Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Care to explain why?
Well?
Missed it the first time.
Have you spent any time reflecting? If not......what is the point?
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 !
Well?
Missed it the first time.
Have you spent any time reflecting? If not......what is the point?
So you've got nothing? Really?
Look, I have no problem with a gay person or a gay couple calling themselves married. I'd happily take the gig at the gay wedding.
However, I don't think government should force a private business to do so.
One reason is that opens the door to other protected classes demanding services...several examples of which have been given.
So...again I ask, care to explain why this is "off base"?
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.
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.
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 !
Actually, I don't use wikipedia for case law. I've every ruling made by the Supreme Court dating back to the very first one in 1789 stored on my hard drive. I'm working on all the lower court rulings right now. You really haven't the slightest clue.
I applied the Lemon Test to the Federal Public Accommodation laws. The test was used in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. It is applied to laws enacted which are religious or secular in nature. In this most recent case these laws can serve to inhibit religion.
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose. (Purpose Prong)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. (Effect Prong)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
The second and third prongs are violated. Mainly because 1) any law which restricts anyone from holding a religious belief of any kind, is government inhibition of religion, 2) Any law which regulates religion, religious behavior or religious belief is "excessive government entanglement" with religion. What you fail to understand is that the separation of Church and State works two ways. Government cannot endorse religion, nor can it hinder religion.
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.
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.
Even when your religious beliefs are against race mixing?
Sorry boy, we don't serve colored here
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.
Even when your religious beliefs are against race mixing?
Sorry boy, we don't serve colored here
Sorry boy, your argument is a red herring. Moving on.
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.
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 Photographys 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.
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.
Ahh, so Howey was spinning the case.
After further reading, the Photographer(s) acted as their own worst enemy in this case. Perhaps they should have read the law. A simple disclaimer would have compelled the court to rule in their favor. This opens the floodgates for other businesses to place disclaimers on their ads. Pretty simple.
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.
In the end its not about them wanting equality, its become about forcing acceptance.
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.
You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.
Legally yes, but instead of showing respect for the photographers religion, and simply going elsewhere, they decided to be pricks and force the photographer to violate their beliefs.
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.
In the end its not about them wanting equality, its become about forcing acceptance.
well thats neat, but gays have been dealing with people beating them down with making their lifestyle illegal. Or being to be fired from a job in 29 states because you are gay, so we can ignore this sad whine from you guys about being forced.
You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.
Legally yes, but instead of showing respect for the photographers religion, and simply going elsewhere, they decided to be pricks and force the photographer to violate their beliefs.
If I was the photographer, I would "develop" a bad case of "passive aggressive behavior".
The pictures would come out so bad that no gay couple would ever want to use his services.
"Oooops, sorry, don't know how that happened."
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.
jillians a lawyer dumbass.
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 Photographys 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.
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.
Ahh, so Howey was spinning the case.
After further reading, the Photographer(s) acted as their own worst enemy in this case. Perhaps they should have read the law. A simple disclaimer would have compelled the court to rule in their favor. This opens the floodgates for other businesses to place disclaimers on their ads. Pretty simple.
Liberals always spin. That's why it's so hard to get behind the lies.
If it were me, my disclaimer would look like this "I have moral and religious objections to same sex marriage. The law compels me to offer wedding photography to same sex couples if I offer wedding photographer services at all. Therefore, in order to comply with the law and maintain my principles, I may not offer wedding photography as a service that I provide."
In the end its not about them wanting equality, its become about forcing acceptance.
well thats neat, but gays have been dealing with people beating them down with making their lifestyle illegal. Or being to be fired from a job in 29 states because you are gay, so we can ignore this sad whine from you guys about being forced.
People like Marty appear to be fine with denying the rights of others and making them wait to be accepted. They like that feeling of power they get in an otherwise powerless life.
Legally yes, but instead of showing respect for the photographers religion, and simply going elsewhere, they decided to be pricks and force the photographer to violate their beliefs.
If I was the photographer, I would "develop" a bad case of "passive aggressive behavior".
The pictures would come out so bad that no gay couple would ever want to use his services.
"Oooops, sorry, don't know how that happened."
then word of mouth spreads and you lose business. GENIUS!
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.
jillians a lawyer dumbass.
She may very well be a lawyer dumbass, lots of them out there.
