NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Mavorpen]

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.

Right...that's a straw man. Because it isn't actually what was argued.

[HappyShark]

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"?

Bingo we have a winner.

[Mavorpen]

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

So you don't have evidence that her business was worth only $14,000?

Cool, so you don't have an argument.

[Herrebrugh]

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"?

I don't see how you are, since the argument in your post (as far as I am able to grasp what it says) consists purely of claiming she won't be able to pay a $14.000 fine.

[Llamalandia]

I was presenting a point which is logically parallel to the original point and and attacking that.

Right...that's a straw man. Because it isn't actually what was argued.

Logically i would say it is essentially the same thing. I mean i can turn down a job offer simply because my prospective employer is gay how is that all that different from this woman turning down a contract from a gay couple just because their gay (and it conflicted with her religion)?

[Herrebrugh]

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"?

Bingo we have a winner.

And it certainly isn't you.

[Llamalandia]

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"?

I don't see how you are, since the argument in your post (as far as I am able to grasp what it says) consists purely of claiming she won't be able to pay a $14.000 fine.

I was responding to a brief adn specific post in context it makes more sense but i understand the confusion here.

[Mavorpen]

Logically i would say it is essentially the same thing. I mean i can turn down a job offer simply because my prospective employer is gay

That's not running a public accommodation.

Try again. Preferably when you've actually understood the law.

[HappyShark]

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?

That is the ticket for businesses going forward simply decline the business and refuse to provide a reason.

[Llamalandia]

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

So you don't have evidence that her business was worth only $14,000?

Cool, so you don't have an argument.

And you don't have evidence it was worth more than 14k what's your point. You brought up the notion that she might not have 14k when you said

Unless her business was only worth $14,000

I was merely following a line discourse that you yourself started.

[Llamalandia]

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?

That is the ticket for businesses going forward simply decline the business and refuse to provide a reason.

Problem is unfortunately courts can see through that rather easily. It's like if you were selling a house and consistently rejected every offer from african american buyers. Even if you don't say it's race motivated the court is gonna figure it out and punish you for unlawful discrimination.

[Mavorpen]

So you don't have evidence that her business was worth only $14,000?

Cool, so you don't have an argument.

And you don't have evidence it was worth more than 14k

Which is fine since I didn't make the claim it was.

You however, made the claim it wasn't and then tried to dodge providing evidence by saying, "What if!!?!??!?!"

[Herrebrugh]

I don't see how you are, since the argument in your post (as far as I am able to grasp what it says) consists purely of claiming she won't be able to pay a $14.000 fine.

I was responding to a brief adn specific post in context it makes more sense but i understand the confusion here.

Which goes by the fact that it was a complete non-argument...

[Galloism]

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?

That is the ticket for businesses going forward simply decline the business and refuse to provide a reason.

Of course, then you have situations like this one, where you have someone else call back with identical or nearly identical circumstances but straight instead of gay or white instead of black.

If the offending offer is rejected, while the other isn't, that's a strong case for unlawful discrimination.

Hell, in Florida, we had a whole agency devoted to that for landlords/renters.

[Llamalandia]

Logically i would say it is essentially the same thing. I mean i can turn down a job offer simply because my prospective employer is gay

That's not running a public accommodation.

Try again. Preferably when you've actually understood the law.

Iml not arguing the law alone I'm arguing philospphy (what is right) and the law (what is legal) and I've largely said that the law as written makes this a pretty open and shut case (save perhaps a few longshot constitutional arguments).
Im arguing though that law may itself be wrong.

I don't see why a distinction should be made between individgual and public accommodation. After all both human beings and corporations are "people" are they not if biological people can discriminate in who they choose to work for then coprporate persons should also be allowed to decide who adn who not to work for should they not?

[HappyShark]

That is the ticket for businesses going forward simply decline the business and refuse to provide a reason.

Problem is unfortunately courts can see through that rather easily. It's like if you were selling a house and consistently rejected every offer from african american buyers. Even if you don't say it's race motivated the court is gonna figure it out and punish you for unlawful discrimination.

actually if you play your cards very close to the chest and never utter the words as to your reasoning there is no proof, reasonable doubt. As to why you like or dislike the offer is subjective, and without specifics it is just conjecture.

[Llamalandia]

I was responding to a brief adn specific post in context it makes more sense but i understand the confusion here.

Which goes by the fact that it was a complete non-argument...

Yes but i didn;t bring it up Mavorpen did. I was merely responding follow the quotes back.

[Blasveck]

That's not running a public accommodation.

Try again. Preferably when you've actually understood the law.

Iml not arguing the law alone I'm arguing philospphy (what is right) and the law (what is legal) and I've largely said that the law as written makes this a pretty open and shut case (save perhaps a few longshot constitutional arguments).
Im arguing though that law may itself be wrong.

I don't see why a distinction should be made between individgual and public accommodation. After all both human beings and corporations are "people" are they not if biological people can discriminate in who they choose to work for then coprporate persons should also be allowed to decide who adn who not to work for should they not?

How the fuck are corporations people?

I've never seen the reasoning behind this.

[Mavorpen]

That's not running a public accommodation.

Try again. Preferably when you've actually understood the law.

Iml not arguing the law alone

Neither am I. Running a public accommodation and applying for a job aren't the same thing, nor are they similar.

This isn't complicated.

[Llamalandia]

And you don't have evidence it was worth more than 14k

Which is fine since I didn't make the claim it was.

You however, made the claim it wasn't and then tried to dodge providing evidence by saying, "What if!!?!??!?!"

I didn't claim it was either! Saying what if specifically implies that it may be but isn't necessarily so. We were both what iffing and you started it.

[Herrebrugh]

Which goes by the fact that it was a complete non-argument...

Yes but i didn;t bring it up Mavorpen did. I was merely responding follow the quotes back.

You did bring it up, actually:

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

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply, i would say that yeah that's pretty darn close to "being forced to participate".

And it still is an absolute non-argument.

[Mavorpen]

Iml not arguing the law alone I'm arguing philospphy (what is right) and the law (what is legal) and I've largely said that the law as written makes this a pretty open and shut case (save perhaps a few longshot constitutional arguments).
Im arguing though that law may itself be wrong.

I don't see why a distinction should be made between individgual and public accommodation. After all both human beings and corporations are "people" are they not if biological people can discriminate in who they choose to work for then coprporate persons should also be allowed to decide who adn who not to work for should they not?

How the fuck are corporations people?

I've never seen the reasoning behind this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_o ... ._Woodward

[HappyShark]

That is the ticket for businesses going forward simply decline the business and refuse to provide a reason.

Of course, then you have situations like this one, where you have someone else call back with identical or nearly identical circumstances but straight instead of gay or white instead of black.

If the offending offer is rejected, while the other isn't, that's a strong case for unlawful discrimination.

Hell, in Florida, we had a whole agency devoted to that for landlords/renters.

If i had a business today i would just turn the whole thing into a private club membership enterprise, and tell those seeking to dictate what i can and cannot do with my business to go to hell.

[Mavorpen]

Which is fine since I didn't make the claim it was.

You however, made the claim it wasn't and then tried to dodge providing evidence by saying, "What if!!?!??!?!"

I didn't claim it was either!

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

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply, i would say that yeah that's pretty darn close to "being forced to participate".

Stop lying.

[Llamalandia]

Iml not arguing the law alone

Neither am I. Running a public accommodation and applying for a job aren't the same thing, nor are they similar.

This isn't complicated.

I disagree i believe for the purposes here they are quite similar. I mean i can post a resume online and then accept or reject any job for any reason whatsoever. Why shouldn't i be able to post a business service (basically a corporate person offering to work) and then be able to decide which jobs to take adn which to decline (outside of "because the law says so").