NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

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.

Well they don't, so too bad. Yes the constitution is an argument, if we base our laws off of it, then YES it is. I still can't understand how you as a gay person, are for discrimination.

[Wikkiwallana]

If you believe your ideas are superior to others, or you're prejudiced against their ideas, yes it does. If you think gay people should not be allowed to be married and cannot provide any reasoning besides personal beliefs, that falls well within the definition of bigotry.

Well, my opposition stems from my religious beliefs and my understanding of natural law and the purpose of sexual intercourse. These are legitimate, good-faith beliefs.

Natural law doesn't really stand up in court.

[Seriong]

Yes the business has the right to refuse for whatever reason. Before we bring up them being gay, let's look at something.

The business is about photographing weddings of heterosexuals, you wouldn't call them to photograph your graduation, as that is not their purpose, so why is it justified to call them to photograph your homosexual wedding? That is not their purpose.

[Mavorpen]

If people discriminate, they'll lose a lot of business and get bad press.

So what, you don't have any actual evidence to back your claim up, or are you going to stick with silly rhetoric?

[Wikkiwallana]

Ahem.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as set out in the Constitution, are inviolable. They're are also conveniently set out in order of importance for you. Lynching blacks denies them their right to life.

Also, granting blacks the right to vote/abolishing Jim Crow laws do not violate any of your three inviolable constitutional rights.

That's not actually part of the Constitution.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

No it takes public funds

Mm-hmm. And how much by way of public funds can it take before discrimination is A Bad Thing?

All its funding? A set percentage? One dollar?

Hold that answer for a moment, and consider that every business in this nation benefits, in one form or another, from the government's presence. This photographer's property (her professional property, I mean - we are speaking of her in a professional capacity, not a personal one) is protected by police and firefighters. Roads are built and maintained that allow her to get to engagements and allow clients to come to her. When she is old, she will draw a Social Security check (assuming Congress hasn't done away with SocSec entirely by then).

Anti-discrimination laws prohibit people like our esteemed photographer from taking those services and goods, paid for by the public as a whole, and only offering hers in turn to a specified subsection of it based upon inherent, non-removable factors (ie race, gender, sexual orientation etc.).

No man (or woman) is an island, entire of itself.

That is an argument for a different topic

[Lunalia]

Yes the business has the right to refuse for whatever reason. Before we bring up them being gay, let's look at something.

The business is about photographing weddings of heterosexuals, you wouldn't call them to photograph your graduation, as that is not their purpose, so why is it justified to call them to photograph your homosexual wedding? That is not their purpose.

Fifty years ago, people argued that "this business is about serving whites. you wouldn't call them and ask them to serve blacks, as that's not their purpose, so why is it justified to call them to photograph your wedding if you are black?"

The same logic applies.

[Farnhamia]

Well, my opposition stems from my religious beliefs and my understanding of natural law and the purpose of sexual intercourse. These are legitimate, good-faith beliefs.

Natural law doesn't really stand up in court.

Yes, it does, but only to leave when the argument using it is thrown out.

[Wikkiwallana]

legitimate religious belief system. The other is not.

Please define your terms.

[Zottistan]

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.

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.

Well they don't, so too bad. Yes the constitution is an argument, if we base our laws off of it, then YES it is. I still can't understand how you as a gay person, are for discrimination.

Well they should, and since that's what I'm discussing, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The constitution is not an argument when you agreed yourself we're talking about whether or not it should be amended to allow it. I like freedom a lot, and hate wastefulness even more.

If people discriminate, they'll lose a lot of business and get bad press.

So what, you don't have any actual evidence to back your claim up, or are you going to stick with silly rhetoric?

If the Apartheid boycotts significantly helped change a whole country, it's fair to say local boycotts could bring down a local business altogether.

[Spoder]

I don't find her discrimination to be a big deal. She just loses another customer. Her choice. What bothers me, is that the customer bothered to sue her.

[Mavorpen]

If the Apartheid boycotts significantly helped change a whole country, it's fair to say local boycotts could bring down a local business altogether.

Cool, so you don't have any evidence and you were talking out of your ass. We're done.

[Zottistan]

If the Apartheid boycotts significantly helped change a whole country, it's fair to say local boycotts could bring down a local business altogether.

Cool, so you don't have any evidence and you were talking out of your ass. We're done.

Yeah, fuck logic.

[Lunalia]

I don't find her discrimination to be a big deal. She just loses another customer. Her choice. What bothers me, is that the customer bothered to sue her.

Does it bother you that black customers who were turned away by white businesses sued the businesses for discrimination fifty years ago?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well they don't, so too bad. Yes the constitution is an argument, if we base our laws off of it, then YES it is. I still can't understand how you as a gay person, are for discrimination.

Well they should, and since that's what I'm discussing, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The constitution is not an argument when you agreed yourself we're talking about whether or not it should be amended to allow it. I like freedom a lot, and hate wastefulness even more.

So what, you don't have any actual evidence to back your claim up, or are you going to stick with silly rhetoric?

If the Apartheid boycotts significantly helped change a whole country, it's fair to say local boycotts could bring down a local business altogether.

Discrimination will happen without these laws whether it be on Blacks, Gays, Muslims, or other minorities. There is still discrimination in the US. I honestly can't believe you think that protecting people's rights and providing equal opportunity, is a waste of time. Me wanting you to have the right to marry without discrimination or be treated fairly, is a waste of time apparently.

[Ethel mermania]

Shouldnt business owners have the right to serve who they want to serve?

and before anyone says, ermahgerd muzzak hates gays, no i dont, i just dont see why business owners should be forced to serve people who they dont want to.

you cant not serve a black coffee in your dinner if you dont like blacks.
as long as gays are a protected class, and in nm they are. only a religious organization can discriminate against them

[Spoder]

I don't find her discrimination to be a big deal. She just loses another customer. Her choice. What bothers me, is that the customer bothered to sue her.

Does it bother you that black customers who were turned away by white businesses sued the businesses for discrimination fifty years ago?

Back then, just about every business was white owned because of discrimination, so no. It's one thing when the whole country is discriminating against you, another when a stupid woman is.

[Mavorpen]

Cool, so you don't have any evidence and you were talking out of your ass. We're done.

Yeah, fuck logic.

Yes, that does seem to be your belief: that making claims without evidence and expecting me to take it at a face value is logical.

When you get me evidence that discrimination is virtually nonexistent today, I'll be here.

[Lunalia]

Does it bother you that black customers who were turned away by white businesses sued the businesses for discrimination fifty years ago?

Back then, just about every business was white owned because of discrimination, so no. It's one thing when the whole country is discriminating against you, another when a stupid woman is.

I'm pretty sure that back then, anti segregationists would have called the business owner a stupid man (because women didn't own businesses as much then) who is refusing to move with the times.

[Zottistan]

Well they should, and since that's what I'm discussing, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The constitution is not an argument when you agreed yourself we're talking about whether or not it should be amended to allow it. I like freedom a lot, and hate wastefulness even more.

If the Apartheid boycotts significantly helped change a whole country, it's fair to say local boycotts could bring down a local business altogether.

Discrimination will happen without these laws whether it be on Blacks, Gays, Muslims, or other minorities. There is still discrimination in the US. I honestly can't believe you think that protecting people's rights and providing equal opportunity, is a waste of time. Me wanting you to have the right to marry without discrimination or be treated fairly, is a waste of time apparently.

And those businesses will go under. I've yet to see one source that discrimination in shops like we're talking about here is a problem in the US.
If I had my way, you would have perfectly equal opportunity with education up to second level, and could marry whoever you want (granted, with some restrictions on having children with family members, but hey, you could marry them). I don't see how that's relevant.

[Lunalia]

Discrimination will happen without these laws whether it be on Blacks, Gays, Muslims, or other minorities. There is still discrimination in the US. I honestly can't believe you think that protecting people's rights and providing equal opportunity, is a waste of time. Me wanting you to have the right to marry without discrimination or be treated fairly, is a waste of time apparently.

And those businesses will go under. I've yet to see one source that discrimination in shops like we're talking about here is a problem in the US.
If I had my way, you would have perfectly equal opportunity with education up to second level, and could marry whoever you want (granted, with some restrictions on having children with family members, but hey, you could marry them). I don't see how that's relevant.

The anti gay marriage faction is large enough that not even half the states in the US have legalized gay marriage yet. I highly doubt discriminatory businesses will have trouble staying afloat. I'm also fairly sure that if discrimination had not been crushed so heavily wherever it was found fifty years ago, the world would be a highly segregated place now.

[Zottistan]

Yeah, fuck logic.

Yes, that does seem to be your belief: that making claims without evidence and expecting me to take it at a face value is logical.

When you get me evidence that discrimination is virtually nonexistent today, I'll be here.

Discrimination in shops, like we're talking about here?

I've yet to see any evidence that it happens outside of the occasional isolated incident.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, that does seem to be your belief: that making claims without evidence and expecting me to take it at a face value is logical.

When you get me evidence that discrimination is virtually nonexistent today, I'll be here.

Discrimination in shops, like we're talking about here?

I've yet to see any evidence that it happens outside of the occasional isolated incident.

So you DON'T have any.

[Zottistan]

And those businesses will go under. I've yet to see one source that discrimination in shops like we're talking about here is a problem in the US.
If I had my way, you would have perfectly equal opportunity with education up to second level, and could marry whoever you want (granted, with some restrictions on having children with family members, but hey, you could marry them). I don't see how that's relevant.

The anti gay marriage faction is large enough that not even half the states in the US have legalized gay marriage yet. I highly doubt discriminatory businesses will have trouble staying afloat. I'm also fairly sure that if discrimination had not been crushed so heavily wherever it was found fifty years ago, the world would be a highly segregated place now.

With the non-discriminatory businesses as competition? I highly doubt it, and even if they do, there'll still be the non-discriminatory businesses for people to shop at.
Probably. But it has been crushed heavily.

[Zottistan]

Discrimination in shops, like we're talking about here?

I've yet to see any evidence that it happens outside of the occasional isolated incident.

So you DON'T have any.

Do you?