Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case

[bodecea]

I've read it and their justification of their view is just as flimsy as the whole decision.

You and the gutless assholes who hold your position just want to force people to hold to YOUR moral and political beliefs, and are too cowardly to force the people to do it, you use government's gun to do it.

You are fascists, pure and simple, and need to be exposed as such.

With hopes, someone will change your diaper soon.

Nice response dickweed. Eat a neg.

That's ok...I gave her a pos rep for the same post.

 

[longknife]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News

The court's action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

They have spoken. By not taking the case.

You Libtards are so damned quick to put your own slant on everything!!!

All SCOTUS did was to indicate it was not a matter of constitutional importance and said it was something the states should decide!

In other words, it was none of the Fed's business to interfere in a matter of State's Rights.

 

[Plasmaball]

I've never voted to disallow abortion OR gay marriage. What I support is a State's right to make laws for both, as the US constitution is neutral on both topics.

I live in NY, where both will always be legal and protected. Who cares if Mississippi wants to ban both? Guess what here is a solution, if you don't like it MOVE OUT OF MISSISSIPPI.

So you are the GOP party? Go figure

I am a strict constructional federalist, and right now the GOP leans more towards my positions than the Democratic party.

Neat but you are not the gop.

 

[martybegan]

So you are the GOP party? Go figure

I am a strict constructional federalist, and right now the GOP leans more towards my positions than the Democratic party.

Neat but you are not the gop.

Where did I claim to be?

 

[Plasmaball]

I am a strict constructional federalist, and right now the GOP leans more towards my positions than the Democratic party.

Neat but you are not the gop.

Where did I claim to be?

Sigh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News

The court's action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

They have spoken. By not taking the case.

Actually, they haven't spoken. Al this means is that they denied cert on a direct appeal, the photographer can still file an appeal in federal court.

But thanks for, once again, demonstrating your massive ignorance of how the law actually works.

By the way, if you think I am wrong about this feel free to ask Jones, even he will admit got this right.

 

[paperview]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News

The court's action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

They have spoken. By not taking the case.

You Libtards are so damned quick to put your own slant on everything!!!

All SCOTUS did was to indicate it was not a matter of constitutional importance and said it was something the states should decide!

In other words, it was none of the Fed's business to interfere in a matter of State's Rights.

Tell that to the cons who are upset at the SCOTUS decline.

Also the far right, anti-gay fundamentalists and Dominionists - Alliance Defending Freedom - who were the legal representation and appeals bankroll for Elane Photography in this case...

these folks have gone so far as to defend putting people in prison for having same-sex relationships.

Sick fucks.

 

[paperview]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News

The court's action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

They have spoken. By not taking the case.

Actually, they haven't spoken. Al this means is that they denied cert on a direct appeal, the photographer can still file an appeal in federal court.

But thanks for, once again, demonstrating your massive ignorance of how the law actually works.

By the way, if you think I am wrong about this feel free to ask Jones, even he will admit got this right.

Good luck with that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News



They have spoken. By not taking the case.

They may have denied it due to technical reasons, not due to the content of the lawsuit.

they have not spoken on the merits of the case, because they did not take the case.

I expect your support of forcing black photographers to work at a KKK wedding as well.

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

Since you allege to have read it, how about you enlighten the rest of us to prove that you did and explain how that inconsistent conclusion is drawn?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The anti Americans are those cry SCOTUS are cowards!

 

[paperview]

They may have denied it due to technical reasons, not due to the content of the lawsuit.

they have not spoken on the merits of the case, because they did not take the case.

I expect your support of forcing black photographers to work at a KKK wedding as well.

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

Since you allege to have read it, how about you enlighten the rest of us to prove that you did and explain how that inconsistent conclusion is drawn?

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

 

[g5000]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News



They have spoken. By not taking the case.

They may have denied it due to technical reasons, not due to the content of the lawsuit.

they have not spoken on the merits of the case, because they did not take the case.

I expect your support of forcing black photographers to work at a KKK wedding as well.

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

That part of the New Mexico Supreme Court decision highlights an asymetry in the law that should be addressed.

They said a black photographer cannot be forced to photograph a KKK event, but a KKK member could be forced to photograph a black event. The reason being that blacks are a protected class and the Klan is not.

I don't see how anyone could see this unevenness as being acceptable.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean
that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux
Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group
membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the
NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on
&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221. Therefore, an African-American could
decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles
in the hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-
American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to
promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

 

[paperview]

They may have denied it due to technical reasons, not due to the content of the lawsuit.

they have not spoken on the merits of the case, because they did not take the case.

I expect your support of forcing black photographers to work at a KKK wedding as well.

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

That part of the New Mexico Supreme Court decision highlights an asymetry in the law that should be addressed.

They said a black photographer cannot be forced to photograph a KKK event, but a KKK member could be forced to photograph a black event. The reason being that blacks are a protected class and the Klan is not.

I don't see how anyone could see this unevenness as being acceptable.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean
that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux
Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group
membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the
NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on
&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221. Therefore, an African-American could
decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles
in the hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-
American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to
promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

If a group such as the Klan, or other advocacy group / political class wishes to seek protected group status in our Public Accommodation laws, hey, gopher it.

I don't see it happening though.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

Since you allege to have read it, how about you enlighten the rest of us to prove that you did and explain how that inconsistent conclusion is drawn?

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

 

[paperview]

Since you allege to have read it, how about you enlighten the rest of us to prove that you did and explain how that inconsistent conclusion is drawn?

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. There's your first mistake.


The law has been on the books in New Mexico since 2006 (IIRC) -- and there is no dilemma. It's also on the books in many other states.

Your side is losing and you may as well accept same-sex marriage will be the law of the land soon.

So too -- and it may take longer -- will sexual orientation be added to Federal Law in the non-discrimination Act. Better come to terms with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just in:

Supreme Court Staying Out of Photographer's Same-Sex Client Case - NBC News

They have spoken. By not taking the case.

Actually, they haven't spoken. Al this means is that they denied cert on a direct appeal, the photographer can still file an appeal in federal court.

But thanks for, once again, demonstrating your massive ignorance of how the law actually works.

By the way, if you think I am wrong about this feel free to ask Jones, even he will admit got this right.

Good luck with that.

Tell me something, how often does the Supreme Court take a case directly from a State court? I am willing to bet that, in all 224 years it has been around, it has happened less than the number of fingers I am using to type this sentence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Their decline speaks volumes.

As to the KKK, if you'd read the actual NM Supreme Court decision (which you surely didn't) -- they actually addressed exactly that point.

Bone up on it, whydoncha?

That part of the New Mexico Supreme Court decision highlights an asymetry in the law that should be addressed.

They said a black photographer cannot be forced to photograph a KKK event, but a KKK member could be forced to photograph a black event. The reason being that blacks are a protected class and the Klan is not.

I don't see how anyone could see this unevenness as being acceptable.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean
that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux
Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group
membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the
NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on
“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could
decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles
in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-
American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to
promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

If a group such as the Klan, or other advocacy group / political class wishes to seek protected group status in our Public Accommodation laws, hey, gopher it.

I don't see it happening though.

You support legalized discrimination?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Darkwind]

The lower court decision in the photography case was a very good decision and contained the blueprint for future photographers to act within their beliefs.

True. The bigots are free to still be bigots, they just have to be more creative with how they discriminate.

The lower court did provide some guidance in that.

Well, we have to put up with liberal bigots, you may as well put up with bigots from all across the spectrum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been following this case for literally years, since it first broke nationally. There are thousands of posts of mine on the subject --

but here, since the ruling by the NM SC, is one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795314-post893.html

============
"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock
=============
Here's another: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8698328-post1945.html


I have quoted and referred to the case opinion with links on many occasions since it was handed down.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <--- It's a good read. I recommend.

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class. In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. There's your first mistake.


The law has been on the books in New Mexico since 2006 (IIRC) -- and there is no dilemma. It's also on the books in many other states.

Your side is losing and you may as well accept same-sex marriage will be the law of the land soon.

So too -- and it may take longer -- will sexual orientation be added to Federal Law in the non-discrimination Act. Better come to terms with that.

Is religious preference equally not behavior, or are you grasping at straws?

 

[g5000]

So the inconsistency lies within what is deemed a protected class.

This is correct.

In this case an irrelevant behavior choice is considered as relevant as ethnicity. Therein lies the problem. Choosing to have intercourse in a specific manner is considered the same as skin color. But people don't choose skin color. That brings us back to the dilemma.

Here is where you go off the rails, claiming homosexuality is a choice.

Tell us about the day you decided not to be gay.