Typical Gay Rights Bully in NM

Typical Gay Rights Bully in NM

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“We have 545 traitors.”

Since: May 11

Parts Unknown

#1 Sep 15, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george...

In 2006, Vanessa Willock e-mailed Elane Photography about photographing a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning. Willock said that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane Photography responded that it photographed “traditional weddings.” The Huguenins are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions. Willock sent a second e-mail asking whether this meant that the company “does not offer photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded that “you are correct.”

Willock could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them —“live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.

Willock’s partner, without disclosing her relationship with Willock, e-mailed Elane Photography. She said that she was getting married — actually, she and Willock were having a “commitment ceremony” because New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages — and asked whether the company would travel to photograph it. The company said yes. Willock’s partner never responded.

Instead, Willock, spoiling for a fight, filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, charging that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” akin to a hotel or restaurant, that denied her its services because of her sexual orientation. The commission found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.
Obvious

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Sep 15, 2012
They got off cheap. Go take pictures in a theocracy if that's what you believe. A person with any business savy not wanting same sex customers wouldn't respond in the way that they did.

“We have 545 traitors.”

Since: May 11

Parts Unknown

#4 Sep 15, 2012
Obvious wrote:
They got off cheap. Go take pictures in a theocracy if that's what you believe. A person with any business savy not wanting same sex customers wouldn't respond in the way that they did.
So its okay to sue businesses that exercise their right to serve who they choose? What country do you live in? This photographer is not a public entity but a private contract business.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Sep 15, 2012
Blern wrote:
<quoted text>
So its okay to sue businesses that exercise their right to serve who they choose? What country do you live in? This photographer is not a public entity but a private contract business.
that's life in Obama's Akerika.
D Face

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Sep 15, 2012
Blern wrote:
<quoted text>
So its okay to sue businesses that exercise their right to serve who they choose? What country do you live in? This photographer is not a public entity but a private contract business.
The same thing happened to a bakery that wouldn't make a wedding cake for two gay guys. Not only did they sue, but they went on facebook and started a boycott.
While I think these are stupid business decisions, doesn't freedom mean the right to do stupid things sometimes?

“We have 545 traitors.”

Since: May 11

Parts Unknown

#7 Sep 15, 2012
Let's say that members of the Westboro Church contracted a gay photographer to take photos of them at an anti-gay rally and the gay photographer refused. Are we saying that its okay for the photographer to be punished, or legally forced to comply?
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#8 Sep 15, 2012
Blern wrote:
Let's say that members of the Westboro Church contracted a gay photographer to take photos of them at an anti-gay rally and the gay photographer refused. Are we saying that its okay for the photographer to be punished, or legally forced to comply?
You picked a bad example and the judge ruled in their favor, why do you act stupid and make up crap afterwards, BIGOT !!!

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#9 Sep 15, 2012
There's a little disconnect between what I think is lawful and what I feel is right. A photography business isn't what I'd consider a public accommodation the way a hotel, grocer, clinic, etc. is so I'm a little confused by the court's ruling. In any case, while I believe the photogs have a right to decline taking on clients for whatever reason they have, but I also think it's a bad business decision to discriminate as well as not a very Christian-like action to take. It would have been more tasteful and classy to politely tell the couple, "I a religious objection to taking the assignment myself but here's the number of another very good photographer who could accommodate you. Best of luck to you!"

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#10 Sep 15, 2012
*have
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Sep 15, 2012
ZenBirdist wrote:
*have
Spelling errors are a sign of stupidity and being a rethuglicant!!!! LMAOROFLu ~!
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#12 Sep 15, 2012
If you want only to take pictures of heterosexual couples, set your business up in your church and limit your clients to people, who adhere its tenets.

Once you go out into mainstream society and accept the benefits that law-abiding (including gay) citizens give you, shut up and take the picture.
Ben Dover

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Sep 15, 2012
Blern wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ opinions/george-f-will-the-tan gled-web-of-conflicting-rights /2012/09/14/95b787c2-fddc-11e1 -b153-218509a954e1_story.html? hpid=z2
In 2006, Vanessa Willock e-mailed Elane Photography about photographing a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning. Willock said that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane Photography responded that it photographed “traditional weddings.” The Huguenins are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions. Willock sent a second e-mail asking whether this meant that the company “does not offer photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded that “you are correct.”
Willock could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them —“live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.
Willock’s partner, without disclosing her relationship with Willock, e-mailed Elane Photography. She said that she was getting married — actually, she and Willock were having a “commitment ceremony” because New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages — and asked whether the company would travel to photograph it. The company said yes. Willock’s partner never responded.
Instead, Willock, spoiling for a fight, filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, charging that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” akin to a hotel or restaurant, that denied her its services because of her sexual orientation. The commission found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.
The Homosexual Agenda is designed to interfere with normal people's rights. These perverts need to be pushed back into the closet where they belong.
John P Schmahz

Minneapolis, MN

#14 Sep 15, 2012
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>
Spelling errors are a sign of stupidity and being a rethuglicant!!!! LMAOROFLu ~!
Lying isn't a postive value Son!
D Face

Minneapolis, MN

#15 Sep 15, 2012
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>
Spelling errors are a sign of stupidity and being a rethuglicant!!!! LMAOROFLu ~!
Your comments are an example of slewage between your ears!
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#16 Sep 15, 2012
Funny, normal people take pictures of happy couples....Do you know happiness, LOSER ???
Ben Dover

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Sep 15, 2012
ZenBirdist wrote:
There's a little disconnect between what I think is lawful and what I feel is right. A photography business isn't what I'd consider a public accommodation the way a hotel, grocer, clinic, etc. is so I'm a little confused by the court's ruling.
No need to be confused. It's called perverted progressive liberal judicial activism that has affected and infected all areas of society like a pandemic disease.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#18 Sep 15, 2012
John P Schmahz wrote:
<quoted text>Lying isn't a postive value Son!
crawl back in your hole looser
Ben Dover

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Sep 15, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
Funny, normal people take pictures of happy couples....Do you know happiness, LOSER ???
Stay away from the gay porn flicks dick flick. It ain't normal son.

“We have 545 traitors.”

Since: May 11

Parts Unknown

#20 Sep 15, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>You picked a bad example and the judge ruled in their favor, why do you act stupid and make up crap afterwards, BIGOT !!!
Does anyone else hear that buzzing? Is there a fly in here?
John P Schmahz

Minneapolis, MN

#21 Sep 15, 2012
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>
crawl back in your hole looser
Hehehehehe!
I like these Gay Threads !

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.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Democrats call for impeachment 4 hr Space ace 71
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 11 hr WHAT 36,895
Davy crockett fake news Sat Phineus 16
Dems lose montana special election Fri Davycrockett 9
Aaron- Mortalenama May 26 Eat BBQ 1
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) May 25 WildLifeLover 700
Does anyone remember the Rendezvous in Minneapo... May 25 Curious 1

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages