CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

Splitting hairs. Once you concede that government is a "business partner", that if you dare to open your business to the public you give up self-determination, the battle is lost.

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

 

[colfax_m]

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

There is no such thing as "unfettered access" and places of public accommodation still retain rules by which their property can be used, so long as those rules are nondiscriminatory.

 

[martybegan]

That was an actual public accommodation, providing a non specialized, point of sale service. It's not a contracted service.

Despite what progressives want to force on people, a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposite sex marriage in the eyes of most religions.

Are you saying the right to a specific photographer outweighs a person's right to free exercise in all cases? Going further, should a Catholic church be forced to perform same sex ceremonies?

Ordering a burger isn't that different than a contracted service. Just a shorter time frame. Getting a hotel room is a contracted service. We wouldn't let someone deny a couple a place to stay because their religion tells them that two people who aren't married shouldn't share a bed.

They're taking photos. If their religion says not to get married to someone of the same sex, then they shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.

A hotel is a public accommodation, i.e. the public is allowed onto the property of the person to conduct commerce, in this case renting a room. What the people do in the room is immaterial as the people owning the hotel wouldn't know and have no direct interaction in what is being done in the room.

A burger is a burger, and each burger produced is the same burger regardless of the person eating it. A Same sex wedding is not the same as an opposite sex wedding in the eyes of most religions, as they don't accept the concept of marriage between same sex people.

They are being asked to participate in a ceremony and celebration they believe is immoral. A person not beholden to the SJW concept of "our way or else" would be able to understand the idea that government isn't supposed to ruin people or force them to do things simply over hurt feelings, which is what these cases are about.

And the whole 'if you don't like X don't do X" trope is a cop-out. How about "if you don't like Alabama banning abortions don't live in Alabama"?

What the people do in the room is quite material to the owners of the hotel. They have the ability to determine behaviors that are allowed or disallowed. For instance, smoking. It's perfectly conceivable that under your framework, a religious hotel owner could deny service to a couple who would be sleeping in the same room that would be immoral in their religion. A hotel is a public accommodation, open to the public. The photographer's business is likewise public, open to anyone who wants to seek their services.

A burger isn't always just a burger. Take it to the next level and go to a fine dining restaurant. The meal created for you is "art" as much as a photo.

They're not celebrating anything. They're taking photos. No one asks for the approval of the photographer in order to be married. Taking photos is not the immoral act and that's all they're being asked to do.

Smoking can actually increase costs on the owner, and reduce business due to others not wanting to be in a smoking allowed room. Smoking also isn't a Constitutional Right, which Free Exercise is.

A photographer is not a Public Accommodation, again despite progressive attempts to say a PA is any time money changes hands. Public is not Public Accommodation.

And sorry, but the burger as art thing is a stretch.

They are being forced to attend an event they see as immoral.

Unlike you, I can actually try to compromise on things, people like you accept nothing but total surrender.

In the case of a Hotel, I agree they are a PA when renting out rooms overnight and cannot deny rooms based on anything, but to me they could deny use of one of their conference rooms for a same sex wedding, as that is a contracted service for a specific event, and not a PA.

The photographer's business is open to the public. A different business, such as a private country club has a golf course which is not a public accommodation. The restaurant in that private club is not a public accommodation. These are not businesses that are open to the public. They're only open to members of the club. That's how some country clubs can get away with banning black people for so long.

I've had some extremely beautiful meals which demonstrate higher art than this shitty photographer ever could.

A contract to use a space for a wedding is not that different than a contract to use a hotel room for sleeping.

A PA involves inviting someone on your property without appointment or permission for the sole purpose of engaging in commerce. A McDonalds, a Bodega, A hotel, A movie theater.

It isn't hiring someone to come to your event and photograph it. It isn't renting out a space for an event that is not open to the public.

The only reason you think the photographer is "shitty" is they disagree with you politically. It just shows your bigotry.

This all boils down to the SJW inability to let any contrary idea be out there, or to let anyone they decree as "evil" to exist without punishment.

The only harm to the SSM couple is hurt feelings and needing to find another photographer, the harm to the photographer is either going against their morals, or being fined out of business.

A good point on the definition of public accommodation, but I'd argue it's just as bad if a service is open to the public that denies others based on their individual aspects.

Say someone needed an electrician or other repairman to fix something in their house. You okay with a plumber refusing to fix someone's broken water because the homeowner is black? Just as bad in my book.

I provide services to people who do or believe things I consider immoral. You think I let my personal belief's affect helping someone? Of course not.

The photographer believes same sex marriage is immoral. No one is asking them to be in a same sex marriage.

I say it's horrible to make a person choose between their chosen profession and their religion, especially when the same service can easily be procured elsewhere.

A black person having running water or electricity isn't against anyone's religion, two men or women getting married is.

The person fixing things isn't endorsing a person being black, gay or purple. A person being forced to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony is being forced to endorse said ceremony.

A person can declare anything against their religion they want, it's not the government to decide what is and isn't a religious belief.

Even so, it's easy to see a way that the plumber would deny service based on race. For instance, that black person is married to a white person, which people have declared against their religion in eras gone by.

The religion in question does not say that they shouldn't take photos of a gay couple. The photographer isn't endorsing anything. No one gives a shit if the photographer thinks these people should get married.

It's also not for the government to decide who's hurt feelings are more important.

Plumbers fix pipes, pipes to my knowledge have no real religious significance, there is no same sex water going through them, or same sex poop going threw the sewage pipes.

The religion in question says relations between same sex people is sinful, the event they are being forced to attend and participate in is a celebration of said relations, endorsed now by the State.

If you "didn't give a shit" about it, why force them to participate in the celebration by power of law?

 

[martybegan]

Only if you allow the public unfettered access to your property in the pursuit of commerce. The whole concept of a "Public Accommodation"

There is no such thing as "unfettered access" and places of public accommodation still retain rules by which their property can be used, so long as those rules are nondiscriminatory.

I walk into a McDonalds to buy a burger, that is public access. I don't need permission, I don't need an appointment, I don't even need them acknowledge me entering their property. If the guy selling me the burger think's my lifestyle is immoral, there is no endorsement, no acceptance, and usually not even any knowledge.

I contract a photographer for an event. The contractor in question thinks my event is immoral. They have to provide a service for the event they consider immoral, attend it, review photographic evidence of it, and present it to the customer as their work.

 

[colfax_m]

It's also not for the government to decide who's hurt feelings are more important.

Plumbers fix pipes, pipes to my knowledge have no real religious significance, there is no same sex water going through them, or same sex poop going threw the sewage pipes.

The religion in question says relations between same sex people is sinful, the event they are being forced to attend and participate in is a celebration of said relations, endorsed now by the State.

If you "didn't give a shit" about it, why force them to participate in the celebration by power of law?

They're not participating in the celebration. They're photographing it. Is a photograph immoral because it has a gay couple in it? No more so than the water in a house because an interracial couple lives there.

No one cares what the photographer thinks about the marriage. They just want the photos of the wedding.

 

[colfax_m]

I walk into a McDonalds to buy a burger, that is public access. I don't need permission, I don't need an appointment, I don't even need them acknowledge me entering their property. If the guy selling me the burger think's my lifestyle is immoral, there is no endorsement, no acceptance, and usually not even any knowledge.

If a same sex couple were to go on a date in that McDonalds, serving them burgers would be an endorsement of their budding relationship. It is accepting that date is a moral act.

If that sounds ridiculous, I agree. That's as ridiculous as a photographer endorsing a same sex couple by taking photos of their marriage.

 

[martybegan]

It's also not for the government to decide who's hurt feelings are more important.

Plumbers fix pipes, pipes to my knowledge have no real religious significance, there is no same sex water going through them, or same sex poop going threw the sewage pipes.

The religion in question says relations between same sex people is sinful, the event they are being forced to attend and participate in is a celebration of said relations, endorsed now by the State.

If you "didn't give a shit" about it, why force them to participate in the celebration by power of law?

They're not participating in the celebration. They're photographing it. Is a photograph immoral because it has a gay couple in it? No more so than the water in a house because an interracial couple lives there.

No one cares what the photographer thinks about the marriage. They just want the photos of the wedding.

They are attending, they are participating. They are interacting with the celebrants and the guests.

Why would they want to force someone who doesn't approve of their wedding to take photographs of their wedding?

We all know how this works, one person asks not to participate, and then they get flooded with requests to simply make a case against them in the discrimination kangaroo courts.

 

[martybegan]

I walk into a McDonalds to buy a burger, that is public access. I don't need permission, I don't need an appointment, I don't even need them acknowledge me entering their property. If the guy selling me the burger think's my lifestyle is immoral, there is no endorsement, no acceptance, and usually not even any knowledge.

If a same sex couple were to go on a date in that McDonalds, serving them burgers would be an endorsement of their budding relationship. It is accepting that date is a moral act.

If that sounds ridiculous, I agree. That's as ridiculous as a photographer endorsing a same sex couple by taking photos of their marriage.

Burgers are point of sale items, and an actual PA.

They have to attend the event, interact with people at the event, and provide something documenting the event. An event they find morally wrong.

Why force these people to do this? The answer is to "win" against them, by either forcing them to do it, or ruining them via fines.

It's not live and let live, It's live by our rules or else.

If your side can't even compromise over something as trivial as this, then you can't be compromised with at all.

 

[colfax_m]

It's also not for the government to decide who's hurt feelings are more important.

Plumbers fix pipes, pipes to my knowledge have no real religious significance, there is no same sex water going through them, or same sex poop going threw the sewage pipes.

The religion in question says relations between same sex people is sinful, the event they are being forced to attend and participate in is a celebration of said relations, endorsed now by the State.

If you "didn't give a shit" about it, why force them to participate in the celebration by power of law?

They're not participating in the celebration. They're photographing it. Is a photograph immoral because it has a gay couple in it? No more so than the water in a house because an interracial couple lives there.

No one cares what the photographer thinks about the marriage. They just want the photos of the wedding.

They are attending, they are participating. They are interacting with the celebrants and the guests.

Why would they want to force someone who doesn't approve of their wedding to take photographs of their wedding?

We all know how this works, one person asks not to participate, and then they get flooded with requests to simply make a case against them in the discrimination kangaroo courts.

There's no participation. Is a war correspondent participating in the war by taking photos of it? Of course not. The wedding is between two people. The photographer doesn't participate in that marriage.

 

[colfax_m]

I walk into a McDonalds to buy a burger, that is public access. I don't need permission, I don't need an appointment, I don't even need them acknowledge me entering their property. If the guy selling me the burger think's my lifestyle is immoral, there is no endorsement, no acceptance, and usually not even any knowledge.

If a same sex couple were to go on a date in that McDonalds, serving them burgers would be an endorsement of their budding relationship. It is accepting that date is a moral act.

If that sounds ridiculous, I agree. That's as ridiculous as a photographer endorsing a same sex couple by taking photos of their marriage.

Burgers are point of sale items, and an actual PA.

They have to attend the event, interact with people at the event, and provide something documenting the event. An event they find morally wrong.

Why force these people to do this? The answer is to "win" against them, by either forcing them to do it, or ruining them via fines.

It's not live and let live, It's live by our rules or else.

If your side can't even compromise over something as trivial as this, then you can't be compromised with at all.

Just so, selling a burger to a couple on a date would be the same situation as a photographer. If you think the photographer is participating in an immoral act, so would the person making a burger.

 

[danielpalos]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Especially when operating on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis instead of a not-for-profit, greater glory of our immortal souls basis.

 

[danielpalos]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

They're taking photos.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that not all businesses are places that should be considered public accommodations. Photographers would definitely be outside an essential service like a restaurant and hotel.

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

The seller should have taken sacred religious vows instead of being a laity and secular photographer in public accommodation on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis.

 

[martybegan]

It's also not for the government to decide who's hurt feelings are more important.

Plumbers fix pipes, pipes to my knowledge have no real religious significance, there is no same sex water going through them, or same sex poop going threw the sewage pipes.

The religion in question says relations between same sex people is sinful, the event they are being forced to attend and participate in is a celebration of said relations, endorsed now by the State.

If you "didn't give a shit" about it, why force them to participate in the celebration by power of law?

They're not participating in the celebration. They're photographing it. Is a photograph immoral because it has a gay couple in it? No more so than the water in a house because an interracial couple lives there.

No one cares what the photographer thinks about the marriage. They just want the photos of the wedding.

They are attending, they are participating. They are interacting with the celebrants and the guests.

Why would they want to force someone who doesn't approve of their wedding to take photographs of their wedding?

We all know how this works, one person asks not to participate, and then they get flooded with requests to simply make a case against them in the discrimination kangaroo courts.

There's no participation. Is a war correspondent participating in the war by taking photos of it? Of course not. The wedding is between two people. The photographer doesn't participate in that marriage.

The bullet that hits him disagrees, and war correspondents are always with a side.

Everyone at the ceremony participates in it as witnesses and celebrants.

 

[martybegan]

I walk into a McDonalds to buy a burger, that is public access. I don't need permission, I don't need an appointment, I don't even need them acknowledge me entering their property. If the guy selling me the burger think's my lifestyle is immoral, there is no endorsement, no acceptance, and usually not even any knowledge.

If a same sex couple were to go on a date in that McDonalds, serving them burgers would be an endorsement of their budding relationship. It is accepting that date is a moral act.

If that sounds ridiculous, I agree. That's as ridiculous as a photographer endorsing a same sex couple by taking photos of their marriage.

Burgers are point of sale items, and an actual PA.

They have to attend the event, interact with people at the event, and provide something documenting the event. An event they find morally wrong.

Why force these people to do this? The answer is to "win" against them, by either forcing them to do it, or ruining them via fines.

It's not live and let live, It's live by our rules or else.

If your side can't even compromise over something as trivial as this, then you can't be compromised with at all.

Just so, selling a burger to a couple on a date would be the same situation as a photographer. If you think the photographer is participating in an immoral act, so would the person making a burger.

Nope. Point of sale item that has no attachment to any event, unlike photographs of a wedding, or a cake made specifically for a wedding. Even if they use it as a wedding cake later without McDonald's knowledge.

The person making the burger isn't there to celebrate anything.

 

[martybegan]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

 

[martybegan]

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

They're taking photos.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that not all businesses are places that should be considered public accommodations. Photographers would definitely be outside an essential service like a restaurant and hotel.

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

The seller should have taken sacred religious vows instead of being a laity and secular photographer in public accommodation on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis.

the Right to free exercise isn't limited to the clergy, and doesn't go away just because you try to sell something.

And photography services aren't a public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

A photographer is a public business and should serve all members of the public despite sexual orientation.

The photographer should not be compelled to make a blog post celebrating same sex marriage unless this is part of her product that is being sold to the couples. As it is a promotional item outside the service purchased by the couple, she should not be compelled to do so.

It is rational that a business can be compelled to serve people but also free to make that service terrible. For instance, it should be against the law to treat black people in a restaurant with utter disrespect in order to have them go somewhere else, that would be exploiting a loophole and in contradiction with the purpose of these laws. Similarly, the photographer would be engaging in discrimination by using her business to make same sex couples feel unwanted or unwelcome.

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

Free exercise rights don't die off just because you sell something, and all businesses are not true public accommodations, despite what progressives want.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Public accommodation is a public trust.

Not even close. PA's are not government functions.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about serious arguments or the law.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right under our form of Government.

Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Point of sale item that has no attachment to any event, unlike photographs of a wedding, or a cake made specifically for a wedding. Even if they use it as a wedding cake later without McDonald's knowledge.

The person making the burger isn't there to celebrate anything.

When it's a restaurant, it sure does. The event in question here is a date. That meal is made specifically for those people.

If the person making the burger isn't celebrating their budding romance, then the photographer isn't celebrating the marriage they're photographing.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not just simply accept the fact that something as particular as wedding photography doesn't need government dictating people doing something against their religious beliefs?

They're taking photos.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that not all businesses are places that should be considered public accommodations. Photographers would definitely be outside an essential service like a restaurant and hotel.

They being forced to take photos of a ceremony and celebration they find immoral due to their religious beliefs.

The seller should have taken sacred religious vows instead of being a laity and secular photographer in public accommodation on a for-profit (of Lucre) basis.

the Right to free exercise isn't limited to the clergy, and doesn't go away just because you try to sell something.

And photography services aren't a public accommodation.

The seller has no moral authority to dictate or discriminate against non-religious practices that are not illegal under the law.