New Mexico Supreme Court effectively ends religious liberty for individuals

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Is there anyone you wouldn't serve, in your restaurant?

Sure:

- someone who hadn't paid in the past
- someone who smells bad
- someone who is behaving in a vulgar, unruly, hostile, or boisterous manner
- someone covered in something that would ruin the furnishings

Otherwise, the greenest money is someone elses. Please come spend it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

When you are ready, give me a time and a place. I'll tell them with you.

Awesome

Let ya know when the next gun grab comes up, and the next money grab too.

We've gathered from this thread that we live in a flipping screwball society in which a small business owner cannot quietly choose not to consuct her business at a same-sex wedding using the Constitutional protection of Freedom of expression/speech/religion, but the same courts have ruled that Fred Phelp's merry band of asshats can use those protections to act like animals on the public sidewalk outside the church where the same sex wedding is being conducted.

Moral of story, the bigger the asshole you are, the more protections the law affords you. The photographer obviously should have been more public, offensive, rambunctious, and histrionic over her choice to not photograph the proceedings and, one can only assume the courts would have immediately granted her First Amendment protections.

Amazingly, she attempted to keep it low key and pleasant, politely declining the job and is getting crucified legally and in the court of opinion over it.

BIZZARRO!
BIZZARRO!
BIZZARRO!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


true but the devil is in the details.

maybe SHE IS the only employee....

what about the black waiter refusing to serve a known KKK member....or a skin head?

what if it is a soul food place and everyone happens to be black that works there. You would argue that they have to serve a gang of skinheads who ask for food and deal with them? That or hire someone JUST to serve them or THEY could sue?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, the point here is: it wasn't the lady being forced, it is her business. If she doesn't want to personally service this customer, then under the law she will need to have another employee do it. Otherwise, as the owner of the business, she is liable.

As I understand it, her photography business is her and her husband, who has the same beliefs as her. Are you telling me that you think it's proper that the government forces her to hire a new employee, likely breaking some laws in the hiring practice, because they have to ensure that the person they're hiring doesn't have specific religious views, simply to service these activists who could just as easily go down the street to another photography studio?

Seriously? That seems rational to you?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Is there anyone you wouldn't serve, in your restaurant?

Sure:

- someone who hadn't paid in the past

A bias based on past financial history.

- someone who smells bad

Bias against a certain lifestyle choice.

- someone who is behaving in a vulgar, unruly, hostile, or boisterous manner

A bias against a persons personal way of expressing themselves.

- someone covered in something that would ruin the furnishings

A bias against ANOTHER lifestyle choice.

Otherwise, the greenest money is someone elses. Please come spend it.

Sure. I just have to conform to YOUR standards!


-I'm not picking on you, you big ape, but I am illustrating how it can be turned around.

reply to post by adjensen


exactly......

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Is there anyone you wouldn't serve, in your restaurant?

Sure:
- someone who smells bad
- [SNIP]
- someone covered in something that would ruin the furnishings

I'll take fish blood and egg cure for $600, Alex.

I would argue with you that it should be your legal right to choose not to serve anyone. Note I said "legal right", that in no way protects you from the reaction of market anti-descrimination brought about by the court of public opinion... it only should protect you from medeling from the law.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Bizzaro world indeed ! !

Gay RIghts !,Gay Rights!, Gay Rights ! ! ! !

The crowd goes wild.

Gun RIghts ! Gun Rights ! Gun Rights ! ! ! !

The crowd goes *crickets*.

reply to post by neo96


shhhhh. . .

Gay gun rights.

reply to post by neo96


ULTIMATE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:
Get a gun shop to publically refuse to sell firearms to a same-sex couple. Heads would explode as the crowd attempted to determine whether they should applaud the fact fewer firearms would be sold or fume over the fact that a same-sex couple wasn't assisted in their purchase attempts.

Does...
Not...
Compute...

Self destruct sequence activated.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

shhhhh. . .

Gay gun rights.

leading to same-sex shotgun weddings?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Its a better world. The world was bizarre before with the religious people justifing owning slaves and marrying children. It wasn't too long ago gay people were being beaten and murdered in America.

Making a stand against religious idiocy is a good thing in any form. We have made progress every time we kick religion to the curb and substantiate our beliefs with facts and evidence.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

true but the devil is in the details.

maybe SHE IS the only employee....

Im not saying the laws we have make sense....

what about the black waiter refusing to serve a known KKK member....or a skin head?

what if it is a soul food place and everyone happens to be black that works there. You would argue that they have to serve a gang of skinheads who ask for food and deal with them? That or hire someone JUST to serve them or THEY could sue?

I could refuse to service a Black Panther member as an employee. Perhaps I would be fired, perhaps not. As a business owner, I could exclude them from performing functions in my establishment, but would not refuse them regardless of law (they have green cash too).

If the gang of skinheads were not being disruptive, and simply asked for a food/cash exchange, I don't think they would have a leg to stand on in the unlikely event the skinheads sued. Because baldheaded men should not be refused service in any sane world.

Then again, this isn't a sane world.

Here is an even better question: why didn't this small entrepreneur just say that she didn't have enough resources, or was too busy? A smart business person does the best they can to not bring negative attention to themselves. So why is she doing it?

I think its histrionics.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Maybe she was just being honest.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


well, at home I am as redneck as it gets. I am a hunter, and sometimes fisherman. I'm pretty typical of oil field trash, except I am good with math.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Its a better world. The world was bizarre before with the religious people justifing owning slaves and marrying children. It wasn't too long ago gay people were being beaten and murdered in America.

Making a stand against religious idiocy is a good thing in any form. We have made progress every time we kick religion to the curb and substantiate our beliefs with facts and evidence.

You brought facts and evidence to this discussion? I invite you to share them with us all, please. So far all I'm seeing is opinions and hyperbole (seasoned with a bit more antireligious spite than most find palatable... but). I too have a few facts and some evidence to share with the group... many slaves, children, and even homosexuals are all and always have been among those prescribing to various religions. ULTIMATE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE #2: Discovering that those you're trying to defend by widely attacking religion are also religious and probably take equal offense to those attacks as your intended targets are supposed to.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Maybe she was just being honest.

unless you like dminishing revenues, "being honest" and "good business" are not in the same paragraph.

So we can call her the most honest person in New Mexico. But that would make her the worst businessman in New Mexico.

If she were to apply to social services after her bankruptcy, would you call her a moron for ruining her business with bad press?


eta: all hypothetical of course.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
We have made progress every time we kick religion to the curb and substantiate our beliefs with facts and evidence.

What facts? What evidence?

This is the government, mandating what a person is to believe, and if they fail to comply, they are forced out of their chosen profession. How can a sane person think that is a good thing?

Set aside your hatred of religion and think about what is really happening here.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Maybe she was just being honest.

unless you like dminishing revenues, "being honest" and "good business" are not in the same paragraph.

So we can call her the most honest person in New Mexico. But that would make her the worst businessman in New Mexico.

If she were to apply to social services after her bankruptcy, would you call her a moron for ruining her business with bad press?


eta: all hypothetical of course.

edit on 22-8-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

She's free to do what she wants to do. . . err. . . well at least, she was!