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.
next it will be the Jews they will refuse to transport...
He (Eich) was denied his rights there.Absolutely. They are exercising their first amendment rights. Due to their religious beliefs, they cannot drive the cabs with the gay themed advertising. Nowhere does it say that they refuse to provide service to gays. There is no discrimination here.CaféAuLait;8945753 said:It seems they are refusing to drive the cabs because of the adverts on top of the cab...they are refusing to work, not specifically refusing service to gay people. But I do wonder if something will be said?
Like that guy at Mozilla who exercised his rights?
Just like it is the right of Christians not to go to gay weddings?
you seem confused as to what the ruling was. it is not that anyone has to GO to a particular wedding. it's that you can't discriminate in your business and refuse to provide the service your business offers.
you know... like in the jim crow days.
I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.
You know, like the slavery days.
Did you change your position that rights only exist if they are granted to others? Who granted them the right to ignore the contracts and leave people stranded at the airport?
No I didnt change my position. No one can force you to honor a contract. You have an option of going to jail in the most extreme of cases. Of course that has nothing to do with your false OP does it? They are protesting the advertising or did you forget to read your own link?
Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?
But there is no uproar from the left.
I wonder why.
Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.
Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com
Maybe because this is the first I've heard of it. But yes, I would definitely protest and not use that company....But there is no uproar from the left.
I wonder why.
Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games. Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.
Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.
The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.
Some Cleveland Hopkins cab drivers refuse to drive with Gay Games signage | cleveland.com
I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.
You know, like the slavery days.
No it doesn't stupid. It forces you to render the same services to everyone if you have a business. Were you deprived of oxygen in your youth?
Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.
you seem confused as to what the ruling was. it is not that anyone has to GO to a particular wedding. it's that you can't discriminate in your business and refuse to provide the service your business offers.
you know... like in the jim crow days.
I am in no way confused because the suit was over the refusal to photograph a wedding. Unless you can figure out how to take pictures of a wedding without attending it, the decision forces people to go to weddings.
You know, like the slavery days.
no. not like the slavery days. that analogy fails.
you run a business, then you don't get to deny services in a discriminatory fashion.
No I didnt change my position. No one can force you to honor a contract. You have an option of going to jail in the most extreme of cases. Of course that has nothing to do with your false OP does it? They are protesting the advertising or did you forget to read your own link?
Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?
Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?
No it doesn't stupid. It forces you to render the same services to everyone if you have a business. Were you deprived of oxygen in your youth?
Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.
Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.
Where does the option of breaking the law come from if I have no rights?
Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?
You did, multiple times.
Except it actually doesn't. If you don't believe me, read the actual decision where it laid out all the legal ways to refuse to attend weddings even if photographing weddings is the service you offer.
Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.
Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.
Who said you didn't have rights? Are you trying to change the subject again?
You did, multiple times.
Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.
You did, multiple times.
Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.
There is a whole thread of you saying it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html
Where does it say you can discriminate? Please post it so everyone can see.
Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.
I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?
The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add sexual orientation as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. Sexual orientation is defined in the NMHRA as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived. Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that persons real or perceived homosexualitythat persons propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.
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 reverseda 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.
Please post where I said it even once. Dont try to lie your way out of your embarrassment now.
There is a whole thread of you saying it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-natural-rights-exist-without-government.html
I love how you lie when cornered. Posting a thread is not posting the quote you claimed I made. You should be able to post a quote where I said it but you cant because you were lying to keep from being busted. While you are at it please post where it says a business can discriminate. The board will never get to see those 2 things because they dont exist.
At Americab, Keenan explained that the airport sells the space on the taxis' roof-mounted placards and gets any revenue generated from the advertising.
"We don't have any objections to the signage," he said. "We're fully supportive of the games. We're not in concert with (the protesting drivers) on that. We don't share those views."
Feel free to read the decision and prove me wrong.
I already did prove you wrong. There is nothing anywhere in the decision where it says you can discriminate. Show me where it says that or is the problem the fact that you cant?
Let me guess, you making an unsupported claim is proof you are right.
Let me show you how to refute an argument.
From the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add “sexual orientation” as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. “Sexual orientation” is defined in the NMHRA as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived.” Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that person’s real or perceived homosexuality—that person’s propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.
Wow, look at that, the law only prohibits discrimination under some conditions, not all.
Then we have this.
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.
What was that? It would be perfectly legal for a black photographer to discriminate against a KKK rally?
I guess that makes you wrong, doesn't it?
Next time I suggest you read something, read it, you might end up looking halfway intelligent.
http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf
