Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a victory for a small minority of society who want to force the rest of humanity to give them the same legal rights as the rest of humanity already enjoys.
FIFY.
No. This stopped being about equal rights a LONG time ago! Maybe it started out that way, but it's not the goal of the gay activist now. Your goal, your true goal is to have special rights, not equal rights. To force your lifestyle onto everyone else, without mercy for those who dare disagree with it. You want attention, you want the limelight, as opposed to people just wanting to live their lifestyle quietly in peace. You want the whole world to celebrate you and society to set your lifestyle up on a pedestal and cater to it. To parade it around constantly and expect everyone to give you a high five for doing so.
At this point, gay activists are having more rights than us heterosexuals. I would not be able to sue a gay man for not wanting to photograph my straight, Christian wedding (nor would I want to because I tolerate other people's views). If I did try such a thing it would make front page news and the sheeple masses would be crying for my crucifixion and calling me the bigot. But yet in this case the only "bigot" here is supposedly the Christian photographer? It's hypocritical.
I wonder why gay activists have yet to speak out against Muslims? What would happen if a gay couple wanted a Muslim bakery to bake them a cake for their gay wedding? I can gurantee you that they wouldn't "turn the other cheek" like the Christians tried to do but were destroyed by their enemies. Such an incident would put liberals and gays in a tough spot.
Bottom line is don't tread on me and I won't tread on you.
The only thing I would add to this is that I don't think it's "gays" behaving like this. No doubt, most gay people want legalized same-sex marriage. But I would bet that much of the gay population wouldn't feel they need to force businesses to endorse their particular views.
I see your point. I think I should start differentiating between the average gay person and the gay activist. There is a big difference. The first group just want to live there lives in peace and are respectful others and their beliefs. The second group is militant and wants to force their lifestyle onto everyone else and tread on their rights.
This apparently has nothing to do with wedding photos. I think we all agree that if we go to one place of business to get something done, and it can't be done (for whatever reason), we go somewhere else. Problem solved. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with solving a problem. This sounds more like an agenda where a photographer was targeted and told to "jump". When the photographer didn't say "how high", the lawsuits started.
Did this couple get their photos? Why are they unable to move on with their lives? Why do they want to make someone else miserable? The photographer prefers a certain type of work, so why should that photographer be forced to do some other type of work?
What if a photographer was asked to photograph a dog, and that photographer doesn't like dogs, should the dog owner move on and find a photographer that likes that sort of photography, or should the dog owner do everything possible to force the photographer to do what he/she wants? Babies, for example. They're probably tricky to work with. Should a photographer that is not comfortable photographing babies be forced to do the work regardless of the rights of the photographer?
It seems that "respecting the autonomy of others" is a foreign concept here.
Funny. Want to address my point now? Also, race and sexual oreintation do not automatically translate. Tell me, under this sort of precedent, why my preference for goat-relationships are any less valid than any other form of sexual attraction? If you're going to use the logic, you can't ignore its implications.
Indeed they do translate. Civil rights are civil rights. This is America, and theoretically, at least, we don't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or mental or physical handicaps.
And I can tell you haven't been here long. We long ago dismissed the silly animal sex meme. They're not consenting adults.
This is sad. It's an example of militant homosexual advocates limiting personal and private freedom through the court system. You proponents claiming this as a victory keep saying that they can't discriminate in their service to the public trough their businesses. They are NOT public servants, they are private business owners. The examples of segregation and whatever were in PUBLIC schools, PUBLIC busses, etc. And it's not like this photographer has a monopoly on the New Mexico market either.
Let's say I have a sexual orientation towards goats. I want to do a photo-shoot with my goat because I love her. The photographer says he won't do it because it's weird to him. Can I now sue him to MAKE him do the shoot lest he discriminate against me? These rulings are setting a dangerous precedent.
This is a victory for a small minority of society who want to force the rest of humanity to accept their sexual preferences as equal. That's it.
And in privately owned restaurants. The law has been clear since the 1950's. Your business license is your agreement to treat the public without discrimination. As far as the goat thing, you can run that up to the Supreme Court and see if goats are a protected class as far as discrimination laws are concerned.
BTW, when Rosa Parks decided to keep her seat on the bus, bus companies did not get public funding. They were private businesses, usually regulated by some public utility commission.
Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if any of us as single people agree or disagree with these laws. They are still the laws we have to live under unless and until somebody changes them.
And in privately owned restaurants. The law has been clear since the 1950's. Your business license is your agreement to treat the public without discrimination. As far as the goat thing, you can run that up to the Supreme Court and see if goats are a protected class as far as discrimination laws are concerned.
BTW, when Rosa Parks decided to keep her seat on the bus, bus companies did not get public funding. They were private businesses, usually regulated by some public utility commission.
Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if any of us as single people agree or disagree with these laws. They are still the laws we have to live under unless and until somebody changes them.
I'm sure this lunch counter wasn't the only one in town. And goodness, the proprietor should have been allowed to say who he would serve, shouldn't he? Those militant black people should have just gone somewhere else and not be shoving their skin color in our faces.
Looks like they were being served by the business. The problem appears to be the crowd harassing them.
The crowd is outside the law, not the business. This photo does not make your point, though it is disgusting display of humanity. Unless there is documentation they wern't being served.
Where does this ruling leave, 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' ?
Who isn't in a protected class as determined by the government? Perhaps that is the next wave of activism?
Don't think the photographer was seeking publicity, it was thrust upon them by a lawsuit and activists.
This is akin to lawyers hiring people to challenge the latest federal regs re public access requirements requiring reconstruction of doorways and ramps. Send someone in to a not yet compliant business and file suit. Lawyers do this for any federal regs that fail to meet timelines stated or actions required by timetable. Not the way to win friends and have your cause embraced.
People are refused business everyday because of perceived attitude of the prospective customer. Looks like a fusspot or some other negative impression which the business just doesn't want to deal with.
The right to refuse is taken away as even if the refusal was based on somnething other than being in a protected class. the complaintant can claim it was because they were a protected class...and that's where this interpretation of law lands as it forces the business owner into a relationship he doesn't want.
The law is the law but consequences land in favor of the complaintant at the expense of the business.
Obviously not. Not that it matters. When you engage in business with the public, you can't discriminate. That's the law in my state anyway. And evidently also the law in New Mexico.
How do you feel about these people at the lunch counter? You know, the ones who helped spark the Civil Rights movement? No respect for them either, I bet? I'm sure that lunch counter owner was begin unfairly targeted. Oh, and it was a private business, in case you're forgotten, AT9.
Restaurants are licensed in most states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
