Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Mavorpen]

What you said was "neutrality and general applicability [are] two criteria that have to be met for RFRA to not be applied." This is dead wrong. RFRAs apply regardless of whether the law is neutral or general applicable.

And of course, the two statements aren't contradictory in any way, shape, or form. If you read my post, you'd see that I never, not once, said that neutrality and general applicability are the only criteria. You might want to pretend I did, but I didn't.

The case took place in the New Mexico courts, and was the result of a claim under a law passed by the New Mexico legislature. Elaine Photography paid a fine ordered by the New Mexico courts. Of course the government is involved.

Great, so you didn't read the court opinion and don't understand what the court actually argued against.

[Auralia]

Elaine Photography didn't argue that the government violated the NMRFRA. They in fact argued that it doesn't apply only to government agencies (which is bullshit) and argued that it applied to private parties and that asserting violations of RFRA in a court case between private parties is possible.

That is what the New Mexico Supreme Court argued against.

But any action by a private party under the NMHRA by necessity implicates the New Mexico government. The New Mexico legislature passed the law. The New Mexico courts enforced the law. The law should therefore be subject to review under the NMRFRA.

[Auralia]

And of course, the two statements aren't contradictory in any way, shape, or form. If you read my post, you'd see that I never, not once, said that neutrality and general applicability are the only criteria. You might want to pretend I did, but I didn't.

So then what point were you trying to make?

[Mavorpen]

Because the victim was able to find another person who was willing to offer the service, then the government's interest was accomplished without needing to force the other person to offer the service instead. This is clearly a less restrictive means of accomplishing the state's interest.

Uh... what? The government's interest is to end discrimination, which causes unnecessary burden on those discriminated against.

How does allowing them to be discriminated, the exact opposite of the government's interest, accomplish the state's interest?

[Geilinor]

Elaine Photography didn't argue that the government violated the NMRFRA. They in fact argued that it doesn't apply only to government agencies (which is bullshit) and argued that it applied to private parties and that asserting violations of RFRA in a court case between private parties is possible.

That is what the New Mexico Supreme Court argued against.

But any action by a private party under the NMHRA by necessity implicates the New Mexico government. The New Mexico legislature passed the law. The New Mexico courts enforced the law. The law should therefore be subject to review under the NMRFRA.

Elaine Photography did not appeal the entire decision on the grounds of the NMRFRA after it was made and they didn't try to take it to a national level. If you're suggesting that religious freedom means LGBT people should receive no legal protections, that is definitely discriminatory.

[Auralia]

Uh... what? The government's interest is to end discrimination, which causes unnecessary burden on those discriminated against.

How does allowing them to be discriminated, the exact opposite of the government's interest, accomplish the state's interest?

The government's interest is not ending discrimination as an end in and of itself. If that were the case, than the law would contain no exceptions whatsoever. Rather, the government's interest in ending public accommodations discrimination is ensuring that minorities have access to public accommodations.

[Mavorpen]

But any action by a private party under the NMHRA by necessity implicates the New Mexico government. The New Mexico legislature passed the law. The New Mexico courts enforced the law. The law should therefore be subject to review under the NMRFRA.

Not sure where I said it's not subject for review.

What I actually said was that your post had nothing to do with the actual case at hand.

[The Black Forrest]

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

People should accept their views. People would dress fabulous if they did!

[Mavorpen]

The government's interest is not ending discrimination as an end in and of itself. If that were the case, than the law would contain no exceptions whatsoever.

What a nice straw man.

Rather, the government's interest in ending public accommodations discrimination is ensuring that minorities have access to public accommodations.

Thanks for proving me right.

[Auralia]

Elaine Photography did not appeal the entire decision on the grounds of the NMRFRA after it was made and they didn't try to take it to a national level.

Actually, they did.

[Flaxxony]

a contract is written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

They are being forced to sell their wares to another.

No, the volunteered to sale their wares to the public.... they merely cannoy discriminate upon the type of person they will sell to who is of this public. That is what they agreed to when they sought license to be allowed to operate. Operating a business is not a right... it is a privilege.

no. It's a right. But nice try

[Port Kokosovy]

It should not be legalized

[Vettrera]

Why do gays insist everybody accepts their views?

People should accept their views. People would dress fabulous if they did!

I like my tacky wardrobe as it is...

[Auralia]

Thanks for proving me right.

And in both the Colorado and New Mexico case, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service from someone else. So, no harm done, and the state's interest is accomplished.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state has an interest in screwing religious people over, which is a distinct possibility.

[Auralia]

Not sure where I said it's not subject for review.

Didn't you just say that the NMRFRA didn't apply to the Elaine Photography case?

What I actually said was that your post had nothing to do with the actual case at hand.

Well, you're right in part, since Colorado has no RFRA. The two are similar cases, though.

[Mavorpen]

And in both the Colorado and New Mexico case, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service from someone else. So, no harm done, and the state's interest is accomplished.

You might want to learn what the word "ensure" means. Because allowing someone to deny someone service based on their sexuality isn't ensuring access to public accommodations.

[Mavorpen]

Didn't you just say that the NMRFRA didn't apply to the Elaine Photography case?

Nope.

Well, you're right in part, since Colorado has no RFRA. The two are similar cases, though.

...What?

[The Black Forrest]

Thanks for proving me right.

And in both the Colorado and New Mexico case, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service from someone else. So, no harm done, and the state's interest is accomplished.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state has an interest in screwing religious people over, which is a distinct possibility.

The state is going to take away their places of worship? Outlaw their Religion?

I thought we were talking about selling cakes.

[Auralia]

And in both the Colorado and New Mexico case, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service from someone else. So, no harm done, and the state's interest is accomplished.

You might want to learn what the word "ensure" means. Because allowing someone to deny someone service based on their sexuality isn't ensuring service from a public accommodation.

But in those particular cases, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service, so the state's interest was accomplished without forcing the religious businesses to offer the service.

[Mavorpen]

But in those particular cases, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service, so the state's interest was accomplished without forcing the religious businesses to offer the service.

Again, no it wasn't.

Making up bullshit about what you think the state's interest is, doesn't actually mean it's true.

[Auralia]

Didn't you just say that the NMRFRA didn't apply to the Elaine Photography case?

Nope.

So do you believe that it does, in fact, apply to the Elaine Photography case?

[The Black Forrest]

You might want to learn what the word "ensure" means. Because allowing someone to deny someone service based on their sexuality isn't ensuring service from a public accommodation.

But in those particular cases, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service, so the state's interest was accomplished without forcing the religious businesses to offer the service.

All that matters if the customers the ability to pay and how they act in the establishment.

What's the difference between the couple ordering the cake for themselves or ording it for a hetero couple?

[Auralia]

But in those particular cases, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service, so the state's interest was accomplished without forcing the religious businesses to offer the service.

Again, no it wasn't.

Making up bullshit about what you think the state's interest is, doesn't actually mean it's true.

Well, what do you think the state's interest was?

[Mavorpen]

Nope.

So do you believe that it does, in fact, apply to the Elaine Photography case?

No.

[Vettrera]

Imma be honest

In my opinion: While I agree that people/businesses shouldn't be discriminating based on race or sexual orientation

it's a fucking cake shop

There are other fucking cake shops that actually deserve your money and would actually want it