NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Mavorpen]

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.

Right, so if the business is paying with taxes, why shouldn't we use these taxes to keep them from discriminating? Why is it less of a waste than supporting them with taxes?

[Zottistan]

Securing the rights of discriminated groups is pointless?

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

Have you read anything I've said at all over the course of this thread?

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.

Right, so if the business is paying with taxes, why shouldn't we use these taxes to keep them from discriminating? Why is it less of a waste than supporting them with taxes?

Because we'll have all the things that support them with taxes anyway. If the business is gone, the roads and railway lines will still be there. We'll still be paying for it.

[Mavorpen]

Because we'll have all the things that support them with taxes anyway. If the business is gone, the roads and railway lines will still be there. We'll still be paying for it.

And the roads and railway lines are still there even when we use taxes to fight discrimination.

Glad you agree with me it isn't a waste of money.

[Spoder]

Many private businesses reserve the right to not serve a customer at any time for any reason. They should have respected her religious beliefs.This is just a bunch of that one-sided "don't discriminate" BS the US feeds us.

[Zottistan]

Because we'll have all the things that support them with taxes anyway. If the business is gone, the roads and railway lines will still be there. We'll still be paying for it.

And the roads and railway lines are still there even when we use taxes to fight discrimination.

Glad you agree with me it isn't a waste of money.

What?

If we'll be paying to support them whether discrimination is legal or not, and discrimination isn't likely to happen at all, how could it be anything other than a waste of money to ban it?

[New England and The Maritimes]

This title should be changed to "NM Supreme Court Finds Photographer Can't Discriminate, 'Religious Outrage' Commences"

[TaQud]

This title should be changed to "NM Supreme Court Finds Photographer Can't Discriminate, 'Religious Outrage' Commences"

can't. wouldn't fit Title character limit is 60.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This title should be changed to "NM Supreme Court Finds Photographer Can't Discriminate, 'Religious Outrage' Commences"

can't. wouldn't fit Title character limit is 60.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Wikkiwallana]

They weren't forced to make that choice. They made it voluntarily every day they opened for business. All they are being forced to do is follow through with it.

I mean forced to make the choice between taking gay wedding photographs or shutting down the business.

If they din't want to take wedding photos, they shouldn't have started a wedding photography business.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I mean forced to make the choice between taking gay wedding photographs or shutting down the business.

If they din't want to take wedding photos, they shouldn't have started a wedding photography business.

They receive a lot of state benefits because they agree to follow the rules set up. Your business license isn't a give-away. It's you agreeing to follow the law in exchange for legal protection.

[Wikkiwallana]

Being able to find someone else isn't the point.
The point is that they would have to due to being discriminated against, which is against the law, and thankfully so.

The RFRA prohibits the government from burdening freedom of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least burdensome means of accomplishing that interest. What is the compelling governmental interest in this case?

"Doing the job you advertised" is not a burden.

[Mavorpen]

If we'll be paying to support them whether discrimination is legal or not, and discrimination isn't likely to happen at all, how could it be anything other than a waste of money to ban it?

That's where you're confused. It's bullshit that discrimination isn't likely to happen at all.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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

Have you read anything I've said at all over the course of this thread?

Right, so if the business is paying with taxes, why shouldn't we use these taxes to keep them from discriminating? Why is it less of a waste than supporting them with taxes?

Because we'll have all the things that support them with taxes anyway. If the business is gone, the roads and railway lines will still be there. We'll still be paying for it.

You seem to think discrimination should be legal. I say it shouldn't be because: People don't want it, it's unconstitutional, discrimination whether by race, gender, or sexual orientation is still around, and there's no good reason to allow it, money is still money $1.50 is still a $1.50 no matter how much I wish, that would magically change.

[Wikkiwallana]

and if they don't then it is within the laws rights to stop them from doing so.

No. Courts should not force people to do things which they find wrong. How is this so difficult to understand?

No, that's much of the point of courts. Otherwise, jails would be empty, and no one would pay alimony or child support.

[Blekksprutia]

Oh no, I need to take pictures of two women joined in Sinful Matrimony because of their wicked institution of love I shan't even speak of, oh my day, this camera is now tainted, hide the children, I haz the ghey disease, I might start chucking up rainbows. Who the hell does it harm to take a photo of two people getting married? The person refusing this is a wannabe drama queen.

[Wikkiwallana]

Discrimination against discrimination. You know that reminds me of a quote...

An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye... makes everyone go blind. Mahatma Gandhi

I believe that businesses should be free to discriminate. I am against the government forcing something to do something against their will. Discrimination is already discouraged by the threat of lawsuit.

This was a lawsuit.

[Mavorpen]

Oh no, I need to take pictures of two women joined in Sinful Matrimony because of their wicked institution of love I shan't even speak of, oh my day, this camera is now tainted, hide the children, I haz the ghey disease, I might start chucking up rainbows. Who the hell does it harm to take a photo of two people getting married? The person refusing this is a wannabe drama queen.

But it's icky.

[Lunalia]

I am certain that fifty years ago, business owners claimed that "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" businesses were based on religious preferences rather than discrimination.

The arguments which applied back then apply today. Discrimination is wrong. There is no separate but equal. You can't say a business doesn't have the right to refuse service to someone because of their ethnicity because of their personal beliefs, then turn around and say they do have the right to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation..... because of personal beliefs.

Why does it feel like in the past ten years we've gone back in time fifty?

[Blekksprutia]

Oh no, I need to take pictures of two women joined in Sinful Matrimony because of their wicked institution of love I shan't even speak of, oh my day, this camera is now tainted, hide the children, I haz the ghey disease, I might start chucking up rainbows. Who the hell does it harm to take a photo of two people getting married? The person refusing this is a wannabe drama queen.

But it's icky.

Oh, hide the children, I think one of them bumped into me! Ed, call the hospital, and tell them to give me a straight nurse!

[Neo Rome Republic]

I am certain that fifty years ago, business owners claimed that "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" businesses were based on religious preferences rather than discrimination.

The arguments which applied back then apply today. Discrimination is wrong. There is no separate but equal.

So many don't seem to be able to get that, through their thick skulls.

[Wikkiwallana]

No, the purpose of anti-discrimination laws is the prevention of discrimination. If it were just about essential services, the wording of the laws would specify that. It doesn't.

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate all discrimination, regardless of whether it actually causes any harm in a particular case?

To the best of the government's ability to enforce it.

[Spoder]

I am certain that fifty years ago, business owners claimed that "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" businesses were based on religious preferences rather than discrimination.

The arguments which applied back then apply today. Discrimination is wrong. There is no separate but equal.

Yes, but in this case there is actual evidence of it being religious.

[Zottistan]

If we'll be paying to support them whether discrimination is legal or not, and discrimination isn't likely to happen at all, how could it be anything other than a waste of money to ban it?

That's where you're confused. It's bullshit that discrimination isn't likely to happen at all.

If people discriminate, they'll lose a lot of business and get bad press. So it'd be strongly against their interests to do it. Of course it would happen, you'd get the odd moron, but the vast majority of people either wouldn't want to do it or wouldn't even if they wanted to.

And even if they do, the victims will be able to get the goods elsewhere, if not in another shop then certainly online.

Have you read anything I've said at all over the course of this thread?

Because we'll have all the things that support them with taxes anyway. If the business is gone, the roads and railway lines will still be there. We'll still be paying for it.

You seem to think discrimination should be legal. I say it shouldn't because: People don't want it, it's unconstitutional, discrimination whether by race, gender, or sexual orientation is still around, and there's no good reason to allow it, money is still money $1.50 is still a $1.50 no matter how much I wish, that would magically change.

People should want it, the constitution isn't an argument, not significantly enough in the sale of goods to be a major problem, the money that would be saved, I abandoned that argument a while back.

[Lunalia]

I am certain that fifty years ago, business owners claimed that "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" businesses were based on religious preferences rather than discrimination.

The arguments which applied back then apply today. Discrimination is wrong. There is no separate but equal.

Yes, but in this case there is actual evidence of it being religious.

Er..... fifty years ago it was also religious. The Bible promotes segregation. All those verses and lines about only your neighbors (neighbors meaning the members of your fellow white community) matter and they're the only people you should associate with, and all.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, because bigotry and discrimination and things that treat other human beings as inferior are generally things to avoid.

Yes, but does the government have a right to eradicate them from society?

No, because the government has no rights. It has powers and duties, however, and it certainly has both the power to fight societal discrimination and the duty to do so.