NH paper won't print gay marriage not...

NH paper won't print gay marriage notices

There are 66 comments on the Cw56.com story from Oct 24, 2010, titled NH paper won't print gay marriage notices. In it, Cw56.com reports that:

New Hampshire's largest newspaper is defending its decision to refuse to publish marriage notices for gay couples after one couple getting married Saturday tried to include their announcement.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cw56.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Oct 24, 2010
In New Hampshire ?!?!?!?!?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#3 Oct 24, 2010
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares! Get lost troll
That's smart. Telling yourself to get lost. ROTFL!
Leftatalbuquerqu e

Belleville, Canada

#4 Oct 24, 2010
"Free press" meets "owner bias".

The second largest paper would be wise to start publishing.
RnL_4EVR_MARRIED

“ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED AND ”

Since: Jul 09

YOU CAN'T DO [email protected] ABOUT IT!!!

#5 Oct 24, 2010
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares! Get lost troll
I see that R1 is using another person's nic.........don't you know we will always know you from the real person!!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Oct 24, 2010
Can you say "unlawful discriminatory practices in public accommodation"? While whether or not to publish "wedding announcements" is an editorial decision, once they made the editorial decision to offer the service ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx... ), the service itself became a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination protections. The Union-Leader seems to have earned themselves a trip to the state's Human Rights Commission.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#7 Oct 24, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Can you say "unlawful discriminatory practices in public accommodation"? While whether or not to publish "wedding announcements" is an editorial decision, once they made the editorial decision to offer the service ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx... ), the service itself became a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination protections. The Union-Leader seems to have earned themselves a trip to the state's Human Rights Commission.
You're NUTS. Apparently you have never heard of the concept of "Freedom Of The Press".

If you really believe what you say, then start a campaign to get your community organizers, Obamaniac® and Al Sharpton, up there to lead a protest march.(And when they do, they'll DOUBLE the amount of black people IN New Hampshire).
power of the press

Brooksville, FL

#8 Oct 24, 2010
The Manchester Union-Leader is aware of limp wristed sissies.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Oct 24, 2010
I don't know that much can be done about this but ceaseless criticism. Also, in a time when newspapers are DEFINITIVELY hurting, publicizing this and exhorting people *NOT* to buy or read or pay the slightest attention to this paper ... could work wonders. In the current climate, it could quite literally destroy this paper.

Perhaps someone will take that tack, perhaps not. To me, this isn't a hugely big deal *as an issue unto itself*; the only horror akin to racism is that they publish heterosexual announcements and not the gay ones.
The Fourth Estate

Jacksonville, FL

#10 Oct 24, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Can you say "unlawful discriminatory practices in public accommodation"? While whether or not to publish "wedding announcements" is an editorial decision, once they made the editorial decision to offer the service ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx... ), the service itself became a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination protections. The Union-Leader seems to have earned themselves a trip to the state's Human Rights Commission.
Despite your laudatory ‘Judge It’ icons, your argument about the public accommodation law being applicable to newspapers is incorrect.
While it may be ironic for a newspaper from a state with “Live Free Or Die” as its motto to make such a decision, it is well within its rights.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, W. H. Tyrone Terrill, director of the city’s Department of Human Rights, charged the St. Paul Pioneer Press newspaper with racial discrimination in public accommodations.... Terrill later dropped the charge, but only because he concluded that the newspaper wasn’t a place of public accommodation.
(See: Agency Drops Complaint Over Editorial Comic in Newspaper, MINNEAPOLIS STARTRIBUNE,
June 23, 1999)

Also, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo, a political candidate demanded that the newspaper print verbatim his replies to critical editorials. The demand was predicated upon a Florida “right of reply” statute which provided that if a candidate were assailed regarding his personal character, the candidate would have the right to demand that the newspaper print a proffered reply free of cost. Failure to comply would constitute a misdemeanor. The newspaper argued that the statute was void on its face for purporting to regulate the content of a newspaper in violation of the First Amendment.
After a thorough review...the Supreme Court came down squarely on the side of the First Amendment, ruling as follows:
“Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors…. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials-whether fair or unfair-constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Florida is reversed.

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_...

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#11 Oct 24, 2010
Finally, a newspaper with guts and one that respects the will of the people who count.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#12 Oct 24, 2010
Yung Terd wrote:
Finally, a newspaper with guts and one that respects the will of the people who count.
Finally, a nut without guts and one that disrespects the world of intellectualism.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Oct 24, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Can you say "unlawful discriminatory practices in public accommodation"? While whether or not to publish "wedding announcements" is an editorial decision, once they made the editorial decision to offer the service ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx... ), the service itself became a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination protections. The Union-Leader seems to have earned themselves a trip to the state's Human Rights Commission.
Excellent analysis of which I concur.

Anyone who doubts that to be the case just ask yourself this question- would the "freedom of the press" argument wash if they refused to publish inter-racial weddings announcements, or jewish announcements, etc?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Oct 24, 2010
Yung Terk wrote:
Finally, a newspaper with guts and one that respects the will of the people who count.
Actually it was the "will of the people" in New Hampshire that elected the legislature & Governor whom passed marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Fifth Column

United States

#15 Oct 24, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent analysis of which I concur.
Anyone who doubts that to be the case just ask yourself this question- would the "freedom of the press" argument wash if they refused to publish inter-racial weddings announcements, or jewish announcements, etc?
Much as it pains homosexuals, the First Amendment still trumps political correctness for the time-being. Newspapers aren't obligated to publish anything. Go ahead and sue them.
Fifth Column

United States

#17 Oct 24, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
I don't know that much can be done about this but ceaseless criticism. Also, in a time when newspapers are DEFINITIVELY hurting, publicizing this and exhorting people *NOT* to buy or read or pay the slightest attention to this paper ... could work wonders. In the current climate, it could quite literally destroy this paper.
Perhaps someone will take that tack, perhaps not. To me, this isn't a hugely big deal *as an issue unto itself*; the only horror akin to racism is that they publish heterosexual announcements and not the gay ones.
Yeah right, the paper of record for the New Hampshire presidential primaries, where every pol is slavering to get some ink is going to fold because of a couple angry queers.
Sure, the UL may fold, but it likely won't be a result of perpetually offended homosexuals and their hair-trigger sissy-fits.
The editorial staff may feel that the inclusion of items related to homosexual activism isn't appropriate for a serious and professional journalistic enterprise.
Or maybe they just don't like queers.
It's their right. Not everyone has to like or include queers if they don't want to.
Got it?
Good.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Oct 24, 2010
Fifth Column wrote:
<quoted text>Much as it pains homosexuals, the First Amendment still trumps political correctness for the time-being. Newspapers aren't obligated to publish anything. Go ahead and sue them.
Have no fear, we will indeed sue them, not to mention promote a boycott of them, not to mention direct our money to their competitor.
Bud G

San Jose, CA

#19 Oct 24, 2010
The public accommodation argument may possibly only apply to paid advertisements. For example, a newspaper cannot print classified ads that discriminate in housing or employment.

But, a newspaper can legally refuse to print anything that payment is not required for, even if the newspaper discriminates. Many people seem not to understand freedom of the press. Many Americans believe in Freedom of the Press when the press agrees with their own views, but want to deny freedom of the press to media that doesn't agree with them.
Fifth Column

United States

#20 Oct 24, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Have no fear, we will indeed sue them, not to mention promote a boycott of them, not to mention direct our money to their competitor.
The UL, like any business, has likely analyzed their market research and found that publication of homosexual activism would diminish their credibility as a brand and adversely impact revenue stream by alienating readership. The UL will probably get by allowing the flaky papers in their market to make a few bucks while acquiring the 'queer brand'.
And who is going to sue? For what? There's no tort. No one is any worse off than they were before if the UL doesn't run queer ads.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Oct 24, 2010
Fifth Column wrote:
<quoted text>The UL, like any business, has likely analyzed their market research and found that publication of homosexual activism would diminish their credibility as a brand and adversely impact revenue stream by alienating readership. The UL will probably get by allowing the flaky papers in their market to make a few bucks while acquiring the 'queer brand'.
And who is going to sue? For what? There's no tort. No one is any worse off than they were before if the UL doesn't run queer ads.
I imagine the couples who's wedding announcement was rejected will be among those suing, though I doubt it will come to that. I predict the UL will reverse policy after all the negative publicity from REAL news organizations.
Bud G

San Jose, CA

#22 Oct 24, 2010
Bud G wrote:
The public accommodation argument may possibly only apply to paid advertisements. For example, a newspaper cannot print classified ads that discriminate in housing or employment.
But, a newspaper can legally refuse to print anything that payment is not required for, even if the newspaper discriminates. Many people seem not to understand freedom of the press. Many Americans believe in Freedom of the Press when the press agrees with their own views, but want to deny freedom of the press to media that doesn't agree with them.
I want to clarify my above comment. Federal and State laws prohibit newspapers from publishing classified ads that discriminate in housing and employment. These laws do not apply to any editorial and non-paid content. Also, a person will not be successful in any law suit against a newspaper which refuses to publish something unless it was a paid ad. Then, some Federal and State laws about public accommodation may apply.

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.

Representative Paul Hodes Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Letter: Oppose tuition deal for illegal immigrants (Jun '09) May '15 Swedenforever 3
News Editorial: A tip for Bob Smith: It's been a lon... (Dec '13) Dec '13 MD TRAVIS 2
News Lawyer challenges longtime Carroll County attorney (Nov '10) Dec '10 nhskeptic 2
News NH Gop Congressional Candidate Bob Giuda Compar... (Jun '10) Dec '10 Matt 24
News Lynch is only Democrat to win in Carroll County (Nov '10) Nov '10 curtis 1
News Republicans hoping to win - epic' battle for U.... (Nov '10) Nov '10 abandon all hope 1
News Bill Clinton Rallies For Dems In NH (Oct '10) Nov '10 KNOWvember 9
More from around the web