Should a black photographer be forced to work a KKK wedding?

[Quantum Windbag]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

 

[arKangel]

I suppose the answer for everyone is to avoid providing a "public service".

There is an established legal difference of a "private service" from a "public service". Unfortunately, it appears that the banksters are again attempting to erase that difference.

Yeah, the pinkos want everything to be public, the psychotic voyeuristic extortionists that they are... but human beings have a God given right to privacy.

The only people who do not a have freedom of association are slaves.

 

[OnePercenter]

Should a black photographer be forced to work a KKK wedding?

No. Possibility of physical harm as history demonstrates.

Nothing to do with the post.

 

[Noomi]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

 

[Gracie]

Oy. What happened to "we have the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Damn. I miss the 70's.

 

[dilloduck]

Trick question........blacks don't know how to use a camera.












JUST KIDDING @@@@@@@@@!!@!@@!

 

[syrenn]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

 

[Noomi]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

 

[syrenn]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

 

[Noomi]

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

This is not about how the law works, its about what we think should happen, and I think that if the photographer had to develop the photos of the wedding (not take them) then she should be expected to, but actually going to the wedding, and witnessing it, taking pictures when you disagree, then that is not the same thing and she should have the right to back out if she wanted.

 

[BobPlumb]

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

It's difficult to do pictures for a wedding without being there.

 

[syrenn]

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

This is not about how the law works, its about what we think should happen, and I think that if the photographer had to develop the photos of the wedding (not take them) then she should be expected to, but actually going to the wedding, and witnessing it, taking pictures when you disagree, then that is not the same thing and she should have the right to back out if she wanted.

the business of a photographs is to take photos....

the law say you cannot refuse to preform your services...any services... becasue you object to the practices of who is hiring you.

 

[OnePercenter]

Before continuing you need to read this. VERY interesting.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

 

[OnePercenter]

Oy. What happened to "we have the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Damn. I miss the 70's.

The right to refuse never could discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion of the patron.

 

[Noomi]

the law say you cannot refuse to preform your services...any services... becasue you object to the practices of who is hiring you. [/COLOR]

In some cases I can agree with that, but not in this case.

 

[arKangel]

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

This is not about how the law works, its about what we think should happen, and I think that if the photographer had to develop the photos of the wedding (not take them) then she should be expected to, but actually going to the wedding, and witnessing it, taking pictures when you disagree, then that is not the same thing and she should have the right to back out if she wanted.

the business of a photographs is to take photos....

the law say you cannot refuse to preform your services...any services... becasue you object to the practices of who is hiring you.

Well you could refuse service... just don't give any other reason than, "I can't provide the service". Leave it at that. Nothing else need be stated.

If there is no monetary exchange, then there is no contract. Simple as that. The law should only enforce a contract, if there is no contract then the law has no place in the matter.

Now I don't know the details of the case this references, but it sounds as if the pinkos have succeeded in transgressing the boundaries of contractual law to persecute a private business?

 

[S.J.]

I don't see the problem. If the photographer doesn't want to do it, somebody else can make the money. Why would they want to pay somebody to take pictures of their wedding if the photographer doesn't like them? I sure wouldn't want him to have my money, and the pictures would probably not be so great either.

 

[syrenn]

I don't see the problem. If the photographer doesn't want to do it, somebody else can make the money. Why would they want to pay somebody to take pictures of their wedding if the photographer doesn't like them? I sure wouldn't want him to have my money, and the pictures would probably not be so great either.

i agree...

however..... gays feel differently and are going to force this issue.

 

[syrenn]

This is not about how the law works, its about what we think should happen, and I think that if the photographer had to develop the photos of the wedding (not take them) then she should be expected to, but actually going to the wedding, and witnessing it, taking pictures when you disagree, then that is not the same thing and she should have the right to back out if she wanted.

the business of a photographs is to take photos....

the law say you cannot refuse to preform your services...any services... becasue you object to the practices of who is hiring you.

Well you could refuse service... just don't give any other reason than, "I can't provide the service". Leave it at that. Nothing else need be stated.

If there is no monetary exchange, then there is no contract. Simple as that. The law should only enforce a contract, if there is no contract then the law has no place in the matter.

Now I don't know the details of the case this references, but it sounds as if the pinkos have succeeded in transgressing the boundaries of contractual law to persecute a private business?

oh trust me...i am all for refusing service to anyone i dont not want to service...

however.... the gay agenda is pushing this issue... and it will put anyone who wants to refuse service for ANY reason......off the table.

 

[OnePercenter]

the business of a photographs is to take photos....

the law say you cannot refuse to preform your services...any services... becasue you object to the practices of who is hiring you.

Well you could refuse service... just don't give any other reason than, "I can't provide the service". Leave it at that. Nothing else need be stated.

If there is no monetary exchange, then there is no contract. Simple as that. The law should only enforce a contract, if there is no contract then the law has no place in the matter.

Now I don't know the details of the case this references, but it sounds as if the pinkos have succeeded in transgressing the boundaries of contractual law to persecute a private business?

oh trust me...i am all for refusing service to anyone i dont not want to service...

however.... the gay agenda is pushing this issue... and it will put anyone who wants to refuse service for ANY reason......off the table.

But you can't violate law.