Supreme Court won't hear photo discri...

Supreme Court won't hear photo discrimination case

There are 76 comments on the KOAT-TV story from Apr 8, 2014, titled Supreme Court won't hear photo discrimination case. In it, KOAT-TV reports that:

S SUPREME COURT DECISION, IS A "DARK TIME." TODAY, THE COUNTRY'S HIGHEST COURT ANNOUNCED IT WILL NOT HEAR THE ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY CASE, INVOLVING A SAME SEX COUPLE TURNED AWAY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOAT-TV.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

#1 Apr 8, 2014
These businesses need to learn to just tell the freaks that they are fully booked and can't work them in instead of telling them the truth. Would have saved them tons of lawyer fees.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Apr 8, 2014
lolol wrote:
These businesses need to
In most of these cases there had already been a contractual agreement and _then_ the business owner (supposedly) discovered it had to do with a same sex marriage and reneged, but you inadvertently make a salient point.

This wasn't about the one baker or photographer simply not wishing to "endorse" or "participate in" a same sex marriage - which they could do by not revealing their actual reason for refusing service - it was about invalidating _all_ lgbt rights laws and ordinances nationally.

I think some certain christianists have been bearing false witness again.(I know, really hard to believe.)
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Apr 8, 2014
Harvey wrote:
I'm glad to see the Supreme Court finally refusing some of these gay BS cases. The courts are so clogged up with nothing but gay crapola cases there's no time to deal with any real cases.
Cletus, the Supreme Court by refusing to hear this case affirmed the lower court's decision that the business owner had no right to discriminate in this way on the basis of sexual orientation.

We know you are uneducated and stupid. We don't expect you to know what you're saying, so we'll just take your confusion in stride.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7 Apr 8, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
When a society becomes decadent and narcissistic it begins to obsess over petty perverted trash that is of no real consequence. Every great society goes through this phase as it falls into decline. This obsession with gender bending "issues" seems to be a reflection of this in our society. Is this the best we can do in terms of advancing the cause of humanity... Boldly pushing forward into legally protected wedding cakes and photographs of gay weddings?!?
I guess that's OK. Things like ending world hunger, renewable energy and a cure for cancer might seem important to some selfish people but after a little thought I understand why gay wedding pictures and transvestites getting to have their choice of toilets are really societies most important priorities.
Well... I'm TRYING to understand at least...but I'm not really getting there. Maybe some angry lesbians can explain it to me. On second thought, I'll stick with my original priorities and just laugh at the gay mafia...
And when a society actually promotes equal protection of the law for all citizens without exception they promote freedom and equality.

Lighten up, Francis.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Apr 8, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
Boldly pushing forward into legally protected wedding cakes and photographs of
Yet talibangelicals sue the moment their rights are seen as being violated...no matter how trivial.

It's getting harder for theocrats to enact their buybull bigotry is all.

Although it sort of would have been fun if businesses could discriminate on the basis of "religious" beliefs. I'd like to see muslim owned business requiring female, fundamentalist customers to wear burkas while shopping there. And so on. There would have been no limit.
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Apr 8, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
When a society becomes decadent and narcissistic it begins to obsess over petty perverted trash that is of no real consequence.
.
why would the idiots want a photographer or baker to cater to their whims knowing the feelings involved. They could end up with wedding pictures of nothing but shoes or tops of peoples heads or a wedding cake that tastes like crappola.

If a businessowner declines someone a service for any reason and the customer insists on service or threaten to sue, I would think the chances of the business owner taking them for all they can get and provide minimal customer satisfaction is a good possibility.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11 Apr 8, 2014
Religionists R Us wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet talibangelicals sue the moment their rights are seen as being violated...no matter how trivial.
It's getting harder for theocrats to enact their buybull bigotry is all.
Although it sort of would have been fun if businesses could discriminate on the basis of "religious" beliefs. I'd like to see muslim owned business requiring female, fundamentalist customers to wear burkas while shopping there. And so on. There would have been no limit.
What does a female fundamentalist customer look like?
How would a Muslim business owner know a woman was a fundamentalist?
Would this business sell women's apparel or just burqas?
Aren't Muslim women the people that wear these?
Why would the business owner want fundamentalists to dress like their women?
Do these garments have any religious significance?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Apr 8, 2014
This couple did nothing more than send this woman an email requesting her services as a photographer for their commitment ceremony, along with the particulars of where and when and how many people involved. Her email response was that neither she nor God approved of their homosexuality and that they were going to hell if they went through with their ceremony and no she wouldn't take pictures. Not even the state's already enacted religious freedom restoration act could excuse her actions. Her case has already been heard by 15 different people, including the seven on the state's highest court, none ever agreed that she should be allowed to engage in such behavior.

For those of you going to still carry a torch for the poor persecuted photographer, you actually dodged a bullet with this one. The precedent this woman would have set would have been a disaster for you.
the mods

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Apr 8, 2014
are sure busy deleting posts they don't agree with it seems. will this one be next I suppose?

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#16 Apr 8, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
This couple did nothing more than send this woman an email requesting her services as a photographer for their commitment ceremony, along with the particulars of where and when and how many people involved. Her email response was that neither she nor God approved of their homosexuality and that they were going to hell if they went through with their ceremony and no she wouldn't take pictures. Not even the state's already enacted religious freedom restoration act could excuse her actions. Her case has already been heard by 15 different people, including the seven on the state's highest court, none ever agreed that she should be allowed to engage in such behavior.
For those of you going to still carry a torch for the poor persecuted photographer, you actually dodged a bullet with this one. The precedent this woman would have set would have been a disaster for you.
That's quite an imagination you have there rickie/ricky/rick...
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Apr 8, 2014
IAWHMR wrote:
<quoted text>So women should walk one step behind men?
No, cretin, my point is that xstain mullahs would or could get a taste of their own theocratic BS. It was what educated persons call "an example."

Why would I endorse _more_ mullahs when we already have far too many of the evilgelical sort?

Try to keep up.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Apr 8, 2014
lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
If a businessowner declines someone a service for any reason and the customer insists
As usual, the mouthbreather bigots don't understand the very premise: There is a difference between tossing someone out for some individuated reason on the one hand and tossing someone out because they belong in some protected class, be it defined by race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

And now that it's been explained for the millionth time you still don't understand, because you don't know what "individuated" means.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Apr 8, 2014
IAWHMR wrote:
<quoted text>So it is mean to speak out about a guy suggesting women wear burkas? Even has a "joke" that comment deserves rebuttal. Notice I did not say he should not be allowed to post his opinion- I only questioned it. That is the true essence of free speach.
You didn't understand the comment, tee baggrzing reject.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Apr 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What does a female fundamentalist customer look like?
How would a Muslim business owner know a woman was a fundamentalist?
Would this business sell women's apparel or just burqas?
Aren't Muslim women the people that wear these?
Why would the business owner want fundamentalists to dress like their women?
Do these garments have any religious significance?
How dare you interfere with a business owner's deeply held "religious" beliefs. The business owner will search his or her conscience and do as their deeply held "religious" beliefs dictate in the matter.

That was the point, dumb pos. That the whole notion is unworkable...particularly if some fundie snot fell victim to the principle.
Religionists R Us

Philadelphia, PA

#21 Apr 8, 2014
the mods wrote:
are sure busy deleting posts they don't agree with it seems. will this one be next I suppose?
Hey crybaby, if you post, "I disagree with the Supreme Court ignoring the religious business owner's arguments," then I bet it wouldn't have been deleted. So it's not about "disagreement."

But you're a stinking bigot, so you revealed more about your sexual disorder of homophobia, and now it's gone. Sniffle.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#22 Apr 8, 2014
Religionists R Us wrote:
<quoted text>
How dare you interfere with a business owner's deeply held "religious" beliefs. The business owner will search his or her conscience and do as their deeply held "religious" beliefs dictate in the matter.
That was the point, dumb pos. That the whole notion is unworkable...particularly if some fundie snot fell victim to the principle.
Careful or you'll pop a vein with your anger and your boyfriend will be sad.

Don't like a businesses policy or product, don't use them. Pretty simple concept.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#23 Apr 8, 2014
CornDogz wrote:
Careful or you'll pop a vein with your anger and your boyfriend will be sad.
Don't like a businesses policy or product, don't use them. Pretty simple concept.
Sorry, Charlie. The businesses don't have the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, particularly in jurisdictions with anti-discrimination statutes specifically preventing such discrimination.

The courts have consistently been finding that providing such a service in no way violates the rights of the proprietors.

The US Supreme Court just refused to hear the New Mexico case, which means the lower court ruling stands.

At the end of the day, religious freedom does not give business owners the right to break the laws of the jurisdictions they operate within.
not

Santa Fe, NM

#24 Apr 8, 2014
the mods wrote:
are sure busy deleting posts they don't agree with it seems. will this one be next I suppose?
the mods, the rockers

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#26 Apr 8, 2014
Of course NOT! The Supreme Court only listens to real problems of not following our rights as stated on Constitutional human rights. Homosexuality was not on their 18th Century minds. Got to change our way of thinkin' that's all. No need for any amendment.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#27 Apr 8, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>At the end of the day, religious freedom does not give business owners the right to break the laws of the jurisdictions they operate within.
Lol, you sound more and more like the bigots you purport to dislike.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Too many plotters sink a conspiracy, researcher... Feb 6 action 1
News Halton Hills Camera Club hosting special evenin... Jan 30 Wellington 1
News Guest Blog: Cardiff through art, by Katie Brown (Jul '13) Jan 30 Ricky 2
News A new perspective: 10 years as a domestic helpe... Jan 25 Culture 10
News Are photographers really a threat? (Jun '08) Jan '16 James 3
Travel photography Dec '15 Alan1 1
Amazing new photo-graphic novel Dec '15 Clive1 1
More from around the web