NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Neo Rome Republic]

So if a business can't get away with it, what the fuck is the problem?

The money wasted in enforcing and legislating it.

Assuming the goods are elsewhere, whether I want them later or now. No good reason I should have to go elsewhere, my money is good enough as any other consumer. Also the risk of being denied higher education, and medical.

We've been over this. Your money isn't worth the same as any other customer to a person who doesn't value it as such.

I'm sure exceptions could be made to industries like that.

No it isn't a dollar $1.50 is still $1.50, no matter who holds it. I could use that $1.50 from a black man and buy things for the same price, same as if it's from a white man.

[New Bierstaat]

No arguments there it will happen the only question will be when. (Because God forbid relgious institutions defend their beliefs on the simple principle of faith)

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

Cut it with this false equivalency crap. Sexual orientation =/= race. You've tried to make this point several times now, and repeating it isn't going to make people agree with you.

[Mavorpen]

So if a business can't get away with it, what the fuck is the problem?

The money wasted in enforcing and legislating it.

Versus wasting resources on supporting these businesses? No fucking thank you.

[Murray land]

No arguments there it will happen the only question will be when. (Because God forbid relgious institutions defend their beliefs on the simple principle of faith)

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

In no way are you proving your point to me you just make yourself look like an authoritarian fascist in my view. (How dare people think independently !God forbid no one thinks the same what a travesty. sarcasm)

[Neo Rome Republic]

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

Cut it with this false equivalency crap. Sexual orientation =/= race. You've tried to make this point several times now, and repeating it isn't going to make people agree with you.

It's not a false equivalency, it's equally discriminating.

[Mavorpen]

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

Cut it with this false equivalency crap. Sexual orientation =/= race. You've tried to make this point several times now, and repeating it isn't going to make people agree with you.

It isn't a false equivalency. Stating they aren't exactly the same isn't an argument.

[Zottistan]

even if they did, the victim could easily get the goods elsewhere.

Why should the victim have to go elsewhere? What if the victim doesn't have a computer or Internet access and lives in a small town of 1,000 people where that store is the only place to get the necessary goods within the area?

Because the seller doesn't want to sell.
Move. I'm all in favour of discouraging rural living.

The money wasted in enforcing and legislating it.

We've been over this. Your money isn't worth the same as any other customer to a person who doesn't value it as such.

I'm sure exceptions could be made to industries like that.

No it isn't a dollar $1.50 is still $1.50, no matter who holds it.

#
How many times have I said this, now?
Mr Jackson is offering to sell you an x at $1.50.
Mr Ford is offering to sell you an identical x at $0.50.

Your money is worth more to one than it is to the other.

[Neo Rome Republic]

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

In no way are you proving your point to me you just make yourself look like an authoritarian fascist in my view. (How dare people think independently !God forbid no one thinks the same what a travesty. sarcasm)

I'm just wondering how you justify one and not the other?

[New Bierstaat]

In that case Churches, should have the right not to marry, based on race.

In no way are you proving your point to me you just make yourself look like an authoritarian fascist in my view. (How dare people think independently !God forbid no one thinks the same what a travesty. sarcasm)

Pulling the race card is like waving the white flag as far as I'm concerned. Put another W on the board.

[Zottistan]

The money wasted in enforcing and legislating it.

Versus wasting resources on supporting these businesses? No fucking thank you.

Who said anything about supporting them?

[Mavorpen]

Your money is worth more to one than it is to the other.

Wrong. $1.50 is still worth more than $.50 to them.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Why should the victim have to go elsewhere? What if the victim doesn't have a computer or Internet access and lives in a small town of 1,000 people where that store is the only place to get the necessary goods within the area?

Because the seller doesn't want to sell.
Move. I'm all in favour of discouraging rural living.

No it isn't a dollar $1.50 is still $1.50, no matter who holds it.

#
How many times have I said this, now?
Mr Jackson is offering to sell you an x at $1.50.
Mr Ford is offering to sell you an identical x at $0.50.

Your money is worth more to one than it is to the other.

Doesn't matter, if a black man buys either one for their fixed price, it's the same as if a white man buys one, at it's fixed price.

[Mavorpen]

Versus wasting resources on supporting these businesses? No fucking thank you.

Who said anything about supporting them?

You DO realize that private businesses use public goods and services, right...?

[New England and The Maritimes]

The word "gay" should be removed from this title. A wedding is a wedding, fucking hell.

[Geilinor]

So if a business can't get away with it, what the fuck is the problem?

The money wasted in enforcing and legislating it.

Assuming the goods are elsewhere, whether I want them later or now. No good reason I should have to go elsewhere, my money is good enough as any other consumer. Also the risk of being denied higher education, and medical.

We've been over this. Your money isn't worth the same as any other customer to a person who doesn't value it as such.

$1.50=$1.50, white or black, heterosexual or homosexual. According to the reflexive property of mathematics, the money is worth the same.

[Murray land]

Cut it with this false equivalency crap. Sexual orientation =/= race. You've tried to make this point several times now, and repeating it isn't going to make people agree with you.

It's not a false equivalency, it's equally discriminating.

Let me give you a point of view I live in an area where we have tons of Albanians who left their native country after the Serbians put them to the firing squad would you say that they are out of line to discriminate against Serbians who commited genocide on them?

[Auralia]

I haven't seen too many people address the RFRA element of the case.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the New Mexico RFRA did not apply since the government wasn't a party to the case. I think that's a disingenuous argument that ignores the fact that the burden exists because of a human rights law passed by the state legislature and enforced by the state human rights commission and judiciary; government can burden freedom of religion by establishing the necessary conditions for others to do so using its institutions. Interpreting the statute any other way would substantially weaken the protections offered by the RFRA.

I think that if the RFRA were actually applied to this case, government would have a hard time arguing that forcing Elaine Photography to take photographs of gay weddings is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is not to stamp out unpopular opinions, but to ensure that protected groups have access to public accommodations. Since the gay couple was able to find another photographer, forcing Elaine Photography to take the photos was unnecessary and fails to meet the RFRA's criteria.

Is anyone interested in commenting on this?

[Hallistar]

I thought sexual orientation was something businesses couldn't discriminate against (On top of race, gender, creed, etc)?

[Neo Rome Republic]

It's not a false equivalency, it's equally discriminating.

Let me give you a point of view I live in an area where we have tons of Albanians who left their native country after the Serbians put them to the firing squad would you say that they are out of line to discriminate against Serbians who commited genocide on them?

To blame all Serbs for something only a few are responsible for, and deny them rights to purchase based on ethnicity. Yes, I still think it's wrong.

[New Bierstaat]

I haven't seen too many people address the RFRA element of the case.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the New Mexico RFRA did not apply since the government wasn't a party to the case. I think that's a disingenuous argument that ignores the fact that the burden exists because of a human rights law passed by the state legislature and enforced by the state human rights commission and judiciary; government can burden freedom of religion by establishing the necessary conditions for others to do so using its institutions. Interpreting the statute any other way would substantially weaken the protections offered by the RFRA.

I think that if the RFRA were actually applied to this case, government would have a hard time arguing that forcing Elaine Photography to take photographs of gay weddings is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is not to stamp out unpopular opinions, but to ensure that protected groups have access to public accommodations. Since the gay couple was able to find another photographer, forcing Elaine Photography to take the photos was unnecessary and fails to meet the RFRA's criteria.

Is anyone interested in commenting on this?

If you're ignored, that means the bad guys couldn't find anything susceptible to attack in your statement, so you win.

[Twilliamson]

i don't see how business should have the right to discrimnate against somebody.

[Geilinor]

It's not a false equivalency, it's equally discriminating.

Let me give you a point of view I live in an area where we have tons of Albanians who left their native country after the Serbians put them to the firing squad would you say that they are out of line to discriminate against Serbians who commited genocide on them?

Yes. Spitefulness is not a valid reason to act a certain way.

[Hallistar]

It's not a false equivalency, it's equally discriminating.

Let me give you a point of view I live in an area where we have tons of Albanians who left their native country after the Serbians put them to the firing squad would you say that they are out of line to discriminate against Serbians who commited genocide on them?

Their discrimination would be an unfair generalization, acting as if the exact same Serbians who tried killing them and their families were the same one coming to their stores or saying hi to them.

[Zottistan]

Your money is worth more to one than it is to the other.

Wrong. $1.50 is still worth more than $.50 to them.

So why did the photographers deny service to the couple in question?

Because their money was worth less to them than that of a straight couple.

Who said anything about supporting them?

You DO realize that private businesses use public goods and services, right...?

Yeah, so? You realize they pay taxes towards what they use, right?

Because the seller doesn't want to sell.
Move. I'm all in favour of discouraging rural living.
#
How many times have I said this, now?
Mr Jackson is offering to sell you an x at $1.50.
Mr Ford is offering to sell you an identical x at $0.50.

Your money is worth more to one than it is to the other.

Doesn't matter, if a black man buys either one for their fixed price, it's the same as if a white man buys it, at that fixed price.

The fact that this thread even exists is proof that all customers' money is not worth the same to everybody.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Wrong. $1.50 is still worth more than $.50 to them.

So why did the photographers deny service to the couple in question?

Because their money was worth less to them than that of a straight couple.

You DO realize that private businesses use public goods and services, right...?

Yeah, so? You realize they pay taxes towards what they use, right?

Doesn't matter, if a black man buys either one for their fixed price, it's the same as if a white man buys it, at that fixed price.

The fact that this thread even exists is proof that all customers' money is not worth the same to everybody.

Um no, it doesn't prove anything. Again $1.50 is still $1.50, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.