Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case

[Katzndogz]

SCOTUS are cowards!

The photographer should have taken the job, charged four times the going rate and donated the proceeds to anti gay marriage groups.

A win/win

I would post a sign in my shop saying if I am forced to do so, my policy will be that my proceeds will be donated to such groups.

No more worries.

According to the ruling you would be within your rights to publish a disclaimer saying anything you wish. You could have one that says you personally hate gays and wish God would strike them down. But because of the law you are compelled to offer your services. All funds derived from gays will immediately be donated to Focus on the Family in their name.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have that exactly backwards. There is ZERO evidence it is a choice. Did you choose whether or not to like carrots?

You are arguing out of your ass.

Funny thing, I don't have it backwards.

The fact that monozygotic twins have do not always have the same sexual preference is conclusive proof that it is not genetic, which is why people started talking about epigenetics. Then we have the fact that sconce has found evidence that fruit flies and, presumably, humans, have free will. Those tow data points are both evidence that sexual preference is a choice.

Nope. Just because there is no genetic evidence, it does not automatically follow it is a choice, numbnut.

Twins are also known to have different food likes and dislikes. Does that mean there is no carrot gene or that they CHOOSE to like or dislike carrots?

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.

Funny, I don't recall saying it did, oh ho who misrepresents others views. What I said is that there is no scientific evidence that it is not a choice. You chose to respond to that by claiming that there is no evidence that it is a choice, so I provided some.

Did you notice that I used the term monozygotic twins? These are twins that both come from the same zygote, not just the same parents. This means they have identical genes. If you want to argue that taste in carrots is genetic, and I produce case studies showing that monozygotic twins do not always like carrots, that actually disproves your theory that liking carrots is genetic.

Tell us about the day you decided to be super stupid.

 

[paperview]

Jake the Flake doesn't like it when I ***** slap him in other threads!

Try again child!

Your suffering little puny plagiarizing ass has never bitched slapped anyone. Ever.

Paper Mache and a Plagiarist...you talking about Obuma, or Joe Biden, you know, the folks that RUN this country into the ground, and have admitted to those nefarious deeds?

Need Video of those? Gladly put them up...again!

No matter how many times you try to brush off your crimes by pointing to others -- it will never work.

Thief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

That didn't stop the far right wing nutbars from bringing it all the way to SCOTUS, did it?

It was brought up on free speech and artistic expression. My guess is that New Mexico is suddenly going to find that there are very few good wedding photographers since, under their law, they have to take any wedding of anybody that shows up at the door.

 

[Katzndogz]

This was actually a case of compelled speech not free speech.

 

[paperview]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

That didn't stop the far right wing nutbars from bringing it all the way to SCOTUS, did it?

It was brought up on free speech and artistic expression. My guess is that New Mexico is suddenly going to find that there are very few good wedding photographers since, under their law, they have to take any wedding of anybody that shows up at the door.

Oh lawdy lawdy.

Will New Mexico survive?

 

[RandallFlagg]

The lower court decision in the photography case was a very good decision and contained the blueprint for future photographers to act within their beliefs.

True. The bigots are free to still be bigots, they just have to be more creative with how they discriminate.

The lower court did provide some guidance in that.

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, The Fags STILL have a right to ruin the CEO of Mozilla's career, with their limp wristed shit, but photographers DONT have a right to tell the fags to go to hell. Gotcha.

Let me shoot their perverted wedding. I promise you, they won't ask for reprints. I'll take 200 shots of the ceiling.

Looks to me that the road either runs both ways or it doesn't. And obviously, we are more concerned with the "rights" of perverts.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If you oppose gay marriage, you show this by not attending them as a guest. If you're a florist or baker, you are open to all patrons. Get over it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If you oppose gay marriage, you show this by not attending them as a guest. If you're a florist or baker, you are open to all patrons. Get over it.

Like I said, you wouldn't want the pictures and I would MOST DEFINITELY not recommend the cake.....

 

[RandallFlagg]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

That didn't stop the far right wing nutbars from bringing it all the way to SCOTUS, did it?

It was brought up on free speech and artistic expression. My guess is that New Mexico is suddenly going to find that there are very few good wedding photographers since, under their law, they have to take any wedding of anybody that shows up at the door.

Well, if "artistic expression" comes into play, 200 shots of the magnificence of the ceiling would be the way for the "artist" to "express himself".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since you allege to have read it, how about you enlighten the rest of us to prove that you did and explain how that inconsistent conclusion is drawn?

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Incorrect, there is no “dilemma,” nor an “inconsistency.”

In fact, the Supreme Court as been consistent in its application of 5th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence expressed in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, where the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees every person the right to self-determination and the right to make decisions concerning individual liberty absent interference by the state:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is therefore legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Vigilante]

Your suffering little puny plagiarizing ass has never bitched slapped anyone. Ever.

Paper Mache and a Plagiarist...you talking about Obuma, or Joe Biden, you know, the folks that RUN this country into the ground, and have admitted to those nefarious deeds?

Need Video of those? Gladly put them up...again!

No matter how many times you try to brush off your crimes by pointing to others -- it will never work.

Thief.

Thank you for putting me in the same category as the Manchurian muslim, and the Bidenism..... are you calling them thieves?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCOTUS are cowards!

The photographer should have taken the job, charged four times the going rate and donated the proceeds to anti gay marriage groups.

A win/win

I would post a sign in my shop saying if I am forced to do so, my policy will be that my proceeds will be donated to such groups.

No more worries.

Good plan.

Not only are your religious liberties not being ‘violated,’ but you’re also exercising your right to freely express your ignorance and hate.

Well done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you oppose gay marriage, you show this by not attending them as a guest. If you're a florist or baker, you are open to all patrons. Get over it.

You do understand that photographers actually have to attend the entire wedding, don't you? That means that Christians can force atheist to go to church and listen to a sermon about how all atheists are going to hell, or a gay person to attend a pray away the gay service, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Is that really the kind of country you want to live in?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Incorrect, there is no “dilemma,” nor an “inconsistency.”

In fact, the Supreme Court as been consistent in its application of 5th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence expressed in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, where the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees every person the right to self-determination and the right to make decisions concerning individual liberty absent interference by the state:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is therefore legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

The Supreme Court is consistently inconsistent about how they apply anything.

 

[Seawytch]

If you oppose gay marriage, you show this by not attending them as a guest. If you're a florist or baker, you are open to all patrons. Get over it.

You do understand that photographers actually have to attend the entire wedding, don't you? That means that Christians can force atheist to go to church and listen to a sermon about how all atheists are going to hell, or a gay person to attend a pray away the gay service, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Is that really the kind of country you want to live in?

A white person will actually be forced to sit at the lunch counter with a black person. Is that the world you want to live in?

 

[blackhawk]

If the people insisted on trying force me to photograph and be a part of something I didn't believe in that went against my religious beliefs and the government backed them in it so be it you might be able to force me to take the photographs but you dam sure cant force me to take good ones.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one forces a white person to sit at a lunch counter with a black person. The white person just finds another lunch counter.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the people insisted on trying force me to photograph and be a part of something I didn't believe in that went against my religious beliefs and the government backed them in it so be it you might be able to force me to take the photographs but you dam sure cant force me to take good ones.

I might feel it appropriate to fall to my knees after every photograph and very loudly beg for forgiveness for myself and all the sinners. I might be tempted to counsel the couples parents when I take their photographs about where they went wrong in raising such deviant children. What happens when the photographer is told to leave then returns all the money paid? After all the contract was fulfilled to the letter.

You go. You take the pictures. Beyond that there is no court telling you what to do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This sailed right over the gay's heads. The Supremes aren't getting involved because it's a state matter, not Constitutional. And for those still not up to speed, that means it never was an equal rights issue. Duh.

Incorrect.

This is very much an equal rights issue:

By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to -13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other
protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

The issue therefore concerned the Constitutionality of the New Mexico measure whose sole focus and intent was to protect the civil liberties of residents of New Mexico, including gay Americans.