NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Mavorpen]

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply

And of course, you're completely and utterly wrong. Unless her business was only worth $14,000...that she didn't even have to pay because it was waived.

[Galloism]

No, deliberately inciting hatred and being offensive is not a right.

However, if you walked into a gay bar wearing ordinary clothing in New Mexico and were denied service because you were straight, you would have the right to sue under the laws of New Mexico, yes.

i walked in not knowing it was a gay bar, they beat me up threw me on the curb, and told me to never come back. hmmm they attacked me because of my religious beliefs? is this not protected in the constitution also under anti-discrimination?

Are you saying this actually happened or are you continuing the previous poster's (spurious) line of reasoning?

[Llamalandia]

This was a club seeking official school recognition (ie govt sanction to operate) that woudl be the govt via the school making an establishment of belief.

Uh, no it wouldn't. Religious clubs are allowed in public universities.

Ok fine a public university wants to adopt such a policy fine. the issue is still one of interferring with commerce adn free exercise of religion outside of any publically funded institution.

[HappyShark]

Fuck you and your religion, you will participate in this gay wedding.

Except, no one was forced to participate in anything. You'd know that if you read the court's opinion.

and they were suing just for kicks and giggles... nah we are just kidding we will pay you to not show up and participate in the gay wedding as our photographer.

[Mavorpen]

the issue is still one of interferring with commerce adn free exercise of religion outside of any publically funded institution.

No one's free exercise of religion was infringed upon, since no right to discriminate based on your religion exists.

[Llamalandia]

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply

And of course, you're completely and utterly wrong. Unless her business was only worth $14,000...that she didn't even have to pay because it was waived.

Given the tight econmic times who knows maybe she was barely able to make payroll who's to say for sure but i take your point. Of course lets say she simply grins and pays the fine and continues to perate, how long would it be before the govt says meh 14k fine aint enough less increase that in future legislation.

[Mavorpen]

Except, no one was forced to participate in anything. You'd know that if you read the court's opinion.

and they were suing just for kicks and giggles...

No, they sued because the law was broken.

[Mavorpen]

Given the tight econmic times who knows maybe she was barely able to make payroll who's to say for sure but i take your point. Of course lets say she simply grins and pays the fine and continues to perate, how long would it be before the govt says meh 14k fine aint enough less increase that in future legislation.

What the fuck are you saying? Seriously, if you aren't going to make any attempt to type coherently, don't bother even replying to me.

[HappyShark]

i walked in not knowing it was a gay bar, they beat me up threw me on the curb, and told me to never come back. hmmm they attacked me because of my religious beliefs? is this not protected in the constitution also under anti-discrimination?

Are you saying this actually happened or are you continuing the previous poster's (spurious) line of reasoning?

and if it did would it even matter, based on the laws today.

[Llamalandia]

the issue is still one of interferring with commerce adn free exercise of religion outside of any publically funded institution.

No one's free exercise of religion was infringed upon, since no right to discriminate based on your religion exists.

Actually it does. People turn dowwn employment all the time because they don't want ot work for comapnies they feel are immoral. Not a whole lot of fundamentalist Christians working for gangsta rap labels or victoria secret now are there. If we really wanted to be free of discrimination based on religion people should be forced to consider taking and fulfilling any job regardless of how they feel about it religiously or morally.

[Galloism]

and they were suing just for kicks and giggles...

No, they sued because the law was broken.

Judicial Activism! Legislating from the Ben-

Oh fuck. The court was just enforcing the law as the legislature wrote it?

Carry on.

[Herrebrugh]

Are you saying this actually happened or are you continuing the previous poster's (spurious) line of reasoning?

and if it did would it even matter, based on the laws today.

Wat?

[Mavorpen]

Actually it does. People turn dowwn employment all the time because they don't want ot work for comapnies they feel are immoral. Not a whole lot of fundamentalist Christians working for gangsta rap labels or victoria secret now are there.

The fuck are you talking about?

If we really wanted to be free of discrimination based on religion people should be forced to consider taking and fulfilling any job regardless of how they feel about it religiously or morally.

Ah, I see. You were attacking a straw man. Nice job.

[Galloism]

Are you saying this actually happened or are you continuing the previous poster's (spurious) line of reasoning?

and if it did would it even matter, based on the laws today.

Yes, assault and battery is still against the law.

[Mavorpen]

and if it did would it even matter, based on the laws today.

Yes, assault and battery is still against the law.

But...GAY PRIVILEGE!

[Llamalandia]

Given the tight econmic times who knows maybe she was barely able to make payroll who's to say for sure but i take your point. Of course lets say she simply grins and pays the fine and continues to perate, how long would it be before the govt says meh 14k fine aint enough less increase that in future legislation.

What the fuck are you saying? Seriously, if you aren't going to make any attempt to type coherently, don't bother even replying to me.

Look if you cant pay your employees you go out of business. My point is if she is barely making (but making it nonetheless) in photography adn here comes a 14k bill from the state well that may put here over the edge into insolvency.

but lets say thats not the case that this woman is a successful photographer and makes enough money to pay the fines. My question is how long until the legistlature notices adn says hey we got to increase the fine amount if we want to end discrimination.

That's not incoherent.

[Mavorpen]

Look if you cant pay your employees you go out of business. My point is if she is barely making (but making it nonetheless) in photography adn here comes a 14k bill from the state well that may put here over the edge into insolvency.

I don't give a flying fuck. Source this shit or stop wasting my time with pointless "what ifs".

but lets say thats not the case that this woman is a successful photographer and makes enough money to pay the fines. My question is how long until the legistlature notices adn says hey we got to increase the fine amount if we want to end discrimination.

They can't do that.

That's not incoherent.

Yes it was.

[Galloism]

Yes, assault and battery is still against the law.

But...GAY PRIVILEGE!

The only reason it's hard to convict gay men in court is because they dress so well for it. No one can believe they actually did anything wrong when they look so good.

[Llamalandia]

Actually it does. People turn dowwn employment all the time because they don't want ot work for comapnies they feel are immoral. Not a whole lot of fundamentalist Christians working for gangsta rap labels or victoria secret now are there.

The fuck are you talking about?

If we really wanted to be free of discrimination based on religion people should be forced to consider taking and fulfilling any job regardless of how they feel about it religiously or morally.

Ah, I see. You were attacking a straw man. Nice job.

No i wasn't i was attacking a legitimate and valid point and if it's really such a strawman feel free to try and knock it down. it shouldn't be that hard. Essentially this woman who does contract photography of weddings and such is essentially just asking for the right to discriminate between potential employers. It seems she and her business are being discriminated against for the way in which they have organized themselves as a business.

It's like how a lawyer or law firm can either take or decline to represent cases for a variety of reasons and don't have to explain themselves.

[Herrebrugh]

What the fuck are you saying? Seriously, if you aren't going to make any attempt to type coherently, don't bother even replying to me.

Look if you cant pay your employees you go out of business. My point is if she is barely making (but making it nonetheless) in photography adn here comes a 14k bill from the state well that may put here over the edge into insolvency.

but lets say thats not the case that this woman is a successful photographer and makes enough money to pay the fines. My question is how long until the legistlature notices adn says hey we got to increase the fine amount if we want to end discrimination.

That's not incoherent.

She broke the law.

Breaking the law has consequences.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Mavorpen]

The fuck are you talking about?

Ah, I see. You were attacking a straw man. Nice job.

No i wasn't i was attacking a legitimate and valid point

No, you were attacking a point never presented, ever. That's a straw man.

[Llamalandia]

Look if you cant pay your employees you go out of business. My point is if she is barely making (but making it nonetheless) in photography adn here comes a 14k bill from the state well that may put here over the edge into insolvency.

but lets say thats not the case that this woman is a successful photographer and makes enough money to pay the fines. My question is how long until the legistlature notices adn says hey we got to increase the fine amount if we want to end discrimination.

That's not incoherent.

She broke the law.


Breaking the law has consequences.

What part of this don't you understand?

Were debating whether or not the law is right. On the law it's pretty clear cut but the question is is the law "right"?

[Galloism]

The fuck are you talking about?

Ah, I see. You were attacking a straw man. Nice job.

No i wasn't i was attacking a legitimate and valid point and if it's really such a strawman feel free to try and knock it down. it shouldn't be that hard. Essentially this woman who does contract photography of weddings and such is essentially just asking for the right to discriminate between potential employers. It seems she and her business are being discriminated against for the way in which they have organized themselves as a business.

It's like how a lawyer or law firm can either take or decline to represent cases for a variety of reasons and don't have to explain themselves.

And what do you think would happen if said lawyer/law firm declined to represent someone based solely on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation in New Mexico?

[Llamalandia]

No i wasn't i was attacking a legitimate and valid point

No, you were attacking a point never presented, ever. That's a straw man.

I was presenting a point which is logically parallel to the original point and and attacking that. But like i said if it's so ridiculous then take care of my argument yourself.

[Llamalandia]

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply

And of course, you're completely and utterly wrong. Unless her business was only worth $14,000...that she didn't even have to pay because it was waived.

your the one who started the what if game right here with the line :

Unless her business was only worth $14,000