NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Zottistan]

It proves the purchase was unconsensual. Which is theft.

How is it theft if you pay them for it? If the business owner refuses to accept the money, it isn't the customers problem. The customer paid.

Without consent.

It proves the purchase was unconsensual. Which is theft.

No it isn't. Learn what the word theft means.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

[Geilinor]

Doesn't matter, that money would still be equally valid legal tender, for them to use. If it came or heteros or homos

They valued it as less.

You can't value $1.50 as anything less than or more than $1.50. Money is money, regardless of who possesses it.

[Qubec]

This Post is no longer available at the request of Qubec.

[Mavorpen]

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Right, thanks for proving it isn't theft.

[Neo Rome Republic]

How is it theft if you pay them for it? If the business owner refuses to accept the money, it isn't the customers problem. The customer paid.

Without consent.

No it isn't. Learn what the word theft means.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

''Rightful ownership'' depends on what the law says is ''right ownership''.

[Twilliamson]

How is it theft if you pay them for it? If the business owner refuses to accept the money, it isn't the customers problem. The customer paid.

Without consent.

No it isn't. Learn what the word theft means.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

so if they are selling a good or service how is it theft is somebody pays for it.

[Murray land]

??????????????????????????? Dios mios. I haven't stooped to threats in fact I could promise that if I walked in there and said that I would be chased down. You clearly have never been threatened and if you have I understand why. I have proved my point you are just reluctant to counter it with contrary evidence, that people should be told what to think or do because that is wrong.

People could think what they want but not everyone's values should be upheld, simply because it's their values. Otherwise human sacrifice and, lynchings would be legal. If they were to assault me, I'd sue them. If you want another reason, it's because we live in a Representative democracy, and the majority think it's wrong.

According to you but where I live you would be beaten up charged with a hate crime. Why because their are many Albanians where I live we have so many we lost by a slim margin to receive certain muslim holy days off. So in other words we understand their hatred of Serbia and where I live your argument is invalid on this particular issue. So you would lose your law suit simply for thinking that everyone should shut up and put up with each other. Ironically you would lose your hypothetical law suit for discrimination.

[Zottistan]

They valued it as less.

You can't value $1.50 as anything less than or more than $1.50. Money is money, regardless of who possesses it.

Yes, you can. The proof is in the fact that this thread exists.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Right, thanks for proving it isn't theft.

So, theft is taking something without consent, and forcing somebody to sell something is taking something without consent, but not theft? Hm.

Without consent.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

''Rightful ownership'' depends on what the law says is ''right ownership''.

Pretty sure before purchase, the law says the seller is the rightful owner of the product.

Without consent.

Maybe you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

so if they are selling a good or service how is it theft is somebody pays for it.

Because there was no mutual consent.

[Murray land]

Correction this is his argument that all forms of discrimination are wrong including political hence my National Socialist reference

You seem to think all forms discrimination are okay.

I just believe in freedom of thought association and free enterprise. I don't judge others who discriminate if they do they have a reason to and I won't question it on the basis of I just might not understand.

[Mavorpen]

So, theft is taking something without consent, and forcing somebody to sell something is taking something without consent, but not theft? Hm.

No. Theft is taking something that "rightfully" belongs to someone without consent.

[TaQud]

damn. haven't seen a poll on NSG this close since the Transgender Bathroom Thread.

[Mavorpen]

damn. haven't seen a poll on NSG this close since the Transgender Bathroom Thread.

When you get religious polls, typically the atheists and Christians are neck and neck for a while.

[Zottistan]

So, theft is taking something without consent, and forcing somebody to sell something is taking something without consent, but not theft? Hm.

No. Theft is taking something that "rightfully" belongs to someone without consent.

I'm pretty sure before purchase the product rightfully belongs to the seller.

[Dragonisia]

Looks like we have a war of rights here. If I were her I would have warned them I was going to sing hymns and evangelize while taking the photos. Can't crush one's first amendment rights so they would have either had to accept they had a singing photographer or chose other services.

[Mavorpen]

No. Theft is taking something that "rightfully" belongs to someone without consent.

I'm pretty sure before purchase the product rightfully belongs to the seller.

In other words, it isn't theft.

[Zottistan]

I'm pretty sure before purchase the product rightfully belongs to the seller.

In other words, it isn't theft.

So, taking something without consent isn't theft, because theft is taking something without consent.

Lovely logic there.

[Mavorpen]

In other words, it isn't theft.

So, taking something without consent isn't theft, because theft is taking something without consent.

Lovely logic there.

There is consent. If you don't consent, then move.

[Zottistan]

So, taking something without consent isn't theft, because theft is taking something without consent.

Lovely logic there.

There is consent. If you don't consent, then move.

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You seem to think all forms discrimination are okay.

I just believe in freedom of thought association and free enterprise. I don't judge others who discriminate if they do they have a reason to and I won't question it on the basis of I just might not understand.

If you say so. But for me the right to not be discriminated, for having a different race or opinion is more important. If that's what the people want, then that's what the gov. should do.

[Mavorpen]

There is consent. If you don't consent, then move.

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

Supporting them with taxes is a pointless waste of money since you yourself admitted these businesses would go under either way.

[Geilinor]

In other words, it isn't theft.

So, taking something without consent isn't theft, because theft is taking something without consent.

Lovely logic there.

If something is priced at $1 and you give the cashier or seller a $1 bill, the item is yours. If a customer can meet the price you set, it is theirs.

[Zottistan]

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

Supporting them with taxes is a pointless waste of money since you yourself admitted these businesses would go under either way.

I admitted the businesses wouldn't do it, unless they were really stupid. And even if there was legislation making them serve everybody, you'd have to support them with taxes. And even if they weren't serving everybody, they'd be paying taxes towards that.

So, taking something without consent isn't theft, because theft is taking something without consent.

Lovely logic there.

If something is priced at $1 and you put a $1 bill on the counter, the item is yours. If a customer can meet the price you set, it is theirs.

Whether you want to sell or not? Huh.

[Geilinor]

There is consent. If you don't consent, then move.

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

Securing the rights of discriminated groups is pointless?

[Zottistan]

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

Securing the rights of discriminated groups is pointless?

Their rights, in this field, are secure anyway. No business in their right mind barring an idiotic few like these photographers are going to deny them service, because they'd be boycotted and would never stay afloat.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Right. My bad.

That still doesn't change the fact that this is a pointless waste of money.

Securing the rights of discriminated groups is pointless?

Apparently for him business trumps what the people want, and the rights they legally have.