PDA

View Full Version : Christian Photographers Guilty of Discrimination for Refusing LGBT Weddings




Origanalist
08-22-2013, 09:00 PM
NM Court Says Christian Photogs Guilty of Discrimination for Refusing LGBT Weddings

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act and one justice warned the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

A recent Rasmussen survey found that 85 percent of Americans support the right of a photographer to refuse participating in a same-sex wedding.

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, representing the photographers. Attorney Jordan Lorence said the ruling in effect means gay rights now trump religious rights.

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/08/22/nm-court-says-christian-photogs-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-lgbt-weddings-n1671280

pcosmar
08-22-2013, 09:05 PM
If you have a business license you are subject to the dictates of the state. (The Beast)

MelissaWV
08-22-2013, 09:07 PM
It should not be about religious rights, or gay rights, or the snarky racist nonsense they tried to insert in as an example. It should be about the right of a businessman to refuse service for whatever reason. If there is a contract in place, a deposit, or short notice, then you have a case (ie - the photographer says two days before the wedding that they can't do this for religious reasons, causing a huge headache as they try to find a professional photographer within a day or two). If not, well, the photographer should be able to say "no" and suffer whatever economic fallout comes their way. I doubt there would have been any.

Zippyjuan
08-22-2013, 09:08 PM
It should not be about religious rights, or gay rights, or the snarky racist nonsense they tried to insert in as an example. It should be about the right of a businessman to refuse service for whatever reason. If there is a contract in place, a deposit, or short notice, then you have a case (ie - the photographer says two days before the wedding that they can't do this for religious reasons, causing a huge headache as they try to find a professional photographer within a day or two). If not, well, the photographer should be able to say "no" and suffer whatever economic fallout comes their way. I doubt there would have been any.
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

fr33
08-22-2013, 09:08 PM
So now if they want to practice their religion they must go out of business. :mad:

Dr.3D
08-22-2013, 09:10 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

They should be able to refuse service to anybody they want.
That wouldn't mean they are right to do so though.

MelissaWV
08-22-2013, 09:11 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

I'm all for them refusing if they don't like your haircut if they want.

Again, a business should be able to do that, imo, but they will face whatever economic consequences come their way. If you decide you won't serve a certain race, expect to not only lose that race's business but also certain people's business who hear about it and don't want your photographer at their event. Gay weddings are such a slim wedge of the overall business pie that I don't think they would have suffered much in the way of monetary loss in a free market.

Origanalist
08-22-2013, 09:12 PM
It should not be about religious rights, or gay rights, or the snarky racist nonsense they tried to insert in as an example. It should be about the right of a businessman to refuse service for whatever reason. If there is a contract in place, a deposit, or short notice, then you have a case (ie - the photographer says two days before the wedding that they can't do this for religious reasons, causing a huge headache as they try to find a professional photographer within a day or two). If not, well, the photographer should be able to say "no" and suffer whatever economic fallout comes their way. I doubt there would have been any.

I agree totally, this is about nothing more than the ability to live as you please and do business with who you please. And not having the state dictate this to you. That being said, this couple believe the state should force anybody and everybody to do business with them.

Philhelm
08-22-2013, 09:15 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

Yeah, and while we're at it, businesses should not refuse service to the economically disadvantaged people that cannot afford the service.

Origanalist
08-22-2013, 09:17 PM
Let me ask this, when was the last time you heard of a Christian couple or otherwise go into a business and demand they be served when they weren't welcome? And then taken it to court. And then have a judge decide in their favor.

pcosmar
08-22-2013, 09:26 PM
So now if they want to practice their religion they must go out of business. :mad:

Yes.

so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

ObiRandKenobi
08-22-2013, 09:48 PM
this is exactly what thomas jefferson had in mind.

better-dead-than-fed
08-22-2013, 10:02 PM
Does this mean I will go to jail if I refuse to photograph a gay wedding? I am not even a photographer. I do not even have a camera.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-22-2013, 10:47 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

Is it their private property, or is it State property? Just because it is a business, it doesn't cease to make it private property. Besides, who wants to knowingly patronize a racist business anyways? I'd much rather their signs be plastered all over the place. I'm sure blacks just love giving money to racists. /snark

Christian Liberty
08-22-2013, 10:48 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?




Yes, in fact, I find it amazing that anyone on this forum would not understand this.

Fail.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-22-2013, 10:52 PM
why couldn't they just refuse without stating why?

PaulConventionWV
08-22-2013, 11:06 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

A business on the street should most certainly be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish, and suffer the consequences. I thought this was RPF?

PaulConventionWV
08-22-2013, 11:10 PM
why couldn't they just refuse without stating why?

That's what I would do.

"Umm... sorry. We have a prior... commitment."

fr33
08-22-2013, 11:24 PM
That's what I would do.

"Umm... sorry. We have a prior... commitment."

Good idea. It should be a lesson to others. String them along until they give you a date and then make up something that will prohibit you from working for them.

better-dead-than-fed
08-22-2013, 11:30 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

I don't know, Zippyjuan, should straight porn stars be allowed to refuse service on the basis of gender?

Origanalist
08-22-2013, 11:33 PM
That's what I would do.

"Umm... sorry. We have a prior... commitment."

What difference does the reason make?

better-dead-than-fed
08-22-2013, 11:35 PM
Let me ask this, when was the last time you heard of a Christian couple or otherwise go into a business and demand they be served when they weren't welcome? And then taken it to court. And then have a judge decide in their favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Philhelm
08-22-2013, 11:39 PM
What difference does the reason make?

Apparently a lawsuit.

fr33
08-22-2013, 11:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

An easier and more recent example would be the civil rights movement of the 60s. Most of those activists at the sit-ins were Christians.

Southron
08-23-2013, 12:35 AM
Who really didn't see this coming? It has never "been about equal rights".

S.Shorland
08-23-2013, 01:48 AM
They should be able (they ARE,they have that natural right) to refuse to trade with whomever they wish.The gays or whoever else are free to try to persuade others to boycott their service if they are of an authoritarian mindset.

roho76
08-23-2013, 05:07 AM
Here's the civil rights act rearing its ugly head again and this is exactly what Rand was talking about on Maddow's "Show for Shitheads."

RonPaulFanInGA
08-23-2013, 05:18 AM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

Yes, they should. I know federal law doesn't allow that, but they absolutely should be able to. People would be outraged if the government told everyone who you could and could not let into your private house, why should a business be any different? I either own it and it's mine, or I don't.

Superfly
08-23-2013, 05:31 AM
NM Court Says Christian Photogs Guilty of Discrimination for Refusing LGBT Weddings


“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.



Clearly, at its core, this country is about the compelled photography of homosexuals. That's what makes America great.

better-dead-than-fed
08-23-2013, 05:42 AM
Clearly, at its core, this country is about the compelled photography of homosexuals. That's what makes America great.

During the ratification debates, the founders toyed with the idea of adding a clause that would require it specifically, but they realized the duty was so obvious it did not even need to be codified.

shane77m
08-23-2013, 06:38 AM
http://youtu.be/KR3MgIPxb38

Start at about 2:37 for a good response that people should start using. Non compliance for everyone.

presence
08-23-2013, 06:44 AM
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

//

otherone
08-23-2013, 06:50 AM
There appears to be a business opportunity in the Land of Enchantment for some plucky individual. Don't forget your camera and assless chaps.

shane77m
08-23-2013, 06:51 AM
There appears to be a business opportunity in the Land of Enchantment for some plucky individual. Don't forget your camera and assless chaps.



http://i.imgur.com/Oxs5kHf.jpg

jkr
08-23-2013, 06:56 AM
straight up $LAVERY

FUCK THESE PEOPLE

Root
08-23-2013, 07:02 AM
All businesses must serve The State.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 07:23 AM
All businesses must serve The State.

It's becoming almost impossible not to. Short of becoming a bum with a sign and living under a bridge they are putting the screws to everything we do.

How much longer?

presence
08-23-2013, 07:35 AM
http://mises.org/images/FreeMarket.gif (http://mises.org/periodical.aspx?Id=1)
The Mises Institute monthly, free with membership (http://mises.org/donate.aspx)
May 1995
Volume 13, Number 5

Repeal '64
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

(rockwell@mises.org)

Steve Stockman, among the best of Washington's freshmen Congressmen, holds a daily prayer session that staff members attend voluntarily. Last year, nobody could have stopped it. But thanks to the "Contract With America," Congress now has to comply with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


The ACLU says Stockman may be discriminating on the basis of religion. Now it's up to the executive branch's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to decide. Like the rest of the country, Stockman's office will probably choose the path of least resistance: comply with the planners' wishes. The Left wins another one.


The incident points to the shortsightedness of forcing such laws on Congress. Bad law should be repealed, not extended, especially not to the only branch of government the people can directly influence. The executive branch can now effectively control the internal life of every Congressional office, just as it controls the internal life of most every business, bank, and educational institution. Already, the law is being used selectively against troublemaking Congressmen.


Sure, Stockman and staff can invoke First Amendment protections of religious freedom. And the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect privacy rights in homes, schools, and businesses. The Constitution has never stood in the way of civil rights enforcement. In the name of stamping out illegal discrimination, fundamental rights like freedom of association are denied daily.
The ethical gloss of civil rights has long since vanished, leaving only the brute power of statism to enforce an egalitarian agenda. White males, for example, are no longer fooled by the euphemisms. Whether its "set asides," "affirmative action," or "timetables," they know it means denying economic opportunity to them in order to benefit others.


Politicians are promising to do something about it, but they have missed the larger point. Our troubles don't stem from "quotas," "set asides," and the like; they stem from the presumption that government should be monitoring "discrimination" in the first place. Pass all the anti-quota laws you want. Until anti-discrimination law is repealed, nothing can block the march of big government.


Think about the term "discrimination." It means choosing among several options. Our every thought, word, and deed are choices among options. We stop discriminating only when we become slaves or when we die.


When the government got into the business of regulating our choices through anti-discrimination law, it was attempting to regulate our thoughts. It first forbid certain kinds of choices when made "on grounds of" race, sex, religion, and national origin. That was expanded to disability, which includes "mental" disability. Nowadays, our whole society and economy are burden by the anti-discrimination police.


This was the inevitable result of a 30-year old legal trick. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't forbid any particular racial or sexual configuration in school or the workplace. An employer or admissions officer is free to choose, so long as he doesn't choose for the wrong reason. Single-race or single-sex workplaces--freedom of association's acid test--were still allowed. But, according to law, they could not be consciously created. You can hire only white males, but you cannot intend to hire only white males.


How can we prove intent? This is where the trouble begins. Every decision is made from a mixture of motivations. Not even the actor himself can fully know what went into a decision. Certainly the government cannot. But by forbidding certain kinds of discrimination, the government gives itself power to define what constitutes evidence for malintent.


Courts, it's hardly surprising, took the easiest path. To prove discrimination, look for circumstantial evidence. They discover "disproportionate effects" and "disparate impact." This translates to: you're guilty because you have not hired enough women and minorities. To avoid that fate, you must adopt affirmative action, quotas, goals, timetables, and set asides: the spoils system now poisoning American life.


Let's say Congress wanted to stop shotgun weddings. So it passed a law saying: "Marriages entered into by parties at or under the age of 25 must be based on love, not convenience; Neither should this law discourage early married as such." This is enforced with $100,000 fines. After an explosion of litigation and government investigations, who'd be surprised when couples would wait until age 26 to get married?


So it is with the civil rights movement. Its members may protest that they didn't intend quotas and the like. In fact, the civil rights movement gave us exactly what it was supposed to give us: legal preferences for its constituents and institutionalized disadvantages for everyone else.


Here's a recent application. When the merchants of Union Point, Georgia, drew up a list of known shoplifters, the Justice Department intervened to stop them. Everyone on the list was black. In order to comply with the Civil Rights Act, some on the list would have to be white. If there are no white shoplifters--and black police chief said there were none--there can be no list and thus no property rights enforcement. Union Point is a microcosm of America under civil rights.


In the case of religious discrimination, you're guilty by choosing religion over secularism. By holding a prayer session in his office, is Representative Stockman culpable under the Act? Well, he's holding a prayer session, not a Black Mass. This might discourage Devil worshipers from applying for a job, a situation which the Civil Rights Act is supposed to prevent.


The hysteria about same-race adoptions is another case in point. Most adoption agencies allow couples to choose the race of their child. It's hardly surprising that when adopting a child, the vast majority of people choose their own race. The National Association of Black Social Workers, for example, encourages blacks to adopt blacks.


But the Institute for Justice in D.C. and the *Wall Street Journal* are pushing a federal law to forbid discrimination in adoption. As with businessmen in hiring, colleges in admissions, and hotels with customers, adoption agencies would not be allowed to take race into consideration when placing children. That is, a black family could not request to adopt a black child. An Asian couple with special affection for Vietnamese orphans can forget it. A white family could not request a white baby.


It's a fair assumption that no one wants to gamble when it comes to intimate matters like the race of your children. That's why, if passed, this law would destroy the market for adoption rearing rights as we know it. It would be just another of the thousands of enterprises destroyed by Washington's egalitarian planners.


It's conservatives, not liberals, who are naive about the real meaning of anti-discrimination law. They say they love the Civil Rights Act, "Dr." King, and the "ideal" of the color-blind society. They want to protect "individuals" from discrimination, but not "groups." They like "equality of opportunity" but don't like "equality of result."


Shelby Steele, an author whose status as a black man allows him to pronounce against quotas, says he would gladly get rid of affirmative action. But in that case, he writes, there would have to be "criminal penalties," not just civil ones, for discriminating against blacks. William Kristol, the Republican leadership's excuse for an intellectual, agrees.


This is foolish and dangerous. You cannot abolish affirmative action and quotas and still enforce the Civil Rights Act. Racial preferences are bound up with anti-discrimination law--logically, politically, historically, and jurisprudentially.


The Steele-Kristol proposal would actually be totalitarian. It would criminalize thoughts and intents that are already forbidden under civil law. If people feel pressure to conform to egalitarian dictates now, imagine how much worse it would be if jail were a possibility?


Neither is the California Civil Rights initiative much of a solution. This referendum says that neither discrimination nor preferences will be allowed in the conduct of state business. But such a law invites more questions than it answers. Depending on how it's enforced, it may not be an improvement.


Its authors hope to dethrone race and sex as criteria for state contracts and college admissions, and enshrine "merit" as its replacement. But "merit" is a subjective and nebulous concept. Isolating the abstraction of "merit" from race and sex will be difficult or impossible; the attempt will invite even more litigation.


What if not discriminating (as interpreted by courts) requires giving preferences (as interpreted by courts)? What if not giving preferences appears to be discrimination? What if the word "preference" is interpreted (by courts) not as quota but as a *de facto* lack of minority representation? As in: you have too many white males on the payroll; you must be giving special preference to them. There's no way to win this game, because, even with this referendum, the government still holds all the cards.


Quotas and racial preferences are already banned under the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts. These preferences persist because the only foundation they need is anti-discrimination itself. What good will banning quotas do so long as government has the ability to veto the results of private decision making?


It wasn't quotas that led to the class-action looting of Denny's, which ended in owners giving away 47 restaurants to the officially privileged. End every set aside, and you still have whole housing complexes harassed for keeping out criminals. Abolish all affirmative action, and colleges will still have to recruit the intellectually challenged in order to avoid the appearance of discrimination.


The only way to end the terror of quotas, and to establish a free market in talent, is to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The government needs to be stripped of its power to determine if anyone is discriminating or giving preferences (or even determining on what constitutes either). The government of a free society cannot have the power to declare holding subjective intentions, whether good or bad, to be illegal.


If a college or university wants a racial quota, fine. Another can have an exclusivist admission policy. The same goes for business: the government should never again tell anyone they have too many or not enough of this or that group. We also need to give up the notion of a "color-blind society"--a goal as absurdly utopian as socialism itself--and settle for real fairness: a neutral legal environment of contract enforcement.


Imagine a world without anti-discrimination law. Every employee would be planned and wanted. Business would be free to advertise for job openings without fearing lawsuits. There would be no more quota loans from banks. The credit rating would mean something again. The university could get back to being a place of learning instead of a victimological remediation center.

Don't count on Washington to end affirmative action any time soon. Neither party intends the overhaul of civil rights. The quota culture is so huge--in academia, business, and in the official philosophy governing public policy in this country--that it requires political root canal.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=244

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 07:42 AM
^^^^^^


The quota culture is so huge--in academia, business, and in the official philosophy governing public policy in this country--that it requires political root canal.

I'm afraid we may have to remove the jawbone.

presence
08-23-2013, 07:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xhd_TP5rG0c

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 07:45 AM
What difference does the reason make?

All the difference in the world. The gay couple only complained because the Christian photographers said it was because of their religious beliefs that they refused service.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 07:55 AM
All the difference in the world. The gay couple only complained because the Christian photographers said it was because of their religious beliefs that they refused service.

Well, yes. You suggest using subterfuge to avoid doing business with them, I say all they need to say is no, for whatever reason they decide.


“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.


Why is this? How is this tolerated?

cjm
08-23-2013, 07:58 AM
I know many social conservatives that might make good libertarians some day. Unfortunately, rulings like this undermine the "live and let live" message I try to sell. Instead of seeing that social conservatism is forcing your beliefs on others, it's now a righteous defense against the gay agenda. Sigh.

JCDenton0451
08-23-2013, 08:05 AM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

It's exactly the same situation. Any business transaction involves private agreement between two people.

FrankRep
08-23-2013, 08:08 AM
They should be able to refuse service to anybody they want.
That wouldn't mean they are right to do so though.

Who defines "right" and "wrong"?

Brett85
08-23-2013, 08:11 AM
And yet you still have a certain amount of members who post here who believe that the "gay rights movement" is part of the liberty movement.

cjm
08-23-2013, 08:30 AM
And yet you still have a certain amount of members who post here who believe that the "gay rights movement" is part of the liberty movement.

I think the "gay rights movement" is like the Tea Party movement. It has a wide spectrum of participants with a wide spectrum of agendas. Where gays are seeking equal treatment under the law, they are friends of the liberty movement. Where they are seeking to force Christians to take their pictures or pay a fine, they are not.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 08:32 AM
An easier and more recent example would be the civil rights movement of the 60s. Most of those activists at the sit-ins were Christians.

I don't really have a problem with what they did, at least to my understanding. Jim Crow discriminated in public places as well.... those people were essentially treated as second class citizens.

That said, I do not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not even really convinced I support any of the law. Even the parts where discrimination was banned on public property, I don't see where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to do that.

matt0611
08-23-2013, 08:35 AM
It's exactly the same situation. Any business transaction involves private agreement between two people.

Yep, exactly.

What's the difference if my business is based out of my house or a private office or a storefront on the street?

Just because I let people come into my store freely doesn't mean I can't refuse service to people. Its MY business, not YOURS.

Why would you want someone who didn't approve of your wedding to photograph for you anyway? The pictures will probably be sub-par. Why can't they just find someone else who will do it? Why should people be FORCED to do business with you?

That is an absolutely horrible ruling. There is basically no private property anymore when it comes to choosing who you do business with, every business serves the state now, how depressing.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 08:36 AM
I know many social conservatives that might make good libertarians some day. Unfortunately, rulings like this undermine the "live and let live" message I try to sell. Instead of seeing that social conservatism is forcing your beliefs on others, it's now a righteous defense against the gay agenda. Sigh.

There are a lot of people who believe government can't be neutral, that they will ultimately criminalize one side or the other.

I sure hope that isn't the case, and I certainly won't be condoning any of it.


And yet you still have a certain amount of members who post here who believe that the "gay rights movement" is part of the liberty movement.

Of course, there always will be some.


I think the "gay rights movement" is like the Tea Party movement. It has a wide spectrum of participants with a wide spectrum of agendas. Where gays are seeking equal treatment under the law, they are friends of the liberty movement. Where they are seeking to force Christians to take their pictures or pay a fine, they are not.

For libertarians in the gay rights movement, or even probably log cabin type Republicans, I can agree with this.

The VAST majority of liberals who are in the gay rights movement are statists who want to control people like me who have an objection to their lifestyle.

I don't think most people have any kind of a "live and let live" message.

Granted, I do kind of object to that phrase. I prefer "Strive not with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm." "Live and let live" implies that you shouldn't peacefully criticize peaceful immoral behavior either. I don't agree with that implication.

phill4paul
08-23-2013, 08:40 AM
Yeah, and while we're at it, businesses should not refuse service to the economically disadvantaged people that cannot afford the service.

I could see this type of lawsuit in the future. SMFH.

KEEF
08-23-2013, 08:43 AM
So now if they want to practice their religion they must go out of business. :mad:

Similar to Catholic Hospitals that are having an issue with Obama care and them getting law suits because they will not provide birth control and/or provide tubal ligations and vasectomies to patients because of religious beliefs.

cjm
08-23-2013, 08:45 AM
Granted, I do kind of object to that phrase. I prefer "Strive not with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm." "Live and let live" implies that you shouldn't peacefully criticize peaceful immoral behavior either. I don't agree with that implication.

I see your point, but most people don't interpret the "live and let live" phrase to mean curtailing of free speech. People should always feel free to express their opinions and religious views.

jj-
08-23-2013, 08:46 AM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

What part of 'anyone for any reason' don't you understand?

KEEF
08-23-2013, 08:46 AM
I think the "gay rights movement" is like the Tea Party movement. It has a wide spectrum of participants with a wide spectrum of agendas. Where gays are seeking equal treatment under the law, they are friends of the liberty movement. Where they are seeking to force Christians to take their pictures or pay a fine, they are not.
^THIS^ You can't ask for rights while penalizing another's when doing so. Liberty has to be a two way street, and the beauty of it is that sometimes you don't get the results you may want but oh well... get over it and don't try to find a court to make it go your way.

V3n
08-23-2013, 08:48 AM
And yet you still have a certain amount of members who post here who believe that the "gay rights movement" is part of the liberty movement.

Not sure if you're referring to me, because I've been outspoken about "gay rights" on here.. I am 100% on the side of 'A private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.'

There are other photographers they could go to, they even found one cheaper - no one is saying they CAN'T be photographed - that I would have a problem with - that would be a gay rights issue. This issue is a property rights issue.

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 09:03 AM
Once again the 1A bites the dust. So called "equal rights" supersede freedom of religion.

LibForestPaul
08-23-2013, 09:08 AM
So, the states and the federal government can discrimant against LGBT, but not individuals. Got it.

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 09:09 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Oxs5kHf.jpg

I'm sure this guy would be happy to photograph their wedding. In San Diego, there is a directory for gay and lesbian businesses. I often wonder if lawsuits like this are for the sole purpose of activism and advancing an agenda.

jj-
08-23-2013, 09:11 AM
I often wonder if lawsuits like this are for the sole purpose of activism and advancing an agenda.

You don't have to wonder. It's absolutely obvious it's to advance an agenda. There is more than 1 photographer in New Mexico.

LibForestPaul
08-23-2013, 09:13 AM
"New Mexico Human Rights Commission"...so...no trial by jury, and no pesky jury nullification?

matt0611
08-23-2013, 09:15 AM
You don't have to wonder. It's absolutely obvious it's to advance an agenda. There is more than 1 photographer in New Mexico.

It absolutely is. Gay agenda has little to do with "equal rights", its about forcing other people to approve of their lifestyle.

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 09:18 AM
"New Mexico Human Rights Commission"...so...no trial by jury, and no pesky jury nullification?

You're missing the point here. Gays are free to start their own businesses, network together, and conduct business with straights who are not dictated to by their religious convictions. It is hypocritical to force someone to do business with you, while proclaiming your rights are being violated.

LibForestPaul
08-23-2013, 09:19 AM
It absolutely is. Gay agenda has little to do with "equal rights", its about forcing other people to approve of their lifestyle.

Disagree. It is about money and divison. Theatrics. Vote for Repulican Irafuckingcare, I hate them gays. No vote for Democratic Irafuckingcaremore, gays are our friends.

V3n
08-23-2013, 09:22 AM
It absolutely is. Gay agenda has little to do with "equal rights", its about forcing other people to approve of their lifestyle.

These individual's agenda...

Dr.3D
08-23-2013, 09:56 AM
Who defines "right" and "wrong"?
You tell me Frank, who defines "right" and "wrong?"

I believe what's right for me might be wrong for someone else.

Acala
08-23-2013, 10:26 AM
It should not be about religious rights, or gay rights, or the snarky racist nonsense they tried to insert in as an example. It should be about the right of a businessman to refuse service for whatever reason. If there is a contract in place, a deposit, or short notice, then you have a case (ie - the photographer says two days before the wedding that they can't do this for religious reasons, causing a huge headache as they try to find a professional photographer within a day or two). If not, well, the photographer should be able to say "no" and suffer whatever economic fallout comes their way. I doubt there would have been any.

Freedom is so simple.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 10:29 AM
I see your point, but most people don't interpret the "live and let live" phrase to mean curtailing of free speech. People should always feel free to express their opinions and religious views.

I know that those who say "live and let live" don't necessarily interpret that to mean that free speech should bee CURTAILED. What I am saying is, I don't really accept "If it harms none, do as ye will" or something like that as a complete ethical system. I do believe, if it doesn't aggress against anyone, don't use violence to stop it, but I don't believe that necessarily means that its moral or should be culturally accepted.

cjm
08-23-2013, 10:37 AM
I know that those who say "live and let live" don't necessarily interpret that to mean that free speech should bee CURTAILED. What I am saying is, I don't really accept "If it harms none, do as ye will" or something like that as a complete ethical system. I do believe, if it doesn't aggress against anyone, don't use violence to stop it, but I don't believe that necessarily means that its moral or should be culturally accepted.

I think you are the only one here inferring all that from "live and let live." It should be clear from my post that I was speaking about a libertarian political philosophy which includes tolerance without requiring endorsement. I made no comments on moral, ethical, or cultural positions.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 10:38 AM
I think you are the only one here inferring all that from "live and let live." It should be clear from my post that I was speaking about a libertarian political philosophy which includes tolerance without requiring endorsement. I made no comments on moral, ethical, or cultural positions.

In that case, I agree with you.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 10:39 AM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 10:44 AM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

That would be a lie, and besides, its not "homophobic" you idiot. Its standing for decency and morality.

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 10:47 AM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

Religious beliefs do not necessarily equate to homophobia. And the point here, to my way of thinking, is the fallacy of "equal rights". In this case, in order for the gay couple to 'feel' like they have equal rights, they necessarily have to infringe on the religious rights of the business owner.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 10:52 AM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

You neg repped me for "Name calling" yet you called every Biblical Christian a "homophobe":rolleyes:


Religious beliefs do not necessarily equate to homophobia. And the point here, to my way of thinking, is the fallacy of "equal rights". In this case, in order for the gay couple to 'feel' like they have equal rights, they necessarily have to infringe on the religious rights of the business owner.

Exactly. +rep.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 10:52 AM
That would be a lie, and besides, its not "homophobic" you idiot. Its standing for decency and morality.

wrong. You base your opinion on gays, due to the fact you most likely harbor gay tendencies, and feel in some twisted inner world that you live in that being gay is 'bad'...guilt transference, and confusion.

i feel sorry for your types.

tod evans
08-23-2013, 10:54 AM
I'm a "businessman" and I'll damn well refuse to work for anyone I get bad vibes from.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 10:55 AM
You neg repped me for "Name calling" yet you called every Biblical Christian a "homophobe":rolleyes:




it is homophobia. If it looks like a duck.....

and you neg repped me first. I only neg rep those that neg rep me.....

lol

Paulbot99
08-23-2013, 11:02 AM
I think there is a severe self-esteem issue where you have to use the force of law to make people support your lifestyle choice.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 11:05 AM
wrong. You base your opinion on gays, due to the fact you most likely harbor gay tendencies, and feel in some twisted inner world that you live in that being gay is 'bad'...guilt transference, and confusion.

i feel sorry for your types.

:rolleyes:

Funny, I get the same accusations from a fundamentalist "Christian" on another forum for supposedly "Defending" homosexuality because I argue against the idea of homosexuality being recriminalized.

Of course, its absolute crap. I have no gay tendencies, nor do the VAST majority of people who have a moral and religious opposition to homosexuality.



it is homophobia. If it looks like a duck.....

and you neg repped me first. I only neg rep those that neg rep me.....

lol

I don't care about the neg rep. I care that you're a liberal/libertine moron.

asurfaholic
08-23-2013, 11:05 AM
I'm a "businessman" and I'll damn well refuse to work for anyone I get bad vibes from.

Yup me too. I cater to trusted individuals only.

Too many other people are out to screw you.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 11:06 AM
I think there is a severe self-esteem issue where you have to use the force of law to make people support your lifestyle choice.


plus rep.

cjm
08-23-2013, 11:09 AM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

"I don't do gay weddings" and "I'll be on vacation" are both refusals to take the work. When we distinguish between those two reasons, we enter the world of thought crimes. Property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are the issues here (the last several being derived from property rights in the first place). Words like "homophobic" feed the thought crime trolls in society. We shouldn't use those words when discussing a legal action.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 11:09 AM
I +repped that one as well.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 11:10 AM
"I don't do gay weddings" and "I'll be on vacation" are both refusals to take the work. When we distinguish between those two reasons, we enter the world of thought crimes. Property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are the issues here (the last several being derived from property rights in the first place). Words like "homophobic" feed the thought crime trolls in society. We shouldn't use those words when discussion a legal action.

How about not using them ever?

Heck, homophobia actually means "Fear of gay people". That's EXTREMELY rare. I've seen hatred and disgust at times (Or, in the case of people like me, moral opposition to the behavior, but not hatred of the individual), but I've never seen anyone actually afraid of gays.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 11:11 AM
:rolleyes:

Funny, I get the same accusations from a fundamentalist "Christian" on another forum for supposedly "Defending" homosexuality because I argue against the idea of homosexuality being recriminalized.

Of course, its absolute crap. I have no gay tendencies, nor do the VAST majority of people who have a moral and religious opposition to homosexuality.




I don't care about the neg rep. I care that you're a liberal/libertine moron.

''live by the sword...eye for an eye....my God and bible are better than everyone else's...''

you my friend are confused. You are not a freedom fanatic OR libertarian. You my friend dwell in the NEOCON world.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 11:13 AM
How about not using them ever?

Heck, homophobia actually means "Fear of gay people". That's EXTREMELY rare. I've seen hatred and disgust at times (Or, in the case of people like me, moral opposition to the behavior, but not hatred of the individual), but I've never seen anyone actually afraid of gays.

you might be fooling yourself here...but not me.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 11:15 AM
I +repped that one as well.

you plus repped the State Supreme Court ruling in favor of Gay people?.....shocked.

oyarde
08-23-2013, 11:24 AM
New Mexico Supreme Court.Unanimous decision from Sante Fe .What a bunch of dumbasses.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 11:50 AM
Well, yes. You suggest using subterfuge to avoid doing business with them, I say all they need to say is no, for whatever reason they decide.

It doesn't have to be subterfuge. The point is that I was being intentionally vague. Your method of a simple 'no' would also work. I don't see why it matters, really.


Why is this? How is this tolerated?

There may come a point when, if you don't say why you refuse service, people will automatically become suspicious. I sure hope not, but it may very well happen.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 11:58 AM
I think the "gay rights movement" is like the Tea Party movement. It has a wide spectrum of participants with a wide spectrum of agendas. Where gays are seeking equal treatment under the law, they are friends of the liberty movement. Where they are seeking to force Christians to take their pictures or pay a fine, they are not.

There is really no difference between the legal status of gays and any other type of person. That's just a front for their social agenda. The "gay marriage" debate has been twisted to mean more than what it's really about, a license from the government. No true liberty movement ever went fighting for permission from the government to do something if they can also do it legally without government permission, the only difference being the rate of taxation, which may not even be all that different and may even hurt some gay couples. Considering the consequences of that fight, I would rather take my chances fighting against all government marriages and instead go rogue, inventing my own contract, not depending on the government's contract to feel like I've achieved equality. That's a false sense of equality and it is sure not to last. The gay agenda, as a whole, has done nothing for liberty.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Yep, exactly.

What's the difference if my business is based out of my house or a private office or a storefront on the street?

Just because I let people come into my store freely doesn't mean I can't refuse service to people. Its MY business, not YOURS.

Why would you want someone who didn't approve of your wedding to photograph for you anyway? The pictures will probably be sub-par. Why can't they just find someone else who will do it? Why should people be FORCED to do business with you?

That is an absolutely horrible ruling. There is basically no private property anymore when it comes to choosing who you do business with, every business serves the state now, how depressing.

They saw an opportunity to get back at Christians for being Christian and anti-gay, and they took it. They also saw an opportunity to get some money off of it. When the photographers refused to do the wedding, the gays didn't care about the pictures. They cared about the photographers' opinion of them and sought legal recourse. What a messed up world this is.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:18 PM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

Ummm, good point, but I really object to the use of the word "homophobic". Just because you are opposed to homosexuality, that doesn't mean you are afraid of it, as the word "homophobia" implies, as if it were a disorder of some kind.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:23 PM
wrong. You base your opinion on gays, due to the fact you most likely harbor gay tendencies, and feel in some twisted inner world that you live in that being gay is 'bad'...guilt transference, and confusion.

i feel sorry for your types.

This is just asinine. You come here and call the victims "homophobes" and then you feel the need to tell people that their objection to the gay agenda automatically makes them closeted homosexuals. This is what I hate about hardcore Christian-o-phobes. They attack others for seemingly no reason for disagreeing with their point of view. It's probably because they harbor some inner Christian tendencies and don't want to admit it.

You gotta let yourself fly, man! Don't be afraid to embrace your Christianity. We won't judge you like you judge us!

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:24 PM
Ummm, good point, but I really object to the use of the word "homophobic". Just because you are opposed to homosexuality, that doesn't mean you are afraid of it, as the word "homophobia" implies, as if it were a disorder of some kind.

hmmm...ok...Homophobia exists, and mostly it comes from the bible thumpers...agreed?

cjm
08-23-2013, 12:25 PM
There is really no difference between the legal status of gays and any other type of person. That's just a front for their social agenda. The "gay marriage" debate has been twisted to mean more than what it's really about, a license from the government. No true liberty movement ever went fighting for permission from the government to do something if they can also do it legally without government permission, the only difference being the rate of taxation, which may not even be all that different and may even hurt some gay couples. Considering the consequences of that fight, I would rather take my chances fighting against all government marriages and instead go rogue, inventing my own contract, not depending on the government's contract to feel like I've achieved equality. That's a false sense of equality and it is sure not to last. The gay agenda, as a whole, has done nothing for liberty.

The thing about the license from government is that it comes with legal privileges (inheritance, can't be forced to testify against a spouse, etc), so going rogue isn't a complete solution. As long as gays can get a civil union or form some kind of contract that allows them to have all the legal privileges that come to heterosexuals through a simple marriage license (or even common law marriages), I would agree that this is a non-issue. But here in Virginia, our constitution says this:

http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/


Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

There may be no difference between the legal status of gays and others in West Virginia, but things are different here.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:27 PM
This is just asinine. You come here and call the victims "homophobes" and then you feel the need to tell people that their objection to the gay agenda automatically makes them closeted homosexuals. This is what I hate about hardcore Christian-o-phobes. They attack others for seemingly no reason for disagreeing with their point of view. It's probably because they harbor some inner Christian tendencies and don't want to admit it.

You gotta let yourself fly, man! Don't be afraid to embrace your Christianity. We won't judge you like you judge us!

tell that to the self appointed gay basher Freedom Fanatic...(oxymoron btw)

I was called 'idiot' and 'moron'....

i suppose thats some sort of an eye for an eye tactic by a so-called 'christian'

very comforting eh?

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:27 PM
it is homophobia. If it looks like a duck.....

and you neg repped me first. I only neg rep those that neg rep me.....

lol

I don't think it looks like a duck.

And besides, telling people that they're closeted homosexuals for disagreeing with you is a very asinine and immature way of distracting from the real debate by trying to discredit the person instead of what they believe.

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 12:31 PM
If you have a business license you are subject to the dictates of the state. (The Beast)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

E-verify and Obamacare will only increase the beast system. A pox on both establishment republicans and democrats.

Melissa
08-23-2013, 12:33 PM
This is why I will not support this agenda...my first rule is limited government..so no matter the issue..if it violates my first rule by growing government I will not support it to even get to number 2... I can never promote something that asks for more government..can't we please please use this and the IRS issue to promote getting government out...then I can get on board...

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 12:33 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race?

But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody.

Actually....as long as the store only sells things produced in state and is far enough away from an interstate highway, the 1964 civil rights act as written doesn't apply.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:34 PM
I don't think it looks like a duck.

And besides, telling people that they're closeted homosexuals for disagreeing with you is a very asinine and immature way of distracting from the real debate by trying to discredit the person instead of what they believe.

over target...flack begins.

edit:....as an aside, i agree that business owners have the right to refuse service to...ANYONE.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:38 PM
''live by the sword...eye for an eye....my God and bible are better than everyone else's...''

you my friend are confused. You are not a freedom fanatic OR libertarian. You my friend dwell in the NEOCON world.

Obviously you would believe your God and bible were better than everyone else's if you hold to that religion, but that doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. I believe my athletic skills are better than yours, and I may be right, but that doesn't mean I'm an ass for believing that just because it involves superiority. If I believe my job is better than yours, does that mean I'm an idiot for trying to convince you that you should join my line of work and reap the benefits like I do?

Your accusation of anyone who believes in the Bible must be a neocon is just out-of-this-world crazy. You have absolutely no foundation for that belief. To say you do means you think you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christians do. "My understanding of what the Bible says about social conservatism is better than everyone else's". Now stop trying to point the finger and CHILL. THE. FUCK. OUT.

There are no homophobes or closeted gays here. There are only human beings trying to peacefully discuss the implications of this particular legal action.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:43 PM
Obviously you would believe your God and bible were better than everyone else's if you hold to that religion, but that doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. I believe my athletic skills are better than yours, and I may be right, but that doesn't mean I'm an ass for believing that just because it involves superiority. If I believe my job is better than yours, does that mean I'm an idiot for trying to convince you that you should join my line of work and reap the benefits like I do?

Your accusation of anyone who believes in the Bible must be a neocon is just out-of-this-world crazy. You have absolutely no foundation for that belief. To say you do means you think you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christians do. "My understanding of what the Bible says about social conservatism is better than everyone else's". Now stop trying to point the finger and CHILL. THE. FUCK. OUT.

There are no homophobes or closeted gays here. There are only human beings trying to peacefully discuss the implications of this particular legal action.


hmmm...yeah well, someone needs to chill, and it ain't me.

Thanks for playing the... 'i'm a Christian, and because i am, i can hit you over the head with my bible' game.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:44 PM
hmmm...ok...Homophobia exists, and mostly it comes from the bible thumpers...agreed?

No, to say it even exists would be giving it too much legitimacy. I have not seen any evidence of it, myself, but you seem to think it happens all the time. In reality, the word is just a political buzz term that people only use to discredit the opposition and I don't think it should ever be used in the context of a political debate. There is no evidence that anyone who holds that belief is actually a homophobe, so it would be best to just not use those kinds of judgmental terms in the first place... agreed?

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 12:46 PM
over target...flack begins.

edit:....as an aside, i agree that business owners have the right to refuse service to...ANYONE.

Question. Do you believe that it is impossible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Yes or no?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:47 PM
No, to say it even exists would be giving it too much legitimacy. I have not seen any evidence of it, myself, but you seem to think it happens all the time. In reality, the word is just a political buzz term that people only use to discredit the opposition and I don't think it should ever be used in the context of a political debate. There is no evidence that anyone who holds that belief is actually a homophobe, so it would be best to just not use those kinds of judgmental terms in the first place... agreed?

right is right and wrong is wrong.

agreed?

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:49 PM
The thing about the license from government is that it comes with legal privileges (inheritance, can't be forced to testify against a spouse, etc), so going rogue isn't a complete solution. As long as gays can get a civil union or form some kind of contract that allows them to have all the legal privileges that come to heterosexuals through a simple marriage license (or even common law marriages), I would agree that this is a non-issue. But here in Virginia, our constitution says this:

http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/



There may be no difference between the legal status of gays and others in West Virginia, but things are different here.

I never said it was a complete solution, but then again, what complete solution to any political problem actually exists? The point is, it's not about freedom. It's about the freaking license. People need to recognize that in order to have a clear understanding of what the debate is all about.

What I meant to say, was that gays have all the same rights as other people. There is no such thing as the right to obtain a license of marriage from your state government. So we need to stop acting like this is about rights at all and completely detach liberty from the "gay rights agenda". It's not about rights or liberty, it's about getting a slice of the government pie.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:50 PM
Question. Do you believe that it is impossible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Yes or no?

context is everything, and using religion to pigeon hole a group of people is collectivist. Using the 'gay' term, using the '****-sexual' term is in fact collectivist. If all you 'religious types would stop using those terms, i will agree to stop using the term 'homophobe'...agreed?

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 12:51 PM
context is everything, and using religion to pigeon hole a group of people is collectivist. Using the 'gay' term, using the '****-sexual' term is in fact collectivist. If all you 'religious types would stop using those terms, i will agree to stop using the term 'homophobe'...agreed?

Ummmmm.....gay people use the terms "gay and homosexual". :confused: What do you call "gay pride month?" :confused:

Edit: And I didn't use either term in my question. Why can't you just answer it? What are you afraid of?

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:52 PM
tell that to the self appointed gay basher Freedom Fanatic...(oxymoron btw)

I was called 'idiot' and 'moron'....

i suppose thats some sort of an eye for an eye tactic by a so-called 'christian'

very comforting eh?

Your tactics are immature. It's no wonder he called you those things. Because "moron", unlike "dumbo-face" actually has a meaning, and you are coming very close to fitting it. Sorry if it offends you, but you're obviously the one who cast the first name-calling stone when you suggested that people who oppose the gay lifestyle on principle are "homophobes" and closeted gays. Either you are deliberately being obtuse or you have trouble separating reality from fantasy.

asurfaholic
08-23-2013, 12:56 PM
hmmm...ok...Homophobia exists, and mostly it comes from the bible thumpers...agreed?

Name calling collectivist much? Didnt you just get done saying that name calling = lost argument?

What exactly is a Bible thumper, and do you think that anyone who holds the religion of Christianity is one ? ?

Not every Christian is a "**** phobe". Sure some are tyrants to some degree, but how many Christians are suing gays for any reason. One group is being persecuted and its not the gays. See OP.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:57 PM
hmmm...yeah well, someone needs to chill, and it ain't me.

Thanks for playing the... 'i'm a Christian, and because i am, i can hit you over the head with my bible' game.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You're the one who came crashing into this thread with your idiotic comments about homophobes and closeted gays. Also, I never said I could hit you over the head with my Bible, nor did I ever try to. Where did you even get that from? You really do need to chill out.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 12:58 PM
Your tactics are immature. It's not wonder he called you those things. Because "moron", unlike "dumbo-face" actually has a meaning, and you are coming very close to fitting it. Sorry if it offends you, but you're obviously the one who cast the first name-calling stone when you suggested that people who oppose the gay lifestyle on principle are "homophobes" and closeted gays. Either you are deliberately being obtuse or you have trouble separating reality from fantasy.

apparently you don't know what a DIRECT PERSONAL insult is.

Calling a dedicated group like organized religion a ****-phobic org. is not a DIRECT PERSONAL insult. Learn the difference and go in peace brother.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 12:58 PM
right is right and wrong is wrong.

agreed?

Seeing as how that those two things are inherently the same, yes, I agree. But that doesn't really answer my question.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 01:02 PM
context is everything, and using religion to pigeon hole a group of people is collectivist. Using the 'gay' term, using the '****-sexual' term is in fact collectivist. If all you 'religious types would stop using those terms, i will agree to stop using the term 'homophobe'...agreed?

If we agree to stop using the term gay and homosexual? How, then, should we refer to them? I don't agree with your premise that being collectivist is inherently wrong. I am collectively referring to them as homosexuals, but that doesn't mean I support collectivizing them politically, which is something else entirely.

The difference between me using the word homosexual and you using the word homophobe is that yours is a political buzzword used to discredit the opposition with language rather than with actual logic.

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 01:04 PM
apparently you don't know what a DIRECT PERSONAL insult is.

Calling a dedicated group like organized religion a ****-phobic org. is not a DIRECT PERSONAL insult. Learn the difference and go in peace brother.

Again, answer the question. Is it possible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Why can't you answer that simple question?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:04 PM
If we agree to stop using the term gay and homosexual? How, then, should we refer to them? I don't agree with your premise that being collectivist is inherently wrong. I am collectively referring to them as homosexuals, but that doesn't mean I support collectivizing them politically, which is something else entirely.

The difference between me using the word homosexual and you using the word homophobe is that yours is a political buzzword used to discredit the opposition with language rather than with actual logic.


not true, but then its what i expect from ****-phobes.

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 01:05 PM
not true, but then its what i expect from ****-phobes.

Again, answer the question. Is it possible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Why can't you answer that simple question?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:05 PM
Again, answer the question. Is it possible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Why can't you answer that simple question?

hypothetical questions are so.....quaint.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 01:07 PM
apparently you don't know what a DIRECT PERSONAL insult is.

Calling a dedicated group like organized religion a ****-phobic org. is not a DIRECT PERSONAL insult. Learn the difference and go in peace brother.

Oh, I know what it is, and my point is that your behavior doesn't really make you exempt from that kind of treatment. The fact that your insult is an indirect attempt to discredit the opposition with rhetorical tactics is no less insidious to me.

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 01:08 PM
hypothetical questions are so.....quaint.

This isn't a hypothetical question. Why are you afraid to answer it?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:09 PM
Again, answer the question. Is it possible for someone to disagree with something without being afraid of it? Why can't you answer that simple question?

We're dealing with human beings here. The question is a gray area and has no relevance.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 01:09 PM
not true, but then its what i expect from ****-phobes.

Now you're just using rhetorical nonsense. If you insist on using that term, fine, but you're only discrediting yourself by doing it, and I won't take part in a conversation with someone who is so deeply entrenched in rhetoric that they don't have any use for reality or logic.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 01:10 PM
hypothetical questions are so.....quaint.

The idea that homophobes even exist is hypothetical.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:11 PM
The idea that homophobes even exist is hypothetical.

your opinion.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 01:11 PM
We're dealing with human beings here. The question is a gray area and has no relevance.

So then you would agree that many homosexuals are heterophobes or Christian-o-phobes?

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 01:13 PM
We're dealing with human beings here. The question is a gray area and has no relevance.

It has total relevance and it's not "gray". Either it's possible for someone to disagree with something without being "phobic" about it, or it isn't. And it's relevant because you are claiming that people you don't know are "phobic" about something simply because they disagree with it and don't wish to participate in celebrating it.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:13 PM
Oh, I know what it is, and my point is that your behavior doesn't really make you exempt from that kind of treatment. The fact that your insult is an indirect attempt to discredit the opposition with rhetorical tactics is no less insidious to me.


so i suppose i won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year?

jmdrake
08-23-2013, 01:15 PM
your opinion.

And you have your opinion. Everybody has opinions. But we can nail down facts. One fact is whether or not it is possible to disagree with something without being "phobic" about it. Yes or no?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:16 PM
It has total relevance and it's not "gray". Either it's possible for someone to disagree with something without being "phobic" about it, or it isn't. And it's relevant because you are claiming that people you don't know are "phobic" about something simply because they disagree with it and don't wish to participate in celebrating it.


ok...fine. You aren't ****-phobic. I'll cross your name off the list. Better now?

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 01:17 PM
And you have your opinion. Everybody has opinions. But we can nail down facts. One fact is whether or not it is possible to disagree with something without being "phobic" about it. Yes or no?

again...we're talking about humans, not rabid dogs.

cjm
08-23-2013, 02:05 PM
I never said it was a complete solution, but then again, what complete solution to any political problem actually exists? The point is, it's not about freedom. It's about the freaking license. People need to recognize that in order to have a clear understanding of what the debate is all about.

What I meant to say, was that gays have all the same rights as other people. There is no such thing as the right to obtain a license of marriage from your state government. So we need to stop acting like this is about rights at all and completely detach liberty from the "gay rights agenda". It's not about rights or liberty, it's about getting a slice of the government pie.

You are correct to say, "there is no such thing as the right to obtain a license..." Rights do not require permission from anyone. A license is by definition, permission.

If getting a slice of the government pie means that communications between my wife and I are considered privileged in the eyes of the courts, I'm ok with gay couples having a similar slice. Denying them that slice of pie just invites a "gay rights agenda" to divide and distract. And just to be clear, I'm simply talking about legal status within the context of government. The Catholic Church and other private organizations should be able to include/exclude anyone they want and set their own rules.

bolil
08-23-2013, 02:08 PM
To be guilty of discriminating.

That is crazy talk. I am guilty of discriminating myself Brown from Yellow, good from bad, sad from happy.

The Free Hornet
08-23-2013, 02:18 PM
A couple other angles...

Photography is covered by copyright and although Ayn Rand claimed it wasn't art, there are enough photographers to disagree with that sentiment to make the point moot. This is not like refusing to sell readymade product but refusing to engage in - to the artist - distasteful speech.

What if they were nudists and wanted a nude wedding, can you force a photographer to cover that and all the liabilities there?

Having a photographer who doesn't want to be there is an invitation for, at worst,

- higher costs, bigger down payments
- dirty lenses
- blurry photographs
- cropped guests or missing people altogether
- games with copyright assignment

At best you have someone at a party who doesn't want to be there. Of course, nobody wants to be there especially the husband but people are generally not forced by the state to be there.


One point from post #10:


Let me ask this, when was the last time you heard of a Christian couple or otherwise go into a business and demand they be served when they weren't welcome? And then taken it to court. And then have a judge decide in their favor.

The atheists - being intelligent - will gladly take your "In God We Trust" money so first you must find secular/atheists businesses that would actually refuse service for such bullshit.

So good luck. Seriously, good luck finding the atheist small business out there with the 'no Christians welcome' attitude.

Edit: You might find some other religions that discriminate against Christians. So there is that possibility.


Edit#2: Perhaps the best way to legally discriminate is to make it overtly clear that any contract is contingent upon a photographer being available and willing to go to the time/place of the wedding.

presence
08-23-2013, 02:20 PM
If people don't want to be around something they should have every right to not involve themselves.

What happens if two members from Stormfront Decided to get married in a full regalia KKK wedding...

Can they put in requests for service from every black photographer within 100 miles and then file civil suits for every no show?




http://sbcjournalistas.blog.sbc.edu/files/2011/09/kkkwedding1.jpg

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 03:06 PM
*snap*

bunklocoempire
08-23-2013, 03:07 PM
If people don't want to be around something they should have every right to not involve themselves.

What happens if two members from Stormfront Decided to get married in a full regalia KKK wedding...

Can they put in requests for service from every black photographer within 100 miles and then file civil suits for every no show?




http://sbcjournalistas.blog.sbc.edu/files/2011/09/kkkwedding1.jpg


“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins black photographers have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”
tolerance that lubricates... lol The state is hardly known for licking it before sticking it.

I imagine "belief" and "conduct" would again be conveniently manipulated and used interchangeably by the court to just-us-fy force -but likely in a different way.

What a bunch of crap.:mad:

ObiRandKenobi
08-23-2013, 03:17 PM
geezus...if you're that homophobic and don't want to photograph a gay wedding, tell them you'll be on vacation.....or something. Don't tell them ''no, you're gay, i don't do gay weddings''.....

James Madison wrote in the federalist papers: "No business should be able to refuse to photograph gays. They can lie about it, which I suppose would be okay under the Constitution, but generally speaking, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to photograph gays. "

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 03:32 PM
again...we're talking about humans, not rabid dogs.

I don't like the government, and I disagree with their policies, but that doesn't mean I live in fear of it.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 03:35 PM
You are correct to say, "there is no such thing as the right to obtain a license..." Rights do not require permission from anyone. A license is by definition, permission.

If getting a slice of the government pie means that communications between my wife and I are considered privileged in the eyes of the courts, I'm ok with gay couples having a similar slice. Denying them that slice of pie just invites a "gay rights agenda" to divide and distract. And just to be clear, I'm simply talking about legal status within the context of government. The Catholic Church and other private organizations should be able to include/exclude anyone they want and set their own rules.

But if you really want more liberty, why not advocate for less government instead of more? Take away licenses altogether rather than provide them to more people. That just increases the government's role in all our lives and makes us, as a society, more dependent on government. I don't want to give licenses to gays. I want to take them away from everyone.

That said, however, the main point is that this is not about liberty at all. The gay rights agenda has nothing to do with rights, and it should stop putting up that facade.

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 03:41 PM
A couple other angles...

Photography is covered by copyright and although Ayn Rand claimed it wasn't art, there are enough photographers to disagree with that sentiment to make the point moot. This is not like refusing to sell readymade product but refusing to engage in - to the artist - distasteful speech.

What if they were nudists and wanted a nude wedding, can you force a photographer to cover that and all the liabilities there?

Having a photographer who doesn't want to be there is an invitation for, at worst,

- higher costs, bigger down payments
- dirty lenses
- blurry photographs
- cropped guests or missing people altogether
- games with copyright assignment

At best you have someone at a party who doesn't want to be there. Of course, nobody wants to be there especially the husband but people are generally not forced by the state to be there.


One point from post #10:



The atheists - being intelligent - will gladly take your "In God We Trust" money so first you must find secular/atheists businesses that would actually refuse service for such bullshit.

So good luck. Seriously, good luck finding the atheist small business out there with the 'no Christians welcome' attitude.

Edit: You might find some other religions that discriminate against Christians. So there is that possibility.


Edit#2: Perhaps the best way to legally discriminate is to make it overtly clear that any contract is contingent upon a photographer being available and willing to go to the time/place of the wedding.

"The atheists - being intelligent..."

Oh yeah, I forgot that not believing in God automatically makes one smart. Please, that's just rhetoric. Atheists only think that because they're pompous and self-righteous. They're no smarter than Christians. There are many successful Christian businesses, and none that I can think of who pride themselves on being atheist. They may be secular, sure, but the point is that Christians can be businessmen, too, and you are extremely naive for implying that atheism is the more intelligent belief. I abhor that asinine attitude, and you should, too.

Lucille
08-23-2013, 03:49 PM
They're not homophobes (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356539/clashing-claims-ryan-t-anderson):


Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians, but only of such a same-sex ceremony, because of the owners’ belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees — it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.


Once again the 1A bites the dust. So called "equal rights" supersede freedom of religion.

Bingo. And if people think this won't eventually be the case for churches and marriages, they've got another thing coming. It won't be long until their tax exempt status is threatened over it (which churches should have long ago refused anyway). Anti-discrimination laws already apply to off-site property owned by churches where they hold weddings and receptions, which I'm sure must also apply to weekend retreats for married couples and events like that.

Religious Liberty, Artistic Freedom Rollback In New Mexico
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-liberty-artistic-freedom-rollback-in-new-mexico/


Note well that the libertarian Cato Institute and prominent law professors Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter — all supporters of same-sex marriage — had filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the photographers, arguing that artists must not be compelled by the state to use their talent in ways that violate their conscience. There is simply no way not to see photography as an art. The New Mexico court disagreed. New Mexico does not have same-sex marriage; the ruling was not on marriage law, but anti-discrimination law. Still, the importance of this ruling is that it’s another example of courts establishing in jurisprudence that homosexuality is exactly like race for purposes of non-discrimination — that is, that the only reason to discriminate against homosexuals is irrational animus, as the US Supreme Court has been holding.

I would have granted First Amendment protection to an artist wishing to discriminate on the basis of race, or any other protected category. To compel a writer, photographer, painter, composer, or what have you, to put her talent into the service of something that violates their conscience is a serious wrong. If a gay photographer believed in good conscience that he could not photograph the wedding of Christian fundamentalists, then I think he absolutely should have the right to refuse, on First Amendment grounds.
[...]
Anyway, given the nature of this business — that it involves artistic expression — I can’t see this ruling as anything beyond government mandating expression in violation of the First Amendment. I hope the plaintiffs appeal to the US Supreme Court, but I have no idea if they stand a chance of prevailing.
[...]

Indeed, for many supporters of redefining marriage, such infringements on religious liberty are not flaws but virtues of the movement (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356539/clashing-claims-ryan-t-anderson).
[...]
But in a growing number of incidents, government hasn’t respected the beliefs of Americans. Citizens must insist that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government — or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars — from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

We also must work to see marriage law reflect the truth about marriage. If marriage is redefined, then believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage — that it is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and family life — would be seen increasingly as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.

It is happening. Don’t believe you when they say it’s not, or it’s not serious.

Whatever. Americans have lost every other right. Why not religious liberty too?

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-23-2013, 04:23 PM
obviously the couple wanted to make someone's life miserable out of spite, instead of simply moving on to a different photographer who doesn't care what he photographs as long as he gets paid. TOLERANCE!

helmuth_hubener
08-23-2013, 04:31 PM
Can a store refuse to serve somebody because they are a different race? In a just society? Absolutely! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!


But I don't consider this the same situation. This is a private agreement between two people (the photographer and the party) while a business on the street should be open to everybody. Oh? So there are some type of magical properties which you associate with this thing you call a "street"? Fascinating!

What a wonderful and diverse world we live in, full of all kinds of surprising ideas!

Deborah K
08-23-2013, 04:32 PM
obviously the couple wanted to make someone's life miserable out of spite, instead of simply moving on to a different photographer who doesn't care what he photographs as long as he gets paid. TOLERANCE!

Tolerance does not apply to the right to freely practice your religion.

Christian Liberty
08-23-2013, 04:32 PM
tell that to the self appointed gay basher Freedom Fanatic...(oxymoron btw)

I was called 'idiot' and 'moron'....

i suppose thats some sort of an eye for an eye tactic by a so-called 'christian'

very comforting eh?

There's nothing unChristian about calling a spade a spade.

That said, the administration pointed out to me that such insults are against forum rules, and as such, I will discontinue.




A couple other angles...

Photography is covered by copyright and although Ayn Rand claimed it wasn't art, there are enough photographers to disagree with that sentiment to make the point moot. This is not like refusing to sell readymade product but refusing to engage in - to the artist - distasteful speech.

What if they were nudists and wanted a nude wedding, can you force a photographer to cover that and all the liabilities there?

Having a photographer who doesn't want to be there is an invitation for, at worst,

- higher costs, bigger down payments
- dirty lenses
- blurry photographs
- cropped guests or missing people altogether
- games with copyright assignment

At best you have someone at a party who doesn't want to be there. Of course, nobody wants to be there especially the husband but people are generally not forced by the state to be there.


One point from post #10:



The atheists - being intelligent - will gladly take your "In God We Trust" money so first you must find secular/atheists businesses that would actually refuse service for such bullshit.

So good luck. Seriously, good luck finding the atheist small business out there with the 'no Christians welcome' attitude.

Edit: You might find some other religions that discriminate against Christians. So there is that possibility.


Edit#2: Perhaps the best way to legally discriminate is to make it overtly clear that any contract is contingent upon a photographer being available and willing to go to the time/place of the wedding.

To clarify some things.

While I legally support the right for people to have whatever discrimination policies they want, I would normally view discrimination against gays as being in a similar vein as discrimination based on race. As such, I wouldn't morally condone such, and would personally boycott a business that did it, but I believe it should be illegal.

This is an exception because this is actually dealing with providing a service for a gay wedding specifically. Which a lot of Christians, including myself, have an objection to.

Most people who would refuse to photograph a gay wedding wouldn't kick a gay person out of their store or refuse to serve them in a restaurant.


I don't like the government, and I disagree with their policies, but that doesn't mean I live in fear of it.

That may be unwise;)


obviously the couple wanted to make someone's life miserable out of spite, instead of simply moving on to a different photographer who doesn't care what he photographs as long as he gets paid. TOLERANCE!

Exactly. The gay rights movement is predominately not libertarian minded. There are, as always, exceptions to every rule.

DamianTV
08-23-2013, 04:56 PM
To me, all this talk of Gays and Discrimination is nothing more than an excuse for denying Rights to people based on being cast into a Group. If you are part of this group, you have Rights, but if you are part of 'that' group, you deserve no Rights. This leads me to believe that the determination of a person having Rights or not is completely subject to another group providing Permission to have ANY Rights. And that my friends is the opposite of Liberty.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 05:14 PM
To me, all this talk of Gays and Discrimination is nothing more than an excuse for denying Rights to people based on being cast into a Group. If you are part of this group, you have Rights, but if you are part of 'that' group, you deserve no Rights. This leads me to believe that the determination of a person having Rights or not is completely subject to another group providing Permission to have ANY Rights. And that my friends is the opposite of Liberty.

Yes indeed. This entire discussion is really about a biz owner having the right to refuse service to anyone, not what the reason is about, but it seems our resident ''icky gayz' crowd are making this a religious issue.

DamianTV
08-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Yes indeed. This entire discussion is really about a biz owner having the right to refuse service to anyone, not what the reason is about, but it seems our resident ''icky gayz' crowd are making this a religious issue.

Exactly. Although not enumerated, Businesses do retain the Right to Refuse Service. And gays have just as much Right to be Gay. The Rights of both groups end when they infringe on the Rights of the others.


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

- Thomas Jefferson

This is also why I dont believe people have a Right to Healthcare or Right to Education. It is because anothers Rights are infringed upon, regardless if a person would willingly provide Healthcare or Education to another party or if they were to refuse. These agreements and disagreements are the foundation of Contract Law.

Lucille
08-23-2013, 05:26 PM
Yes indeed. This entire discussion is really about a biz owner having the right to refuse service to anyone, not what the reason is about, but it seems our resident ''icky gayz' crowd are making this a religious issue.

I don't have anything against teh gheyz, and I believe they were being discriminated against by the state, being denied the right to marry who they choose. (This also applies to polygamists.) But it is a religious issue. The photographers object to gay marriage, not homosexuals.


Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356539/clashing-claims-ryan-t-anderson), but only of such a same-sex ceremony, because of the owners’ belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees — it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.

I disagree with what Elane Photography did, but I will defend their right to do it.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 05:32 PM
Maybe...just maybe this business should post a sign...NO GAY WEDDING SERVICES...

That way, i can open a business across the street that has a sign...WE CATER TO GAY WEDDINGS...

problem solved....

robert9712000
08-23-2013, 05:38 PM
There such hypocrites,i bet they wouldn't have ruled that way if a chucky cheese refused service to a convicted pedophile.

scrosnoe
08-23-2013, 06:15 PM
Who really didn't see this coming? It has never "been about equal rights".

bingo!

PaulConventionWV
08-23-2013, 06:37 PM
Yes indeed. This entire discussion is really about a biz owner having the right to refuse service to anyone, not what the reason is about, but it seems our resident ''icky gayz' crowd are making this a religious issue.

You came here attacking us. The thread had been peaceful before then. I guess it was inevitable that some "luvly gayz" person was going to come here and start being intolerant of other people's views/lifestyles.

NoOneButPaul
08-23-2013, 06:42 PM
I'm not Christian but that's super fucked up. It's his business he should be able to refuse whoever the hell he wants. So now in the future people are FORCED to do jobs they don't want to- that's even more screwed up!

DamianTV
08-23-2013, 06:44 PM
I'm not Christian but that's super fucked up. It's his business he should be able to refuse whoever the hell he wants. So now in the future people are FORCED to do jobs they don't want to- that's even more screwed up!

Welcome to Communism.

Now go be what your Govt tells you to be. And provide your skills to people you dont want to provide your skills to. Allow your community to take everything you produce. Such is the Foundation of Communism. Funny how Communism still allows for the people at the top to reap an unequal share of benefits in comparison to the Communist Mundanes.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 07:04 PM
You came here attacking us. The thread had been peaceful before then. I guess it was inevitable that some "luvly gayz" person was going to come here and start being intolerant of other people's views/lifestyles.

you are in error. Sorry.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 09:22 PM
over target...flack begins.



Really? Wow, stroke yourself much? Just keep repeating the same tired old mantra JK.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 09:31 PM
I don't like the government, and I disagree with their policies, but that doesn't mean I live in fear of it.

Well, while I don't fear homosexuals, I do fear the government.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 09:38 PM
Maybe...just maybe this business should post a sign...NO GAY WEDDING SERVICES...

That way, i can open a business across the street that has a sign...WE CATER TO GAY WEDDINGS...

problem solved....

Except it wouldn't be solved. The business that posted the .NO GAY WEDDING SERVICES... sign would be harassed, vandalized, and attacked legally until it went out of business.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 09:43 PM
Except it wouldn't be solved. The business that posted the .NO GAY WEDDING SERVICES... sign would be harassed, vandalized, and attacked legally until it went out of business.


perhaps...but the same thing could happen to the Cater to gays store.

Origanalist
08-23-2013, 09:46 PM
perhaps...but the same thing could happen to the Cater to gays store.

True, I suppose it all depends on the location.

xkrazy201x
08-23-2013, 09:48 PM
perhaps...but the same thing could happen to the Cater to gays store.

If you think the cater to the gay's store would be attacked legally, you're dreaming.

JK/SEA
08-23-2013, 10:04 PM
If you think the cater to the gay's store would be attacked legally, you're dreaming.

hmmm..are you sure?...i vividly recall petitions to stop gay marriage at my County Re-org. convention just late last year...its not a big stretch that the 'icky gayz' crowd would put up an effort to close them down..

xkrazy201x
08-23-2013, 11:04 PM
Gay marriage and petitioning is different from lawsuits forcing a group to act against their belief system.

oyarde
08-24-2013, 11:13 AM
so i suppose i won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year?

I expect them from everyone :)

Dr.3D
08-24-2013, 11:14 AM
I expect them from everyone :)
In these hard times, you had better send a SASE if you want one.

oyarde
08-24-2013, 11:17 AM
In these hard times, you had better send a SASE if you want one.

Yeah .

oyarde
08-24-2013, 11:18 AM
Just so everyone is clear, I do not live in New Mexico and I will take wedding pictures for no persons.

MelissaWV
08-24-2013, 11:40 AM
You came here attacking us. The thread had been peaceful before then. I guess it was inevitable that some "luvly gayz" person was going to come here and start being intolerant of other people's views/lifestyles.

Point of information: it was peaceful even with LGBTs posting in it. Instead of deciding JK is representative of a group (I have no idea wtf you even mean by "luvly gayz"), perhaps consider they're an individual with their own opinion and reasons for posting.

Origanalist
08-24-2013, 11:51 AM
Just so everyone is clear, I do not live in New Mexico and I will take wedding pictures for no persons.

Well, you're absolved of all charges of homophobia then.

cjm
08-25-2013, 08:49 AM
But if you really want more liberty, why not advocate for less government instead of more? Take away licenses altogether rather than provide them to more people. That just increases the government's role in all our lives and makes us, as a society, more dependent on government. I don't want to give licenses to gays. I want to take them away from everyone..

I never said that licenses should exit. I just acknowledged that they do exist and that they are applied unequally. I was responding to this statement you made:


There is really no difference between the legal status of gays and any other type of person. That's just a front for their social agenda...

I agree that doing away with all marriage licenses would be the preferred solution.