law is confirmed and they are on the losing end.

 

[Asclepias]

They don't want to work at gay weddings. Again, when I see progressive statists such as you forcing black people to cater KKK weddings, then I will be satisfied.

I think you miss the point that you cant cater to the general public "sometimes". You are free to close up shop if you are truly committed to your religious beliefs. No one is forcing you to cater anything. Its a choice you are making in order to stay in business. You will play by the rules of business. If you dont the only person that is forcing anything is you due to your incredibly infantile and stupid decisions..

So societies need for forcing people to provide a service they find against their morals trumps the individuals rights? This is a ******* wedding photographer. This isn't a case of life or death, or limited availability of service. It isn't like all the lunch counters in a town being white only, or denying the one black ballplayer on a team a room at a hotel.

A person should not be denied their livelihood solely because they don't want to work for someone. The only case this is acceptable is any form of government contract, because the government HAS to be non discriminatory.

Bingo. You pretty much have it halfway figured out if you get that point. You dont even have rights until they are given to you. Who does that but society/government?

 

[rightwinger]

The people in question never used such language, and from all evidence were very cordial in their denial to provide the service.

You are the one adding the hatred and the animosity, not the people being deprived of their rights.

It is the same sentiment

We saw it during Jim Crow. Business turning away negros because they did not approve of them...you know, negros were dirty and all
Buisiness has a right to serve who they want. Negros don't like it, go somewhere else

What is different?

Actually during the Jim Crow era Businesses DIDN'T have the right to serve who they wanted. Segregation was part of the local laws. it was government mandated.

Or a business could put up a sign that said "We don't serve colored here" Most hotels would not allow negros. You know, I mean who would want to sleep in a bed that a negro had used?

Is that what you want to return to?

Alow any business to refuse service to Fags? Sorry girly man, we don't want your kind around here

Is that the America you want?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

If I didn't like Italians and an Italian couple came to me for photos and I told them to piss off because Italians are an abomination I wouldn't be that surprised if they did something about it

Actually they probably couldn't do anything legally, because Italians are not a protected class.

That is incorrect Marty.

New Mexico Revised Statutes
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

"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 ; "​

Refuse service to a customer because they are Italian and that would be refusing service based on national origin or ancestry and would be illegal.



>>>>

 

[LoneLaugher]

This idea of using bullshit religious BELIEFS as an excuse for treating others like shit is just stupid. There must be two dozen nutters here claiming that their religious BELIEFS trump the laws that govern our society.

They don't.

All you are doing is trying to rationalize your bigotry. It won't fly.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If I didn't like Italians and an Italian couple came to me for photos and I told them to piss off because Italians are an abomination I wouldn't be that surprised if they did something about it

Actually they probably couldn't do anything legally, because Italians are not a protected class.

That is incorrect Marty.

New Mexico Revised Statutes
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

"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 ; "​

Refuse service to a customer because they are Italian and that would be refusing service based on national origin or ancestry and would be illegal.



>>>>

We all belong to a " protected class ".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually they probably couldn't do anything legally, because Italians are not a protected class.

That is incorrect Marty.

New Mexico Revised Statutes
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

"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 ; "​

Refuse service to a customer because they are Italian and that would be refusing service based on national origin or ancestry and would be illegal.



>>>>

We all belong to a " protected class ".

Pretty much. That is the subtle point many don't recognize. It's not so much the class you belong to (because we all belong to protected classes) - it is the reason the business uses in denying services that causes the violation.


I'm white, if a business refuses me service because they don't have the product or are booked on the data/time I need - not a problem. Refuse service because I'm white - they violate the law.

If I'm black, if a business refuses me service because they don't have the product or are booked on the data/time I need - not a problem. Refuse service because I'm black - they violate the law.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

It is the same sentiment

We saw it during Jim Crow. Business turning away negros because they did not approve of them...you know, negros were dirty and all
Buisiness has a right to serve who they want. Negros don't like it, go somewhere else

What is different?

Actually during the Jim Crow era Businesses DIDN'T have the right to serve who they wanted. Segregation was part of the local laws. it was government mandated.

Herein is where you guys seem to get confused. The mandate has changed. You will give everyone equal access to your services or find another hobby.

That's not what the ruling in New Mexico held. The Supreme Court is allowing that decision to stand. You only have to give every one equal access to services that you offer. Not all your services. This was exactly the way the lawsuit against me ended. I had to provide any service I offered to the public to the two lesbians. Painting their portrait didn't fall in that category. If the photographer offers wedding photos the public, that photographer has to accept same sex customers. If the photographer doesn't offer wedding photography to the public, but does wedding photography as a private arrangement, they can exclude all the same sex couples they want.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.