CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[jc456]

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

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

And have the freedom to choose clients

 

[jc456]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Freedom isn’t free

Neither is Government. Ten simple Commandments from God for free not the Expense of Government on Earth!

All it takes is Morals, right-wingers.

Ten Commandments weren’t free

 

[emilynghiem]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

Dear colfax_m
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.

These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".

As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.

ALL customers are refused that service.

So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.

The first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT actions, not the actions of private citizens.

The only thing people are banned from doing by the Constitution are owning slaves and transporting booze into jurisdictions that ban it.

Upholding the subjective value of morals of the seller would be upholding that person's beliefs over the beliefs of another person. Government is limited by our First Amendment.

Likewise with the GOVT taking the beliefs of a Customer and imposing that on a business.

If the Customer wants to impose a boycott or protest against the business for their beliefs, the Customer can do that. But Govt must remain neutral on beliefs.

The business cannot refuse to serve the CUSTOMER, but can refuse a type of service.

As stated before
* both heterosexual and homosexual people can receive services for traditional weddings that do not violate the beliefs of the business provider
* no customers, neither heterosexual or homosexual, will be offered or provides any services for weddings that violate the beliefs of the business providers

It is the TYPE of wedding service that is not offered to ANYONE.

Any homosexual person or couple can hire the photography services for dog portraits or birthday parties, etc. the same as any heterosexual customers. Because those activities are not against the beliefs of the business provider.

If they refused to serve the Customer "at all" because they are "discriminating against the PERSON" for their affiliation/identity/orientation, then that would be violating "accommodations" policy.

But as long as they would serve the Customer in photographing any and all activities or events that don't violate their beliefs, the same as other customers, this shows they are not refusing the Customer, just refusing that *type of activity not offered to anyone at all, but refused to all Customers equally.*

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

Nope. You don't respond with an actual response, just canned quotes and unconnected references to snippets of the constitution.

 

[jc456]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

Nope. You don't respond with an actual response, just canned quotes and unconnected references to snippets of the constitution.

I call them talking points. pre-rehearsed and not of one person.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

Nope. You don't respond with an actual response, just canned quotes and unconnected references to snippets of the constitution.

I call them talking points. pre-rehearsed and not of one person.

They are not even talking points. At least talking points have a point, even if they are canned and replicated.

 

[jc456]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

Nope. You don't respond with an actual response, just canned quotes and unconnected references to snippets of the constitution.

I call them talking points. pre-rehearsed and not of one person.

They are not even talking points. At least talking points have a point, even if they are canned and replicated.

he merely pulls out specific phrases. but I get it.

 

[danielpalos]

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

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

And have the freedom to choose clients

With some exceptions in public accommodation.

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."

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

 

[danielpalos]

Ten Commandments weren’t free

Do right wingers establish a market based price regarding morals under Capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

Likewise with the GOVT taking the beliefs of a Customer and imposing that on a business.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

Nope. You don't respond with an actual response, just canned quotes and unconnected references to snippets of the constitution.

You need to ask questions if you don't understand the concepts involved. Simply alleging what You do is a fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) without them.

 

[jc456]

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

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

And have the freedom to choose clients

With some exceptions in public accommodation.

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."

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

she isn't a public accommodation. she's a private business open to the public. you're confused. she isn't a government sanctioned facility.

 

[jc456]

Ten Commandments weren’t free

Do right wingers establish a market based price regarding morals under Capitalism?

our laws do. if you hadn't ever noticed the laws mimic the commandments in most forms.

 

[jc456]

You need to ask questions if you don't understand the concepts involved. Simply alleging what You do is a fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) without them.

incorrect. one becomes smarter by thinking and discussion. not simplified template talk.

 

[danielpalos]

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

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

And have the freedom to choose clients

With some exceptions in public accommodation.

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."

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

she isn't a public accommodation. she's a private business open to the public. you're confused. she isn't a government sanctioned facility.

Link? Does the seller apply for a business license or permit to operate in the public domain?

 

[danielpalos]

Ten Commandments weren’t free

Do right wingers establish a market based price regarding morals under Capitalism?

our laws do. if you hadn't ever noticed the laws mimic the commandments in most forms.

Only if you have no understanding of economics. Jesus the Christ taught morals not economics.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to ask questions if you don't understand the concepts involved. Simply alleging what You do is a fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) without them.

incorrect. one becomes smarter by thinking and discussion. not simplified template talk.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted. Questions, seek to better understand the concepts and are not simply ad hominems.

 

[jc456]

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

They're being paid to do a job. They're not being forced to marry someone.

And have the freedom to choose clients

With some exceptions in public accommodation.

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."

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

she isn't a public accommodation. she's a private business open to the public. you're confused. she isn't a government sanctioned facility.

Link? Does the seller apply for a business license or permit to operate in the public domain?

doesn't make her a public facility like the DMV. you're still confused. BTW, the license is a state requirement, not hers.

 

[jc456]

Ten Commandments weren’t free

Do right wingers establish a market based price regarding morals under Capitalism?

our laws do. if you hadn't ever noticed the laws mimic the commandments in most forms.

Only if you have no understanding of economics. Jesus the Christ taught morals not economics.

you have no idea what Jesus taught. you weren't there were you? have you actually read the bible?

 

[jc456]

You need to ask questions if you don't understand the concepts involved. Simply alleging what You do is a fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) without them.

incorrect. one becomes smarter by thinking and discussion. not simplified template talk.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted. Questions, seek to better understand the concepts and are not simply ad hominems.

questions are questions, and yes everyone must ask them. One must supply an answer at some point. you avoid that piece.