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

[syrenn]

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.

tell that to noomi.

 

[S.J.]

The free market will deal with the photographer better than the law can. Giving somebody else the money will hurt them more than forcing them to take bad pictures at your wedding (and get paid). He's hurting himself more than he's hurting the couple. Sheesh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is a history of weddings erupting into riots? Where?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I have one, rather stupid question, for you, did you forget your brain this morning?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE PICTURES OF A WEDDING WITHOUT ATTENDING THE FUCKING WEDDING?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I don't see why I should have to provide flowers either.

 

[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.

I have one, rather stupid question, for you, did you forget your brain this morning?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE PICTURES OF A WEDDING WITHOUT ATTENDING THE FUCKING WEDDING?

I said she doesn't have to go to the wedding. Obviously.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You just argued that they could if the person doing the refusing is black. That makes you a lying sack of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 bet I could provide some great pictures of the ceiling and the carpet if someone forced me to be at a wedding I didn't want to attend. I could probably even find a really noisy camera that would drown out the preacher.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I have one, rather stupid question, for you, did you forget your brain this morning?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE PICTURES OF A WEDDING WITHOUT ATTENDING THE FUCKING WEDDING?

I said she doesn't have to go to the wedding. Obviously.

I saw that, but I really enjoyed my rant.

What can I say?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The OP has committed a false analogy fallacy, and the premise of his thread fails accordingly.

Unlike homosexuals, the Klan does not constitute a class of persons, the Klan is not a ‘race,’ nor is it representative of any race in general.

 

[S.J.]

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

The OP has committed a false analogy fallacy, and the premise of his thread fails accordingly.

Unlike homosexuals, the Klan does not constitute a class of persons, the Klan is not a ‘race,’ nor is it representative of any race in general.

The Klan doesn't constitute a class of persons? Really? I always thought they constituted a class of persons we call racists. Boy, do I feel dumb.

 

[Noomi]

I have one, rather stupid question, for you, did you forget your brain this morning?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE PICTURES OF A WEDDING WITHOUT ATTENDING THE FUCKING WEDDING?

I said she doesn't have to go to the wedding. Obviously.

I saw that, but I really enjoyed my rant.

What can I say?

Nothing wrong taking some frustration out on the keyboard!

 

[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

The OP has committed a false analogy fallacy, and the premise of his thread fails accordingly.

Unlike homosexuals, the Klan does not constitute a class of persons, the Klan is not a ‘race,’ nor is it representative of any race in general.

What is false about it? The law in New Mexico prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap, age, sex, ancestry or serious medical condition, not on the basis of class of persons. If you think that doesn't cover the KKK you have your head up your ass.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is what happens when the government gets in the middle of this type of bullshit. I can’t believe that the couple won this asinine claim let alone filed it in the first place. I don’t see where the advantages are in requiring people to photograph a wedding that they are religiously opposed to.

This is one of the reasons that people opposed gay marriages in the first place. I have vehemently fought the meme that gays wanted more than simple equal rights yet here we are with gays openly demanding that others not only accept their ways but actually provide a service in order to assist in it. Apparently those that were against gay marriage had a point; they are not just after rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is what happens when the government gets in the middle of this type of bullshit. I can’t believe that the couple won this asinine claim let alone filed it in the first place. I don’t see where the advantages are in requiring people to photograph a wedding that they are religiously opposed to.

This is one of the reasons that people opposed gay marriages in the first place. I have vehemently fought the meme that gays wanted more than simple equal rights yet here we are with gays openly demanding that others not only accept their ways but actually provide a service in order to assist in it. Apparently those that were against gay marriage had a point; they are not just after rights.

I actually believe that most gays would find this as offensive as we do, but that doesn't change the fact that there is actually a gay agenda being promoted by a small, but extremely vocal, minority.

 

[candycorn]

So much for the clean debate zone...

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Read this case. The whole issue was her attendance at the wedding. She offered to substitute studio shots but her presence was demanded at the ceremony.

According to the ruling in this case the photographer's attendance was mandatory.

 

[Stephanie]

yes they should be forced to go work it and also wear the attire ...hoods might get in their way, but so what

and if they won't there is a judge in New Mexico the KKK can contact

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

Damn. I miss the 70's.

Having the right to make your own choices is something the left hates.

 

[AmazonTania]

You refuse an employment position for any reason, especially because of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Most of all, you can do this without being sued.

I don't see why this photographer's presence was mandatory.