OP
OP
Threads like this tend to expose the worst kind of opinions.
There are defence forces for a lot of shitty things.
Christian photographer told she can’t refuse gay weddings as lawsuit crashes and burns
- Thread starter Lightning Count
- Start date
Threads like this tend to expose the worst kind of opinions.
There are defence forces for a lot of shitty things.
Where was that ruling? That would almost certainly trump any free speech/artistic expression argument.
hey, well at least they made it clear they do not think that comparing two people of the same sex getting married is the same as a video game themed wedding. Phew.
Seriously though. I get wanting more information but don't jump in to a thread to "just ask questions" about an obvious bigot, without even doing the most basic reading about the subject. If you have to say "I'm against discrimination, but..." might want to rethink posting.
Not towards private business actually but there are various federal laws, rulings and state laws that make up a collection that prohibits this kind of stuff around the country. It has never been found to be an overreach
Anyone citing the masterpiece cake shop case ruling needs to remember it was was ruled on very specific grounds, specifically that the state commission was hostile to the baker's religious views given its history with previous discrimination exemptions granted.
I always find it fascinating the parts of the Bible these "Christians"adhere to and which ones they ignore. It always exposes their abject hypocrisy and demonstrates that their faith is laughable.
Last edited:
OP
OP
They had to somehow. Word could've traveled about the community. Sure someone meet someone else who was like, "She didn't get back to you either? Think it's because we're gay?" Then they probably looked into more.
I mean, the details aren't clear in the article, they might have here sure... but in general, especially if you live in a big city, I very much doubt this would get noticed.
There's no evidence anyone knew she did anything. She wasn't sued or penalized. This is her suing the state because she wants the right to tell the gay couples she doesn't approve of their lifestyle instead of just not responding, as she currently has been.
Yeah, this is real stick-in-my-own-wheel territory. She wanted to be able to legally give a big middle finger to the general public, and hide behind religion in order to do so as a business - not an individual exercising freedom of speech.
Problem bigots have, is they tend to feel a visceral need to flaunt the bigotry to feel reassurance.
Problem bigots have, is they tend to feel a visceral need to flaunt the bigotry to feel reassurance.
Christian zealots here in America are hearing every damn day that they are being persecuted. Where do you think the blueprint for Fox News' outrage machine came from? I've overheard some really delusional shit over the years especially recently during the Pandemic.
They love acting like they're persecuted. It's so creepy to see firsthand. People wonder why right wing shit is so normalized, it's due to shit like Fox News and their spiritual leaders calling anything the Dems do, a plan of Satan. Whether this individual appeals or not, is successful in that process or not I gurantee you they're feeling that they're fighting the good fight and that this is what god has called on her to do. It's so fucking gross.
They love acting like they're persecuted. It's so creepy to see firsthand. People wonder why right wing shit is so normalized, it's due to shit like Fox News and their spiritual leaders calling anything the Dems do, a plan of Satan. Whether this individual appeals or not, is successful in that process or not I gurantee you they're feeling that they're fighting the good fight and that this is what god has called on her to do. It's so fucking gross.
Couldn't she tell them "oops something came up I can't do your wedding, you'll need to find someone else"?
Also why would they want to hire her? If I knew the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's was bigoted against me I wouldn't go there, and they'd trust her with their wedding photos? I wouldn't let her step near the venue.
Also why would they want to hire her? If I knew the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's was bigoted against me I wouldn't go there, and they'd trust her with their wedding photos? I wouldn't let her step near the venue.
it feels like her previous arrangement was fine, just don't respond to gay wedding requests or any requests she personalyl didn't approve of. she had to poke her head up with her religious bigotry and moralizing. this case is more than just gay weedings, the bit about not wanting to do irreverant 'themed' weddings smacks of Maude flanders style busybodying.
Last edited:
The reason people like this make the news isn't because people are itching to hire these people for service, its to expose them for breaking the law and violating people's civil rights. Its easy to just "go some place else" but its not right and its illegal.
Wait, she sued the state for the right to explicitly discriminate against gay couples? What??
I'm telling you, some of these people are so entitled it beggars belief. What kind if delusion does this woman live in?
I'm telling you, some of these people are so entitled it beggars belief. What kind if delusion does this woman live in?
Nothing is stopping any business from discriminating against any race or gender or sexual orientation in that way. Many smaller ones can probably get away with it. Eventually though if you develop a reputation or people start to suspect something is up you will need to have a pretty good explanation.
Right? Hardly what any state would see it as; it's just a document.
I can't imagine religions approving the Final Fantasy 14 wedding of my dreams! :P
Are the Twelve otherwise engaged?
I don't condone it and fuck everyone that does that but god damn the entitlement of this one to be proactive and sue the state like wtf.
In New York, yes. In many states, including mine, it is legal.
To give people context, this is an example of impact litigation as it is being funded by an anti- LGBTQ group in hopes of pushing the issue to the Supreme Court to follow up on the wedding cake case from several years ago. That's the "how" & "why" of why this case exists despite there being no originating conflict. Of course, the case's dismissal doesn't bode well for its chances to succeed on appeal. It'll probably never reach the Supreme Court as there are countless court cases pushing various social interests and this is one of the weaker ones (hence the dismissal)
www.nbcnews.com
Christian wedding photographer who refused service to gay couples loses case
Emilee Carpenter, who argued that nondiscrimination laws violated her rights, lost a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
www.nbcnews.com
I cannot roll my eyes enough at the content of the lawsuit.
Not wanting to write hateful things on a cake is not the same thing. It boggles the mind that whoever put that together thought it was the same thing.
And as an atheist, I can wax positively about God all day. Does not meant I think he exists.
Not wanting to write hateful things on a cake is not the same thing. It boggles the mind that whoever put that together thought it was the same thing.
And as an atheist, I can wax positively about God all day. Does not meant I think he exists.
As a Queer photographer...I'm confused. I feel like I'm missing something.
Freelance photographers get approached to shoot gigs all the time. For all sorts of reasons. It is up to the discretion of the photophrapher what gigs they choose to take on. Somebody could approach me to shoot an event and I could say no for no other reason than I just don't fucking want to do it. And I don't owe you an explantion. I said no. Period.
So a lot of this "she was forced to choose" language boggles me. Where's the forced at. You were approached by a gay couple to shoot their wedding. You didn't want to because you're a fucking homophobe. You tell them "no" and that's the end of the story.
It seems to me, again unless I'm missing something, that she decided to make an issue out of this. She chose to present this moment as her being "forced" to do something, and set off a self-rightous hellstorm. And the judge basically told her, "I see right through this."
This feels like a naked attempt to provoke legislation and debate over, again, Queer people's right to exist. Well, fuck that.
Freelance photographers get approached to shoot gigs all the time. For all sorts of reasons. It is up to the discretion of the photophrapher what gigs they choose to take on. Somebody could approach me to shoot an event and I could say no for no other reason than I just don't fucking want to do it. And I don't owe you an explantion. I said no. Period.
So a lot of this "she was forced to choose" language boggles me. Where's the forced at. You were approached by a gay couple to shoot their wedding. You didn't want to because you're a fucking homophobe. You tell them "no" and that's the end of the story.
It seems to me, again unless I'm missing something, that she decided to make an issue out of this. She chose to present this moment as her being "forced" to do something, and set off a self-rightous hellstorm. And the judge basically told her, "I see right through this."
This feels like a naked attempt to provoke legislation and debate over, again, Queer people's right to exist. Well, fuck that.
Ding ding ding.
Literally this was a fight she picked because she couldn't help but open her homophobic mouth.
She did decide to make a big deal out of this for legislation.
However, if a photographer lives in New York state, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. So if a photographer refuses a customer because they are gay, this is illegal. Same with race, gender, etc.
That's correct, but I don't know what was there to be confused about. She sued the State not the couple
Right!?
Like, it's not actual confusion I'm experiencing here.
It's just a sense of... Y'all used to be smarter about this. This is gay cakes meets Idiocracy.
Whatever, Ma'am.
Just laying her career at the altar of bigot politics eh? Could have survived in a place like NY for 100 years just saying you were busy or whatever but no
Well, not whatever you want depending on the state. You can't deny service based on protected classes like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in New York state.
in situations like this the governments responsibility is to make sure people operating as businesses follow the law and do not violate other people's civil rights. This is what they should be doing. If this was a restaurant refusing to serve black people would your response be the same?
How about the fact that SHE sued the state, not the other way around. Also, going by your logic, the South would still have whites only swimming pools.
the government cannot compel someone to provide service, in that there are many reasons why you might not be able to provide it that are justifiable (scheduling, etc)
the government can compel someone to not deny service for a discriminatory reason
if the only reason you are denying service is for that discriminatory reason, and you would otherwise be capable of and willing to provide that service, you must provide that service (provided that you're a public good, etc etc, it's all in the court decision)
This is what I don't understand here. If she doesn't like gay weddings she doesn't have to accept the job. What exactly is the point of bringing up a lawsuit here?
This was a case where they were fighting to not do the job because they are bigots.
In this case, the photographer wants to fight to not do the job because she's a bigot, but get paid by the state for not doing the job anyways.
