USSC will not review NM SC decision: businesses cannot refuse service to gay couples

[DominionSeraph]

I am not racist.

It's so cute you believe that. Makes you completely unable to deal with it and the bigotry comes out.

Your racism and your religion. By hook or by crook.

 

[nehalem256]

Lets say you owned a grocery store and the local farmers didn't want to deal with you because of a certain trait. Now because you have to truck in your meat and produce from farther away, your expenses are much higher, you are no longer able to compete with the other local grocery stores. You can either close shop or move out of the area. Now imagine if you're the customer whose only grocery store that would take your business shut down or moved away. Now your costs just went up. You can no longer afford to drive the long distance just to buy the food that you have to move out of the area. Congratulations, you've been effectively purged out of the area for your undesirable traits.

Lets say same-sex marriage is abhorrent to your religion. You have owned a small business for years that deals with weddings. All of a sudden same-sex couples start getting married and suing your for not involving yourself with their weddings.

You can either shut down your business, move to another location, or violate your deeply held religious beliefs.

Congratulations, you've been effectively purged for practicing your religion

()

 

[Texashiker]

Your racism and your religion.

Do you have any proof to backup your statements?

Or is it past your intellectual capability that gays live an immoral lifestyle that not everyone has to agree with?

 

[TerryMathews]

So if I was a black photographer, I would be forced to take pictures if the Klan wanted to hire me to pictures of one of their rallys?

Hmmm...........makes no sense whatsoever

Someone needs to do this. Paging Spatial...

 

[classy]

Your post clearly demonstrates that Paul wasn't even remotely a Christian. Going by Christ's words, we shouldn't do business with people who treated us poorly in the past. Seems reasonable.

Sigh..............

Luke 9:2
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

It had nothing do with doing business.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

LOL at all the idiots arguing against this.....you don't even know the law.

Kind of reminds me of this old Onion article about how people defend "what they believe" when it isn't even correct.

Link

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Every been to a pride parade out in L.A.?
More like 99.999%
I swear they come out of the woodwork.
At least I didn't say closet.

WHY YES!, yes I have, and frankly, I wouldn't serve any of *those* people if they came into my business. But then again, I'm Jesus.

 

[1prophet]

Don't see what all the brouhaha is all about,

it's not like the gays are coming after your churches and religious schools Bob Jones University style, for refusing to accommodate them,



yet.:twisted::hmm:

 

[IronWing]

Sigh..............

Luke 9:2
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

It had nothing do with doing business.

Preaching is business, big business.

Anyway, Jesus was addressing how to deal with people who failed show hospitality toward travelers. Modern preachers have twisted the words to mean "receive our message" as opposed to simply sheltering Jesus' followers. Hospitality toward travelers was a big deal in the days before Motel 6.

Paul was, as usual, just bitching about people he didn't like, the TexasHiker of his day, maybe a bit more literate. Trying to reconcile Paul to Jesus is a fool's errand.

 

[shira]

So if I was a black photographer, I would be forced to take pictures if the Klan wanted to hire me to pictures of one of their rallys?

Hmmm...........makes no sense whatsoever

You might want to read the actual law:

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2006/nmrc/jd_28-1-7-bcb3.html

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for . . . (F) any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation

Refusing to offer service on any basis other than those listed is NOT "an unlawful discriminatory practice."

 

[nehalem256]

You might want to read the actual law:

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2006/nmrc/jd_28-1-7-bcb3.html



Refusing to offer service on any basis other than those listed is NOT "an unlawful discriminatory practice."

And if a black person refused to photograph a white power rally what reason would they have for doing so?

Seems to me that a white power rally is just entwined with race as a same-sex marriage is entwined with sexual orientation.

Probably more so, since the people advocating for SSM keep insisting that marriage has nothing to do with sex relations.

 

[fskimospy]

And if a black person refused to photograph a white power rally what reason would they have for doing so?

Seems to me that a white power rally is just entwined with race as a same-sex marriage is entwined with sexual orientation.

Probably more so, since the people advocating for SSM keep insisting that marriage has nothing to do with sex relations.

Can you provide me with any court cases that rule that white power protests are inseparable from being white? I'm unaware of any.

ie: you're full of shit again.

 

[nehalem256]

Can you provide me with any court cases that rule that white power protests are inseparable from being white? I'm unaware of any.

ie: you're full of shit again.

Do you think it is more likely that 2 straight men will get same-sex married or that a group of black people will hold a white power rally?:hmm:

Still waiting for your answer though on why you think 2 straight men can't sign a contract together...

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think it is more likely that 2 straight men will get same-sex married or that a group of black people will hold a white power rally?:hmm:

Irrelevant. The courts did not rule on what people were likely to do, but what actions were considered a fundamental part of belonging to a group. Maybe in your circles attending white power rallies qualifies, but not for the rest of us.

You know if you spent more time actually reading about the law in question instead of flailing on here you might not make these stupid arguments and embarrass yourself.

Still waiting for your answer though on why you think 2 straight men can't sign a contract together...

Grow up.

 

[nehalem256]

Irrelevant. The courts did not rule on what people were likely to do, but what actions were considered a fundamental part of belonging to a group. Maybe in your circles attending white power rallies qualifies, but not for the rest of us.

You know if you spent more time actually reading about the law in question instead of flailing on here you might not make these stupid arguments and embarrass yourself.

Why would I want to read things that according to you are complete BS.

Seems to me like what you keep saying is that courts make shit up to get whatever outcome the judge wants.

Grow up.

Why can't you answer the question?

Well I will just go ahead and tell you why you refuse to answer. Because liberals have spent decades removing all meaning from marriage and reducing it to just a contract.

So by liberals own logic there is in fact nothing entwining sexual orientation and any version of marriage.

 

[Texashiker]

You know if you spent more time actually reading about the law in question instead of flailing on here you might not make these stupid arguments and embarrass yourself.

The law just a reflection of the political opinion at the time.

The law is not about what is right or wrong, but rather what is accepted by society.

 

[nehalem256]

The law just a reflection of the political opinion at he the time.

The law is not about what is right or wrong, but rather what is accepted by society.

Yep. Or maybe its just a coincidence that courts started striking down laws against SSM in mass when popular opinion swung that way? :hmm:

 

[DominionSeraph]

gays live an immoral lifestyle that not everyone has to agree with?

Your racism and your religion. By hook or by crook.

 

[TROLLERCAUST]

So many threads about sexual minorities. So much hate.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

 

[Texashiker]

Your racism and your religion. By hook or by crook.

Are you going to continue to talk out of your ass, or are you going to present any proof to back up your statements?

Your post prove you are a bigot. You refuse to accept anyone would live a lifestyle different from yours.

 

[Meghan54]

Really? This case made it all the way the supreme court?

And gays wonder why people hate them? The courts do not have anything better to do than to hear about a gay couple who wants their picture taken?

Let me guess, there were no murder cases, no rape cases, no child support cases, no child abuse cases that were more important than some stupid pictures?

The glbt community is wasting our tax dollars by dragging these cases through the courts.

If someone does not want to provide a service, go somewhere else, form a boycott, make a picket line,,,, do something besides tie up our already overloaded court system.

First, the photographer tried to take it to the Supreme Ct., not the gay couple.

Second, posting in another gay thread, eh? Your fascination continues.

Third, all the property rights excuses are completely identical to the rhetoric southern whites spouted during the 1950's-1960's trying to deny Civil Rights legislation. "You can't tell me what to do....private property! Property rights!" We see how that turned out, yet the same arguments are being made yet again to justify trying to discriminate, again.

Guess the next thing is to revive real estate segregation.....the practice that was codified into sales contracts amongst real estate agencies that restricted anyone other than a white from buying a home anywhere one wanted. Blacks, asians, etc., were only shown homes in certain areas, rarely in "white only" enclaves, even if they had the cash/credit to afford said home.

And when one speaks to "privately owned businesses", one is simply referring to the difference between a business owned by an individual vs. one with multiple investors, such as a corp. This does not exclude a "privately owned business" that serves the public from following law, despite the protestations of some.

You want a true "private business"? Start charging membership fees, then you can truly discriminate as to whom you serve. If you choose to serve the public, you serve all the public and cannot simply pick and choose from that pool your select customers.

Oh, and before you bring up the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" BS, sure that's a reasonable exclusion, but it's applied to every customer.

 

[classy]

Preaching is business, big business.

Anyway, Jesus was addressing how to deal with people who failed show hospitality toward travelers. Modern preachers have twisted the words to mean "receive our message" as opposed to simply sheltering Jesus' followers. Hospitality toward travelers was a big deal in the days before Motel 6.

Paul was, as usual, just bitching about people he didn't like, the TexasHiker of his day, maybe a bit more literate. Trying to reconcile Paul to Jesus is a fool's errand.

LOL

Hospitality toward travelers????? Twisted message, not found. You trying to twist something, found.

Luke 10

9 And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’
10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say,
11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’
12 But[c] I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.


13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.
15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.
16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

 

[Texashiker]

First, the photographer tried to take it to the Supreme Ct., not the gay couple.

Who sued who in the local courts?

When people are forced to serve those who live an immoral lifestyle, we are no longer free.

This is no longer a free society. We are subjects, and nothing more.

 

[nehalem256]

First, the photographer tried to take it to the Supreme Ct., not the gay couple.

Second, posting in another gay thread, eh? Your fascination continues.

Third, all the property rights excuses are completely identical to the rhetoric southern whites spouted during the 1950's-1960's trying to deny Civil Rights legislation. "You can't tell me what to do....private property! Property rights!" We see how that turned out, yet the same arguments are being made yet again to justify trying to discriminate, again.

Guess the next thing is to revive real estate segregation.....the practice that was codified into sales contracts amongst real estate agencies that restricted anyone other than a white from buying a home anywhere one wanted. Blacks, asians, etc., were only shown homes in certain areas, rarely in "white only" enclaves, even if they had the cash/credit to afford said home.

And when one speaks to "privately owned businesses", one is simply referring to the difference between a business owned by an individual vs. one with multiple investors, such as a corp. This does not exclude a "privately owned business" that serves the public from following law, despite the protestations of some.

You want a true "private business"? Start charging membership fees, then you can truly discriminate as to whom you serve. If you choose to serve the public, you serve all the public and cannot simply pick and choose from that pool your select customers.

Oh, and before you bring up the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" BS, sure that's a reasonable exclusion, but it's applied to every customer.

Awesome solution. Simply charge a $1 membership fee and we can truly bring back segregation! ()

 

[classy]

So many threads about sexual minorities. So much hate.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Is it hate or just disagreeing with another person's lifestyle?

My argument is and always has been people can live their life anyway they choose, its their choice. But don't expect me to give my stamp of approval on it.