NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Divair]

No, because of separation of church and state.

LRN2LAW, please.

separation of church and state DOES NOT appear anywhere in actual law...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
-Meaning that Congress (and according to atheists, leftists (Democrats are not liberal, liberal means someone that believes in liberalism which is far far far from the big government surveillance-state crap you leftists like), and a left-leaning supreme court, the states and) and can't make laws that give rights to only one establishment of religion

"or restrict free exercise thereof."
-Meaning congress (and more broadly the states, according to the supreme court) cannot restrict actions (so long as they are not harmful to society nor a significant breach in criminal law like human sacrifice or some shit like that) taken in the carrying out of someone's religious belief

Someone should go tell the Supreme Court (because you clearly know better than them)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
Burstyn v. Wilson
Torcaso v. Watkins
Engel v. Vitale
Abington School District v. Schempp
Epperson v. Arkansas
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Stone v. Graham
Edwards v. Aquillard
Allegheny County v. ACLU
Lee v. Weisman

l2law

[Herrebrugh]

No.

That was easy.

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

Okay, allow me to explain in language even you can understand:

Straight couple go to photo-person, can get photos taken

Gay couple go to photo-person, cannot get photos taken

Gay couple not treated the same as straight couple, so gay couple mad

Gay couple go to court, and court agrees (yay!) because they think everyone should be able to have photos taken

And The Rules say so too!

[HappyShark]

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

Check your privilege.

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

If it was equal rights then i would have the ability to sue by simply stating she cannot deny me service because of her religious beliefs.

[HappyShark]

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

Okay, allow me to explain in language even you can understand:

Straight couple go to photo-person, can get photos taken

Gay couple go to photo-person, cannot get photos taken

Gay couple not treated the same as straight couple, so gay couple mad

Gay couple go to court, and court agrees (yay!) because they think everyone should be able to have photos taken

And The Rules say so too!

ah yes the famous double standard she can discriminate against me because of religious beliefs but If I were to be gay then i have the mighty stick of the law to bash her into submission with YIPPEE for equal rights.

[Farnhamia]

Check your privilege.

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

If it was equal rights then i would have the ability to sue by simply stating she cannot deny me service because of her religious beliefs.

Oh, come on. "Subjugate"? I hardly think that standing up for one's rights in the face of discrimination is subjugating anyone. Civil rights is not a zero-sum game, you know. My having equal rights with you does not mean that you now have fewer rights than you had before. Being religious is not an excuse for breaking the law. Laws that protect people's rights are good. I would certain stand beside Christians who were being discriminated against because of their faith.

Oh, and neither the bakery nor the photographer were forced to do anything.

[Herrebrugh]

Okay, allow me to explain in language even you can understand:

Straight couple go to photo-person, can get photos taken

Gay couple go to photo-person, cannot get photos taken

Gay couple not treated the same as straight couple, so gay couple mad

Gay couple go to court, and court agrees (yay!) because they think everyone should be able to have photos taken

And The Rules say so too!

ah yes the famous double standard she can discriminate against me because of religious beliefs but If I were to be gay then i have the mighty stick of the law to bash her into submission with YIPPEE for equal rights.

Who is gay couple discriminating against, sport?

[Galloism]

Check your privilege.

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

Wrong.

Heterosexuals have as much right to sue if they are denied service based on their orientation as homosexuals do.

[HappyShark]

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

If it was equal rights then i would have the ability to sue by simply stating she cannot deny me service because of her religious beliefs.

Oh, come on. "Subjugate"? I hardly think that standing up for one's rights in the face of discrimination is subjugating anyone. Civil rights is not a zero-sum game, you know. My having equal rights with you does not mean that you now have fewer rights than you had before. Being religious is not an excuse for breaking the law. Laws that protect people's rights are good. I would certain stand beside Christians who were being discriminated against because of their faith.

Oh, and neither the bakery nor the photographer were forced to do anything.

Conquer make someone do what they do not want to do... hmmm i wonder what these rulings were all about... ah yes how did they put it "This is benevolent rehabilitation" poor business owners and their diseased criminal minds needing rehabilitation.

yes indeed we are not going down a slippery slope...

[Galloism]

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

If it was equal rights then i would have the ability to sue by simply stating she cannot deny me service because of her religious beliefs.

Oh, come on. "Subjugate"? I hardly think that standing up for one's rights in the face of discrimination is subjugating anyone. Civil rights is not a zero-sum game, you know. My having equal rights with you does not mean that you now have fewer rights than you had before. Being religious is not an excuse for breaking the law. Laws that protect people's rights are good. I would certain stand beside Christians who were being discriminated against because of their faith.

Oh, and neither the bakery nor the photographer were forced to do anything.

The gays are subjugating the world man.

Think about it, when was the last time we had an openly straight president?

[Farnhamia]

Oh, come on. "Subjugate"? I hardly think that standing up for one's rights in the face of discrimination is subjugating anyone. Civil rights is not a zero-sum game, you know. My having equal rights with you does not mean that you now have fewer rights than you had before. Being religious is not an excuse for breaking the law. Laws that protect people's rights are good. I would certain stand beside Christians who were being discriminated against because of their faith.

Oh, and neither the bakery nor the photographer were forced to do anything.

Conquer make someone do what they do not want to do... hmmm i wonder what these rulings were all about... ah yes how did they put it "This is benevolent rehabilitation" poor business owners and their diseased criminal minds needing rehabilitation.

yes indeed we are not going down a slippery slope...

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

[HappyShark]

How so? I already explained this a few pages back, I just do not feel like digging it up at the moment. Based on what just occurred Gays now have a right to subjugate business owners to their will, whereas the general public does not. in my book this is a privilege.

Wrong.

Heterosexuals have as much right to sue if they are denied service based on their orientation as homosexuals do.

The question was can i sue if she denies me service based on her religious beliefs. Obviously the case has been set here that businesses cannot refuse service based religious beliefs.

[Mavorpen]

Wrong.

Heterosexuals have as much right to sue if they are denied service based on their orientation as homosexuals do.

The question was can i sue if she denies me service based on her religious beliefs. Obviously the case has been set here that businesses cannot refuse service based religious beliefs.

Which doesn't address the post you replied to at all.

[Galloism]

Wrong.

Heterosexuals have as much right to sue if they are denied service based on their orientation as homosexuals do.

The question was can i sue if she denies me service based on her religious beliefs. Obviously the case has been set here that businesses cannot refuse service based religious beliefs.

You should try getting a passing familiarity with the case.

The court did not say you can't refuse based on religious beliefs. They said that, if you are in business, you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

[HappyShark]

Conquer make someone do what they do not want to do... hmmm i wonder what these rulings were all about... ah yes how did they put it "This is benevolent rehabilitation" poor business owners and their diseased criminal minds needing rehabilitation.

yes indeed we are not going down a slippery slope...

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

lol, no what you are seeking is not equality but power over others to make them do what you want them to do. Gay Nazis should be fun this time around, will you all be feeding Christians to lions like in the old roman days, i will need to press my Toga so i can attend the festivities.

[Llamalandia]

separation of church and state DOES NOT appear anywhere in actual law...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
-Meaning that Congress (and according to atheists, leftists (Democrats are not liberal, liberal means someone that believes in liberalism which is far far far from the big government surveillance-state crap you leftists like), and a left-leaning supreme court, the states and) and can't make laws that give rights to only one establishment of religion

"or restrict free exercise thereof."
-Meaning congress (and more broadly the states, according to the supreme court) cannot restrict actions (so long as they are not harmful to society nor a significant breach in criminal law like human sacrifice or some shit like that) taken in the carrying out of someone's religious belief

Someone should go tell the Supreme Court (because you clearly know better than them)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
Burstyn v. Wilson
Torcaso v. Watkins
Engel v. Vitale
Abington School District v. Schempp
Epperson v. Arkansas
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Stone v. Graham
Edwards v. Aquillard
Allegheny County v. ACLU
Lee v. Weisman

l2law

Actually given the amount of legislating from the bench SCOTUS does someone needs to remind them they are the judicial branch and not the lesislature of this country, so yeah SCOTUS needs to lrn2law. I mean you can bend and interpret the constitution to say anything you want it to if you really try hard enough that's why i support an originalist view of judicial review.

[Galloism]

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

lol, no what you are seeking is not equality but power over others to make them do what you want them to do. Gay Nazis should be fun this time around, will you all be feeding Christians to lions like in the old roman days, i will need to press my Toga so i can attend the festivities.

Gay Nazis in Togas will be a wonderful band name in ten years.

[Mavorpen]

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

lol, no what you are seeking is not equality but power over others to make them do what you want them to do. Gay Nazis should be fun this time around, will you all be feeding Christians to lions like in the old roman days, i will need to press my Toga so i can attend the festivities.

So your argument is literally, "lolno!"

Brilliant.

[HappyShark]

The question was can i sue if she denies me service based on her religious beliefs. Obviously the case has been set here that businesses cannot refuse service based religious beliefs.

You should try getting a passing familiarity with the case.

The court did not say you can't refuse based on religious beliefs. They said that, if you are in business, you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

so she can say no to anyone except those who hold a "protected" status... yep above and beyond what the general public has, so definitely a privilege.

[Farnhamia]

Someone should go tell the Supreme Court (because you clearly know better than them)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
Burstyn v. Wilson
Torcaso v. Watkins
Engel v. Vitale
Abington School District v. Schempp
Epperson v. Arkansas
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Stone v. Graham
Edwards v. Aquillard
Allegheny County v. ACLU
Lee v. Weisman

l2law

Actually given the amount of legislating from the bench SCOTUS does someone needs to remind them they are the judicial branch and not the lesislature of this country, so yeah SCOTUS needs to lrn2law. I mean you can bend and interpret the constitution to say anything you want it to if you really try hard enough that's why i support an originalist view of judicial review.

"Legislating from the bench"? You never looked up one of those, did you?

[Mavorpen]

You should try getting a passing familiarity with the case.

The court did not say you can't refuse based on religious beliefs. They said that, if you are in business, you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

so she can say no to anyone except those who hold a "protected" status... yep above and beyond what the general public has, so definitely a privilege.

You do know you also have a protected status, right?

[Galloism]

You should try getting a passing familiarity with the case.

The court did not say you can't refuse based on religious beliefs. They said that, if you are in business, you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

so she can say no to anyone except those who hold a "protected" status... yep above and beyond what the general public has, so definitely a privilege.

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

[HappyShark]

lol, no what you are seeking is not equality but power over others to make them do what you want them to do. Gay Nazis should be fun this time around, will you all be feeding Christians to lions like in the old roman days, i will need to press my Toga so i can attend the festivities.

Gay Nazis in Togas will be a wonderful band name in ten years.

I would probably go to one of their concerts just so i can say i was there...

[Llamalandia]

Conquer make someone do what they do not want to do... hmmm i wonder what these rulings were all about... ah yes how did they put it "This is benevolent rehabilitation" poor business owners and their diseased criminal minds needing rehabilitation.

yes indeed we are not going down a slippery slope...

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

ok but where does this slope come to a stop? I mean we've had threads in which close incestuopus marriage has been defended on the grounds of "Well consenting adults can do whatever man". There does at some point need to be a sharded universal morality here otherwise it's going to be a matter of including more and more groups under protected categories adn go to absurd lengths to protect adn accomodate them.

It's like how manning wants a sex change (just to keep this post at least tangetially relevant) in prison. Screw that He broke the law as a He and should suffer the punishment as a He. He can call himself She all He wants but I don't feel any great sympathy for someone convicted and court martialled by a jury of his peers. Hey after he's served his sentence fine but until then no sex change adn no respect for his gender choice. (and I say this because i'm predicting courts are going to side with manning when/if he sues for a govt funded sex change as they've already made it clear in the civilian justice system that we have to pay for it for prisoners.)

[Mavorpen]

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

ok but where does this slope come to a stop? I mean we've had threads in which close incestuopus marriage has been defended on the grounds of "Well consenting adults can do whatever man".

This has nothing to do with the thread, but why the fuck is this bad, exactly? Two consenting adults being marriage hurts no one, whether they are the same sex or siblings.

[HappyShark]

so she can say no to anyone except those who hold a "protected" status... yep above and beyond what the general public has, so definitely a privilege.

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

but she can deny service for religious reason any other time and discriminate however she likes as long as it is not in one of these predefined classes.