NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Mavorpen]

It was private sector discrimination.

And on what grounds did the Supreme Court declare it illegal?

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

[Auralia]

Yes, for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The federal and state RFRAs are different, though.

Let's talk about state RFRAs, then. You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. Gay rights are a compelling state interest, just as the rights of racial minorities are a state interest, as I have said numerous times.

Simply saying "gay rights" is not sufficient to meet the compelling interest requirement. How does Elaine Photography's refusal to photograph a gay couple constitute a substantial burden on gay rights?

[Geilinor]

And on what grounds did the Supreme Court declare it illegal?

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers religious discrimination. If the federal government can enforce racial desegregation, it can enforce religious desegregation.

[Auralia]

And on what grounds did the Supreme Court declare it illegal?

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

[Geilinor]

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

I'd say the Civil Rights Act and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

[Blasveck]

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

I'd say the Civil Rights Act and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

Doesn't HoA have to do with the regulation of interstate commerce?

[Mavorpen]

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

Both.

[Auralia]

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

I'd say the Civil Rights Act and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

The federal RFRA can overrule any federal legislation, and RFRA didn't exist when Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was decided.

[Auralia]

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

Both.

Where does the Constitution prohibit private sector discrimination?

[The Parkus Empire]

Let's talk about state RFRAs, then. You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. Gay rights are a compelling state interest, just as the rights of racial minorities are a state interest, as I have said numerous times.

Simply saying "gay rights" is not sufficient to meet the compelling interest requirement. How does Elaine Photography's refusal to photograph a gay couple constitute a substantial burden on gay rights?

How does forcing them to not discriminate, constitute a substantial burden on religious rights?

[Wikkiwallana]

Let's talk about state RFRAs, then. You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. Gay rights are a compelling state interest, just as the rights of racial minorities are a state interest, as I have said numerous times.

Simply saying "gay rights" is not sufficient to meet the compelling interest requirement. How does Elaine Photography's refusal to photograph a gay couple constitute a substantial burden on gay rights?

How does a wedding photographer being told to photograph a wedding constitute a substantial burden on religious rights?

[Gauthier]

Naturally, some of the same people insisting that businesses have a right to follow Christian dogma will throw a bitchfit if a Muslim business is allowed to do the same thing..

[Mavorpen]

Both.

Where does the Constitution prohibit private sector discrimination?

Who said it does?

[Auralia]

Where does the Constitution prohibit private sector discrimination?

Who said it does?

You did:

A private business can't discriminate on religious grounds.

Per the Constitution? Per the Civil Rights Act?

Both.

[Auralia]

Naturally, some of the same people insisting that businesses have a right to follow Christian dogma will throw a bitchfit if a Muslim business is allowed to do the same thing..

I wouldn't.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Many whites in the 1960s would disagree.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

*raises hand*

Why are Malaysians suddenly their own race? Did you get that from a "Join the Malaysian Federation" propaganda pamphlet?

Austronesians are not part of the phenotype group putting the Vietnamese and the Japanese as related. That is clear.

[Geilinor]

I'd say the Civil Rights Act and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

The federal RFRA can overrule any federal legislation, and RFRA didn't exist when Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was decided.

The Civil Rights Act is still in full force.

[The Parkus Empire]

Naturally, some of the same people insisting that businesses have a right to follow Christian dogma will throw a bitchfit if a Muslim business is allowed to do the same thing..

Especially if all-of-a-sudden Muslims make up 90% of their town.

[Auralia]

The federal RFRA can overrule any federal legislation, and RFRA didn't exist when Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was decided.

The Civil Rights Act is still in full force.

Yes, it is. But it could conceivably be challenged under RFRA, and depending on the circumstances, I think such a challenge could be successful.

[Mavorpen]

Who said it does?

You did:

No. I said SCOTUS ruled that it's constitutional for the federal government to prohibit private sector discrimination.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Civil Rights Act is still in full force.

Yes, it is. But it could conceivably be challenged under RFRA, and depending on the circumstances, I think such a challenge could be successful.

I really don't think so.

[Geilinor]

Simply saying "gay rights" is not sufficient to meet the compelling interest requirement. How does Elaine Photography's refusal to photograph a gay couple constitute a substantial burden on gay rights?

How does a wedding photographer being told to photograph a wedding constitute a substantial burden on religious rights?

I have no idea. I don't think the Bible has anything against watching gay weddings.

[Mavorpen]

The Civil Rights Act is still in full force.

Yes, it is. But it could conceivably be challenged under RFRA, and depending on the circumstances, I think such a challenge could be successful.

Stop lying. RFRA has never been intended to do such a thing, nor has it been demonstrated to have the power to do so.

[Geilinor]

Yes, it is. But it could conceivably be challenged under RFRA, and depending on the circumstances, I think such a challenge could be successful.

I really don't think so.

I agree. I don't know what to say about people who think the Civil Rights Act could be unconstitutional.

[Auralia]

Simply saying "gay rights" is not sufficient to meet the compelling interest requirement. How does Elaine Photography's refusal to photograph a gay couple constitute a substantial burden on gay rights?

How does a wedding photographer being told to photograph a wedding constitute a substantial burden on religious rights?

If participation in a gay wedding is against the photographer's sincerely-held religious beliefs, then it is a substantial burden on freedom of religion.