SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[JakeStarkey]

You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.

Not if it violates public accommodation laws. Owning a house is not the same as owning a business.

How to get around it? Don't advertise publicly, do business by private appointments. I know several property managers who do exactly that.

 

[jillian]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.

It amazes normal people that rightwingnuts think they can claim a religious exemption to equal protection

Equal protection from the government. I don't see how having to go to another photographer is some terrible burden.

No. Equal protection under the LAW.

You can't Jim Crow people and justify hate based on religion.

Luckily the court actually agrees.

Luckily for normal people.......

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.

Not if it violates public accommodation laws. Owning a house is not the same as owning a business.

How to get around it? Don't advertise publicly, do business by private appointments. I know several property managers who do exactly that.

You paid for both with your own money did you not? Should you not have free control over it? For most businesses, not advertising is a surefire way to lose business, Jake. Most of these people don't have a choice. We live in an advertising culture now.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once you open a business to the public you cannot dictate who you will accept as a customer for the services that you offer. You can control who your clients are by what services you offer.

Suppose a lawyer was a strict catholic and doesn't believe in divorce under any circumstances. He is contacted by an atheist who wants to get a divorce. The lawyer cannot say "I don't provide services to atheists". That's illegal. What the lawyer can say is "I limit my work to medical malpractice only". This does not mean that the same lawyer cannot do a divorce case for his or her cousin or neighbor, or handle an annulment after the Church has given dispensation.

 

[jillian]

And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.

Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.

 

[Katzndogz]

You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.

it is simple so simple as to be painful. It's also against the law. If you want to build your business, advertise away. Take out full page advertisements if you wish. Just don't advertise everything. Advertise child photography, pet photography, studio head shots, just don't advertise weddings. This doesn't preclude a photographer from doing wedding photography. It precludes someone from coming in later and saying "They advertised wedding photography to the public and denied me that service based on sexual orientation."

 

[eflatminor]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey Jake,

Do you think explaining it to the idiot another several times will have the desired effect?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It amazes normal people that rightwingnuts think they can claim a religious exemption to equal protection

Equal protection from the government. I don't see how having to go to another photographer is some terrible burden.

No. Equal protection under the LAW.

You can't Jim Crow people and justify hate based on religion.

Luckily the court actually agrees.

Luckily for normal people.......

Unluckily for you, this isn't what the ruling stated. The Court simply refused to dictate what forms of expression would warrant exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Meaning, jillian, that such a decision means that lower courts will have to decide what is and isn't expression and what is and isn't discrimination. The SCOTUS is dodging the free speech issue altogether.

You can't Jim Crow people and justify hate based on religion.

You can't deny someone religious freedom and justify why based on "equality" now can you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

 

[Katzndogz]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.

Did you really think that a couple of lesbians would have respect for ANYONE?

 

[eflatminor]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Care to explain why?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.

Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.

Excuse me? Jillian? I dare you to get into a case law debate with me. I've studied the law a lot longer than you have, granted. Your lack of an argument tells me all I need to know. Nobody cares that your argument is inferior, jillian. Your lack of understanding on free expression and religious freedom is limited only to that which the liberal elite in Washington tell you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah, Jillian! TK is in training to be a paralegal. How long does that usually take, anyway? Don't dare challenge his understanding of case law. He's wicked with the Wiki!

If he says public accommodation laws are unconstitutional, then you had better believe him !

 

[TemplarKormac]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Simple cause and effect. Now, a neo Nazi can sue a Jewish baker for not making him a Nazi themed cake. A Klansman can sue a black seamstress for not making him his white robe and hat. A Christian can sue a Muslim because he refused to serve him pork chops, and vice versa. The possibilities are endless, LL.

Just remember, equality works both ways, not just for gay people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Simple cause and effect. Now, a neo Nazi can sue a Jewish baker for not making him a Nazi themed cake. A Klansman can sue a black seamstress for not making him his white robe and hat. A Christian can sue a Muslim because he refused to serve him pork chops, and vice versa. The possibilities are endless, LL.

Just remember, equality works both ways, not just for gay people.

Very retarded. Is that one of your legal opinions?

What do all of the cases you just mentioned have in common?

 

[eflatminor]

Careful what you wish for...

If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Care to explain why?

Well?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if a little reflection would lead you to an understanding of how off base you are with that comment?

What do you think?

Care to explain why?

Well?

Missed it the first time.

Have you spent any time reflecting? If not......what is the point?

 

[Katzndogz]

And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.

Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.

Excuse me? Jillian? I dare you to get into a case law debate with me. I've studied the law a lot longer than you have, granted. Your lack of an argument tells me all I need to know. Nobody cares that your argument is inferior, jillian. Your lack of understanding on free expression and religious freedom is limited only to that which the liberal elite in Washington tell you.

I agree with you in principle. You just aren't understanding this case. Instead of suppressing freedom of expression, the law is mandating an expression that the messenger (Elane's Photography) doesn't want to carry. In this case, that the photographer approves of same sex marriage. The issue was, NOT that the government is telling Elane to sit down and shut up, it's the reverse. The government is telling Elane that she must express her approval of same sex marriage even if she doesn't really have that opinion. That was the issue in this case.

In the ruling, the Judge disposed of the "compelled to agree" decision by saying that all advertisement for weddings could contain a disclaimer indicating disagreement and disapproval, but that the services were offered solely in order to comply with the law. Under this ruling, Elane could have an advertisement for wedding photography but in 24 pt, bold typeface include a disclaimer that says "I hate gays" and be perfectly within the confines of the ruling.

A segment of the state Supreme Court's decision, via Metro Weekly:

"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by state. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws."

The solution to Elane's dilemma is contained right in the court's decision.

If Elane Photography took photographs on
its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer
its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of
whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that
are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces
for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation.

Business owners should take advantage of the options available to them, not rail for the options that are not available to them.