CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[colfax_m]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

 

[colfax_m]

You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.

Right. They aren’t challenging the extension of the PA laws to her because they can’t win.

 

[dblack]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

I thought a protected class was supposed to be a trait that one can't use as a reason for discrimination. You seem to be acknowledging that protected classes are classes of people who are given special rights.

 

[martybegan]

You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.

Right. They aren’t challenging the extension of the PA laws to her because they can’t win.

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

 

[danielpalos]

Going after PA laws applied wrongly to any business transaction is for another lawsuit.

There’s zero reason this suit couldn’t make that claim.

Zero.

You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.

The seller was even more "oppressive".

Not even close. Having to find another photographer is not worse than either going against your morals, or paying a gigantic fine, or giving up the profession/business you worked for.

Why is that seller operating in the public domain when morals allegedly mean soo much to that seller? The Religious who may feel that strongly have no problem cloistering themselves for the sake of their morals and morality.

 

[danielpalos]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

danielpalos
If you agree with this comment that businesses (which provide photography or freelance arts/media related services) retain freedom to choose clients,

But do not agree when it comes to not providing services connected with "same sex weddings":
I assume this means in the case of
Case A. "same sex weddings" you connect the rejection to "Customer, not the service type" so it is "discrimination against the Customer not against the Service"
Is this point A an accurate assessment?
But
Case B: If a Hindu company owner refuses to serve Beef to an LGBT Customer (or ANY Customers so NONE receive this type of product), or a Muslim business refuses to serve Pork to an LGBT Customer (again because ALL Customers are refused such requests and ALL treates the same)
Then you do NOT see this as discrimination against Customers but discrimination against types of food products or meats such as beef or pork due to religious beliefs

I understand if you see A different from B.

Can you describe in your own words not mine, how you describe why case B is allowed for Hindu or Muslim businesses to advertise they do not serve Beef or Pork?

What makes their case B different where this isn't against "accommodations laws" or "equal protections and privileges for all citizens regardless of class creed or belief"

Can we start there so I can read your language and terms for case B?

 

[martybegan]

Going after PA laws applied wrongly to any business transaction is for another lawsuit.

There’s zero reason this suit couldn’t make that claim.

Zero.

You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.

The seller was even more "oppressive".

Not even close. Having to find another photographer is not worse than either going against your morals, or paying a gigantic fine, or giving up the profession/business you worked for.

Why is that seller operating in the public domain when morals allegedly mean soo much to that seller? The Religious who may feel that strongly have no problem cloistering themselves for the sake of their morals and morality.

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

 

[danielpalos]

If you agree with this comment that businesses (which provide photography or freelance arts/media related services) retain freedom to choose clients,

That is not the case under our form of Government due right wing hypocrisy in the past. And, this is part of our supreme law of the land:

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

 

[danielpalos]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

 

[martybegan]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

 

[emilynghiem]

Going after PA laws applied wrongly to any business transaction is for another lawsuit.

There’s zero reason this suit couldn’t make that claim.

Zero.

You fight the fight you think you can win first. NY's law is overly oppressive.

The seller was even more "oppressive".

Not even close. Having to find another photographer is not worse than either going against your morals, or paying a gigantic fine, or giving up the profession/business you worked for.

Why is that seller operating in the public domain when morals allegedly mean soo much to that seller? The Religious who may feel that strongly have no problem cloistering themselves for the sake of their morals and morality.

Hmmmm danielpalos
1. Maybe they trust that in a free country like America that celebrates religious freedom and diversity, people of all cultures and beliefs can advertise businesses, goods and services that meet a certain market demand or audience and customer base.
2. Like people who sell MAGA or BLM flags or masks. People who only sell VEGAN products completely cruelty free, and promote "on their WEBSITES their MORAL BELIEFS" so they can reach customers they want to serve and not market to people looking for products or services not offered.
3. By your reasoning danielpalos
Are you saying that LGBT or Transgender who only compromise less than 1-5% of the population "shouldn't promote their beliefs in public"?
If very few need to have access to restrooms based on their INTERNAL gender identity instead of their genetic chromosome gender markings,
does this mean they shouldn't "push their beliefs out in public and expect equal accommodations" if it "means that much to them" and they are going to run into public opposition that outnumbers them.

How is free speech and right to express beliefs and morals or Personal Identity
"Limited" by
* how much a moral or message means to someone's identity, beliefs or affiliation?
* restricted by the size of the group or population that person identitifies with

By your statement, you would allow discrimination against "certain people or beliefs" on the basis of
* majority rule outnumbering the individual
* the importance of their moral beliefs to them as a reason to "keep this private" and not "out in public"

Do you see you would not ask LGBT people
to put up with such treatment or arguments!

Can you admit you treat LGBT people differently because you see them as an "abused class" but you do NOT see Christians with their beliefs as having the same rights or protections as LGBT because you do not see them as abused or discriminated against.

Isn't that the issue?

Because you recognize a social/systemic pattern of "discrimination against LGBT" you support laws or policies that ONLY address LGBT, but you do not apply the same protections to Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc. Only LGBT or other groups/class members you worry are targeted for discrimination.

 

[dblack]

where does it say she must advertise to them or for them?

It seems it’s an extension of the requirement that the business not create a hostile environment for particular people who are of a protected class.

However I feel that the extension to that degree is probably unwarranted.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; several States.

 

[colfax_m]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

 

[martybegan]

They are going after the easy part of the law first.

They could easily go after both. This isn't an either or situation.

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

 

[colfax_m]

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

No, a lawsuit can include as many arguments as you deem necessary to make.

 

[danielpalos]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[martybegan]

When you sue you sue to a specific point. Here the issue is under NY law the plaintiff says she can be punished if her work portfolio online doesn't include shots of SSM ceremonies she worked. She is also saying she can be punished for stating her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

No, a lawsuit can include as many arguments as you deem necessary to make.

You can, but you don't have to.

 

[danielpalos]

1. Maybe they trust that in a free country like America that celebrates religious freedom and diversity, people of all cultures and beliefs can advertise businesses, goods and services that meet a certain market demand or audience and customer base.

Thanks. Good point. Does that seller advertise "kosher" photography (or its equivalent) in that establishment? If not, it is unreasonable to expect random clients to have to become intimate with the seller before doing business.

 

[martybegan]

So either submit or become a monk?

Really?

Are you simply bearing false witness that morals and morality really really matter to that seller over private profit (of Lucre)?

I am saying government shouldn't be saying submit or go live in a monestary.

No one is making that seller operate on a not-for-profit basis when that seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts in the public domain, that the seller would be operating on a for-profit basis not any form of moral basis.

The seller had to submit to Government regulation to be authorized to sell to the public in the public domain.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The government has to submit to the 1st amendment.