NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Olthar]

I am somewhat confused, though. I mean, who wouldn't want to take pictures of a lesbian wedding? I'd have paid them to let me do it.

[Dyakovo]

I am somewhat confused, though. I mean, who wouldn't want to take pictures of a lesbian wedding? I'd have paid them to let me do it.

A lesbian wedding is still a wedding, and thus boring.

[Olthar]

I am somewhat confused, though. I mean, who wouldn't want to take pictures of a lesbian wedding? I'd have paid them to let me do it.

A lesbian wedding is still a wedding, and thus boring.

A lesbian wedding has lesbians. Your argument is invalid.

[HappyShark]

based on the legal analysis which is not my own but from a UCLA Professor of Law it could very well be construed as discrimination based on NM interpretation of their law.

Quit lying.

you should really read PROF. Eugene Volokh's amici brief, while the law in new mexico would protect you as a private citizen it would not protect the business. this is just one refusal and one lawyer away from being outright tested in new mexico.

[Dyakovo]

Quit lying.

you should really read PROF. Eugene Volokh's amici brief, while the law in new mexico would protect you as a private citizen it would not protect the business. this is just one refusal and one lawyer away from being outright tested in new mexico.

No it isn't. Unlike you, actual lawyers know what a public accommodation is.

[Mavorpen]

this is just one refusal and one lawyer away from being outright tested in new mexico.

So what the fuck does your misunderstanding of what discrimination under New Mexican law is have to do with the thread?

[Lithosano]

Quit lying.

you should really read PROF. Eugene Volokh's amici brief, while the law in new mexico would protect you as a private citizen it would not protect the business. this is just one refusal and one lawyer away from being outright tested in new mexico.

You don't need to put "Prof." in all caps, his status doesn't lend any credence to his argument. I don't care if he's the motherfucking President of the United States. If he's wrong, he's wrong.

I'm reading the brief now. Just noting that appeal to authority is still a fallacy.

[Mavorpen]

you should really read PROF. Eugene Volokh's amici brief, while the law in new mexico would protect you as a private citizen it would not protect the business. this is just one refusal and one lawyer away from being outright tested in new mexico.

No it isn't. Unlike you, actual lawyers know what a public accommodation is.

Why does this even matter? We're no longer talking about reality, we're talking about a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the topic really.

[Olthar]

No it isn't. Unlike you, actual lawyers know what a public accommodation is.

Why does this even matter? We're no longer talking about reality, we're talking about a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the topic really.

It's a rather boring fantasy world, then. I mean, it doesn't even have rlves or wizards.

[Ifreann]

I am somewhat confused, though. I mean, who wouldn't want to take pictures of a lesbian wedding? I'd have paid them to let me do it.

The wedding, not the wedding night.

[HappyShark]

i would argue back not all segregation hurts society, For example an LGBT magazine writer should not be forced based on discrimination laws which also protect religion to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. Yet NM Supreme Court has decided that the context of the article would have no bearing in whether or not discrimination occurred a refusal to do so would be deemed discrimination. It used to be protected now who really knows for sure perhaps it will be tested in some other case.

An LGBT magazine writer is not a "public accommodation." He or she is an employee - or in the case of a freelancer, a contractor - of the magazine. That person could absolutely refuse to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. The worst that might happen is they would be fired.

They are not always employees some magazines are owner operated as a small business by a single person, should we dehumanize this person because they own a business. Are they discriminating if they refuse to write the article? I would venture based on the New Mexico decision of context not being an excuse and that it is a business this is an affirmative.

[Shaggai]

The law in this instance is correct for the following reasons:
Segregation hurts society, and it's in society's interests to protect itself.

i would argue back not all segregation hurts society, For example an LGBT magazine writer should not be forced based on discrimination laws which also protect religion to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. Yet NM Supreme Court has decided that the context of the article would have no bearing in whether or not discrimination occurred a refusal to do so would be deemed discrimination. It used to be protected now who really knows for sure perhaps it will be tested in some other case.

An LGBT magazine writer would not. An LGBT advertiser who was open to the public might. This is perfectly fine. They have a job and they should do it. Of course, an individual employee of an advertising company would be able to refuse, with no legal penalties.

Discrimination is bad because it restricts the access people have to goods and services for no valid reason. Take the following example: A remote town in Alaska. The owner of the gas sation decides to refuse service to nonwhites. The owner of the grocery store decides to follow suit. No food and no way to leave to get food. Dovyou think this should be legal?

[Mavorpen]

Are they discriminating if they refuse to write the article?

No. Could you not ask such silly questions?

[Neo Art]

Because that's not discrimination based on religion. If they refused to serve a specific evangelical group because of their religion, then it would be discrimination. This is the fundamental problem you face. You don't actually seem to be able to understand what is discrimination via the law; in other words, you're affirming what I've said all along, you do not understand the relevant laws.

based on the legal analysis which is not my own but from a UCLA Professor of Law it could very well be construed as discrimination based on NM interpretation of their law.

Well, I mean, it's just a state school. It's not that impressive.

[Dyakovo]

Are they discriminating if they refuse to write the article?

No. Could you not ask such silly questions?

No, apparently he cannot...
He has:
Zero comprehension of what the NMHRA actually says.
No idea what discrimination is.
No idea what segregation is.
No idea what a public accommodation is.

[Farnhamia]

based on the legal analysis which is not my own but from a UCLA Professor of Law it could very well be construed as discrimination based on NM interpretation of their law.

Well, I mean, it's just a state school. It's not that impressive.

A teachers college, really.

[Dazchan]

An LGBT magazine writer is not a "public accommodation." He or she is an employee - or in the case of a freelancer, a contractor - of the magazine. That person could absolutely refuse to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. The worst that might happen is they would be fired.

They are not always employees some magazines are owner operated as a small business by a single person, should we dehumanize this person because they own a business. Are they discriminating if they refuse to write the article? I would venture based on the New Mexico decision of context not being an excuse and that it is a business this is an affirmative.

I think your need to learn what discrimination is before you post about it.

[Neo Art]

The law in this instance is correct for the following reasons:
Segregation hurts society, and it's in society's interests to protect itself.

i would argue back not all segregation hurts society, For example an LGBT magazine writer should not be forced based on discrimination laws which also protect religion to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. Yet NM Supreme Court has decided that the context of the article would have no bearing in whether or not discrimination occurred a refusal to do so would be deemed discrimination. It used to be protected now who really knows for sure perhaps it will be tested in some other case.

If your hypothetical magazine writer publically advertised his willingness to publish favorable reviews of religions who paid him money, but then refused to do so for an evangelical church, then you're right, under New Mexico law that would be discrimination. And I am absolutely OK with that.

However since that's not in the slightest case what you're talking about, that's really not relevant. And the comparison between the two circumstances is so profoundly intellectually dishonest and so blindingly stupid that I have a really hard time believing it's not intentional.

[HappyShark]

i would argue back not all segregation hurts society, For example an LGBT magazine writer should not be forced based on discrimination laws which also protect religion to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. Yet NM Supreme Court has decided that the context of the article would have no bearing in whether or not discrimination occurred a refusal to do so would be deemed discrimination. It used to be protected now who really knows for sure perhaps it will be tested in some other case.

An LGBT magazine writer would not. An LGBT advertiser who was open to the public might. This is perfectly fine. They have a job and they should do it. Of course, an individual employee of an advertising company would be able to refuse, with no legal penalties.

Discrimination is bad because it restricts the access people have to goods and services for no valid reason. Take the following example: A remote town in Alaska. The owner of the gas sation decides to refuse service to nonwhites. The owner of the grocery store decides to follow suit. No food and no way to leave to get food. Dovyou think this should be legal?

No i do not think it should be legal but are they artistically selling gasoline? I also concur the employee should be immune to any penalties. The single owner and the big company however would have to comply, unless they wanted to test NM ruling in regards to context and the freedom of speech amendment.

[HappyShark]

i would argue back not all segregation hurts society, For example an LGBT magazine writer should not be forced based on discrimination laws which also protect religion to write a positive review of evangelical beliefs on homosexuality. Yet NM Supreme Court has decided that the context of the article would have no bearing in whether or not discrimination occurred a refusal to do so would be deemed discrimination. It used to be protected now who really knows for sure perhaps it will be tested in some other case.

If your hypothetical magazine writer publically advertised his willingness to publish favorable reviews of religions who paid him money, but then refused to do so for an evangelical church, then you're right, under New Mexico law that would be discrimination. And I am absolutely OK with that.

However since that's not in the slightest case what you're talking about, that's really not relevant. And the comparison between the two circumstances is so profoundly intellectually dishonest and so blindingly stupid that I have a really hard time believing it's not intentional.

New Mexico said opposition to context is irrelevant the business is based on writing articles and reviews for other people in exchange for a payment, what the context of those reviews are and their opposition to the content is not an excuse for discrimination against religion in my example.

[Mavorpen]

New Mexico said opposition to context is irrelevant

What a pure, boldfaced lie.

[Farnhamia]

If your hypothetical magazine writer publically advertised his willingness to publish favorable reviews of religions who paid him money, but then refused to do so for an evangelical church, then you're right, under New Mexico law that would be discrimination. And I am absolutely OK with that.

However since that's not in the slightest case what you're talking about, that's really not relevant. And the comparison between the two circumstances is so profoundly intellectually dishonest and so blindingly stupid that I have a really hard time believing it's not intentional.

New Mexico said opposition to context is irrelevant the business is based on writing articles and reviews for other people in exchange for a payment, what the context of those reviews are and their opposition to the content is not an excuse for discrimination against religion in my example.

As Neo said, if the writer advertises that he will write positive reviews for anyone, and then refuses based on religion, he's breaking the law. The hypothetical is so ludicrous as to be not really worth considering.

[HappyShark]

No. Could you not ask such silly questions?

No, apparently he cannot...
He has:
Zero comprehension of what the NMHRA actually says.
No idea what discrimination is.
No idea what segregation is.
No idea what a public accommodation is.

if you have an arguement you should make it.... dismisal is just denial on your part of something you do not want to hear or acknowledge sort of like a child going Lalalalalalalalala

[HappyShark]

New Mexico said opposition to context is irrelevant the business is based on writing articles and reviews for other people in exchange for a payment, what the context of those reviews are and their opposition to the content is not an excuse for discrimination against religion in my example.

As Neo said, if the writer advertises that he will write positive reviews for anyone, and then refuses based on religion, he's breaking the law. The hypothetical is so ludicrous as to be not really worth considering.

When is someone going to request and pay for a negative review of themselves or their organization? Does this happen often?

[Mavorpen]

No, apparently he cannot...
He has:
Zero comprehension of what the NMHRA actually says.
No idea what discrimination is.
No idea what segregation is.
No idea what a public accommodation is.

dismisal is just denial on your part of something you do not want to hear or acknowledge sort of like a child going Lalalalalalalalala

Right... this definitely doesn't resemble you making the same claim over and over while screaming, "NOPE! UCLA!!!111oneone!!!111" despite us explaining why you're wrong.