To my gay friends

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by AuntPeggy, Jun 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    It shouldn't be too much of a surprise as the Supremacy Clause making federal law superior, is part of the Constitution.
     
  2. Jim Logajan

    Jim Logajan En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    .
    If there was a specific federal law or specific constitutionally granted federal power cited by the court, then the supremacy clause would be applicable:
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
    On the other hand, when there is no federal law or constitutionally granted power in play or cited, then the tenth amendment would seem applicable to any court decision:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    Otherwise I'm staying out of this debate. Just thought I'd put in my two cents on this particular aspect.
     
  3. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    The person who claimed that the Supreme Court has already ruled that creative speech can be forced, has yet to provide a legal citation, so I can't comment on the basis for the application of the Supremacy clause in that instance.

    As for gay marriage, SCOTUS cited the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
     
  4. Rcmutz

    Rcmutz Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rcmutz
    No, but as the First Amendment it should be held in the highest regard, as it is one of our countries founding principals. It should not be trampled.

    There is no moral equivalent between a florist or baker not servicing a gay wedding due to religious beliefs, and a restaurant not providing service to a African American.

    If one looks in the Torah, ie, Five Books of Moses, ie, Old Testemant, you will find the passage where God says, a man who lies with another man, or beast is an abomination before me. So to those whose faith relies on this should have the right to deny services.
     
  5. Flying Viking

    Flying Viking Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2014
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    SoCal
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Flying Viking
    How about a florist or baker not servicing an interracial wedding due to religious beliefs?
     
  6. Rcmutz

    Rcmutz Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rcmutz
    There is nothing in the bible or Koran, or any other religious document that I Know of that indicates that inter racial marriage is an issue.
     
  7. Florida Cracker

    Florida Cracker Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,360
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Florida Cracker
    I don't see the conflict. Why should the law FORCE one party to surrender their First Amendment rights just so another party won't get their underpanties in a twist?

    The court claiming that local law supersedes the First Amendment is the kind of arrogance that civil strife comes from.

    Just because two dykes want something, for intelligent adults, that doesn't automatically follow that it's up to others to provide it even if it means trampling a right protected in the US constitution, as opposed to a law made up by local yahoos, with an axe to grind.

    I come back to my original objection.

    Does the moronic law have the power to force an actress, who sells her acting as a business, to make a lesbian porno flick or risk persecution by the dyke brigade and their scum bag administrative law judge?

    How do you draw a line through the two issues?
     
  8. Flying Viking

    Flying Viking Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2014
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    SoCal
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Flying Viking
    That may be your opinion, but it's certainly not everybody's opinion. For example, the trial court judge in the case that ended up as Loving v. Virginia before the SCOTUS, stated that

    So could a wedding cake baker adhering to this view refuse to cater to an interracial marriage?
     
  9. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    You're like a dog with a bone... everything is Slema to you.
     
  10. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Oh rly? How do you think slavery and anti-miscegenation laws were justified?

    Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

    Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

    Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

    Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

    Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
    Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

    Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

    1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'.

    God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God’s original purpose manifests insubordination to Him(Acts 17:26; Romans 9:19-24)
    God made everything to reproduce “After his own kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14). Kind means type and color or He would have kept them all alike to begin with.
    God originally determined the bounds of the habitations of nations(Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5, 32; 11:8; Deuteronomy 32:8)
    Miscegenation means the mixture of races, especially the black and white races, or those of outstanding type or color. The Bible even goes farther than opposing this. It is against different branches of the same stock intermarrying such as Jews marrying other descendants of Abraham(Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9-13; Jeremiah 50:37; Ezekiel 30:5).
    Abraham forbad Eliezer to take a wife for Isaac of Canaanites (Genesis 24:1-4). God was so pleased with this that He directed whom to get (Genesis 24:7, 12-27).
    Isaac forbad Jacob to take a wife of the Canaanites (Genesis 27:46-28:7).
    Abraham sent all his sons of the concubines, and even of his second wife, far away from Isaac so their descendants would not mix (Genesis 25:1-6)
    Esau disobeying this law brought the final break between him and his father after lifelong companionship with him(Genesis 25:28; 26:34-35, 27:46; 28:8-9).
    The two branches of Isaac remained segregated forever (Genesis 30; 46:8-26).
    Ishmael and Isaac’s descendants remained segregated forever (Genesis 25:12-23; 1 Chronicles 1:29)
    Jacob’s sons destroyed a whole city to maintain segregation (Genesis 34)
    God forbad intermarriage between Israel and all other nations (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:5-6)
    Joshua forbad the same thing on sentence of death (Joshua 22:12-13)
    God cursed angels for leaving their own “first estate” and “their own habitation” to marry the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6-7)
    Miscegenation caused Israel to be cursed (Judges 3:6-7; Numbers 25:1-8)
    This was Solomon’s sin (I Kings 11)
    This was the sin of Jews returning from Babylon (Ezra 9:1-10:2,10-18,44; 13:1-30)
    God commanded Israel to be segregated (Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 23:9; 1 Kings 8:53)
    Jews recognized as a separate people in all ages because of Gods choice and command (Matthew 10:6; John 1:11). Equal rights in the gospel gives no right to break this eternal law.
    Segregation between Jews and all other nations to remain in all eternity (Isaiah 2:2-4; Ezekiel 37; 47:13-48,55; Zechariah 14:16-21; Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32-33; Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5)
    All nations will remain segregated from one another in their own parts of the earth forever (Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5,32; 11:8-9; Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14; Revelation 11:15; 21:24)
    Certain people in Israel were not even to worship with others (Deuteronomy 23:1-5; Ezra 10:8; Nehemiah 9:2 10:28; 13:3)
    Even in heaven certain groups will not be allowed to worship together (Revelation 7:7-17; 14:1-5; 15:2-5)
    Segregation was so strong in the O.T. that an ox and an ass could not work together (Deuteronomy 22:10).
    Miscegenation caused disunity among God’s people (Numbers 12).
    Stock was forbidden to be bred with other kinds (Leviticus 19:19).
    Sowing mixed seed in the same field was unlawful (Leviticus 19:19)
    Different seeds were forbidden to be planted in vineyards (Deuteronomy 22:9)
    Wearing garments of mixed fabrics forbidden (Deuteronomy 22:11; Leviticus 19:19)
    Christians and certain other people of a like race are to be segregated (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 6:15; 2 Corinthians 6:14-15; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:5).

    As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.” This same rationale was later adopted by state supreme courts in Alabama, Indiana and Virginia to justify bans on interracial marriage, and by justices in Kentucky to support residential segregation and segregated colleges.
    In 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that “God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks.” After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor.
    Bob Jones
    Although the Supreme Court never considered whether Bilbo, Candler, Barnett or Byrd’s religious beliefs gave them a license to engage in race discrimination, a very similar case did reach the justices in 1983.
    Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.
    This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. According to Weyrich, “t was not the school-prayer issue, and it was not the abortion issue,” that caused this “movement to surface.” Rather it was what Weyrich labeled the “federal government’s move against the Christian schools.”
    When Bob Jones’ case reached the Supreme Court, the school argued that IRS’ regulations denying tax exemptions to racist institutions “cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.” But the justices did not bite. In an 8-1 decision by conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court explained that “[o]n occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct.” Prohibiting race discrimination is one of these interests.

    1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

    2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

    3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

    5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

    6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

    7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

    8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

    “I do not recognize, I have never recognized, I cannot recognize that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land.”
    “In ruling after ruling, the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional authority. While appearing to protect the people’s interest, it has in reality become a judicial tyrant.”
    “To those who would overthrow the customs, morals, and traditions of a way of life which has endured in honor and decency for centuries and embrace a new moral code prepared by [judges] in Washington whose moral concepts they know nothing about … let me make it abundantly clear … I will not yield to that which I know to be wrong.”
    “The Supreme Court is not the law of the land, and [you don’t] have to obey it.”
    “All of us know what the court has done to capture the minds of our children.”
    “I was not elected governor … to surrender all our rights as citizens to an all-powerful federal autocracy. … This issue is now where all public issues belong—in your hands, the hands of the people. … Public sentiment is with you in this struggle to preserve our legal and time-honored rights.”
    “[This ruling is] the most serious blow that has been struck against the rights of the states … a crisis of the first magnitude.”
    “A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. … It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people. … We must revitalize a government founded in this nation on faith in God.”
    Quotes from politicians about the abhorrent Brown v. Board of Education and other desegregation rulings. Straight out of the mouths of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, etc. Republicans today = Southern Democrats of 60 years ago.

    10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

    “I do not recognize, I have never recognized, I cannot recognize that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land.”
    “In ruling after ruling, the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional authority. While appearing to protect the people’s interest, it has in reality become a judicial tyrant.”
    “To those who would overthrow the customs, morals, and traditions of a way of life which has endured in honor and decency for centuries and embrace a new moral code prepared by [judges] in Washington whose moral concepts they know nothing about … let me make it abundantly clear … I will not yield to that which I know to be wrong.”
    “The Supreme Court is not the law of the land, and [you don’t] have to obey it.”
    “All of us know what the court has done to capture the minds of our children.”
    “I was not elected governor … to surrender all our rights as citizens to an all-powerful federal autocracy. … This issue is now where all public issues belong—in your hands, the hands of the people. … Public sentiment is with you in this struggle to preserve our legal and time-honored rights.”
    “[This ruling is] the most serious blow that has been struck against the rights of the states … a crisis of the first magnitude.”
    “A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. … It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people. … We must revitalize a government founded in this nation on faith in God.”
    Quotes from politicians about the abhorrent Brown v. Board of Education and other desegregation rulings. Straight out of the mouths of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, etc. Republicans today = Southern Democrats of 60 years ago.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  11. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    Like all individual rights, there are lines to be drawn when one person's exercise of a right impinges on another's exercise of a right. Opinions can very regarding where the line should be drawn. At one time, a religious objection to inter-racial marriage would fly. The world changed. It is changing again with respect to gay marriage.

    The cake bakers have a great freedom of speech argument. Me thinks that they, and their supports, are determined to test it on the basis of religion. They are gambling and may well lose.
     
  12. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    Brown was decided in 1946.
    Ted Cruz, son of a Cuban immigrant, was born in 1970.
    Bobby Jindal, son of Indian immigrants, born 1971.
    Mike Huckabee, born 1955.
    Rick Santorum; born 1958.
    Rick Perry, born 1950.

    Care to explain why anyone would believe a word you say when none of those people could have possibly said anything you attribute to them contemporaneously with the Brown decision? I especially like how you try to make the Hispanic and the Indian into sheet-wearing racists. Pro tip: the Klan were Democrats, just like Robert Byrd.

    They're bogeymen to you because you've been told to fear them and you dutifully obey. Put down the talking points and back slowly away from your keyboard.
     
  13. Florida Cracker

    Florida Cracker Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,360
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Florida Cracker
    I think you're responding to a troll.
     
  14. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    I hope its just a troll. Otherwise he's an extraordinarily well fed low-information voter.

     
  15. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    You have a reading comprehension fail. The quotes were from George Wallace and others. The point is that they sound almost identical to what's now coming out of the mouths of republicans and other crazies like Florida Cracker.

    Here, let me help you since you're so impaired: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/segregation_or_same_sex_marriage_take_our_quiz.html
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

    Not only could religious arguments for segregation be marshaled, they were marshaled. For example, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia cited the Bible in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[71] Reverend Jerry Falwell attributed the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision to Chief Justice Warren’s failure to know and follow God’s word; Falwell also preached against racial intermarriage.[72] Falwell and Byrd were not alone.

    The trial judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia cited the fact that God had put the races on separate continents as proof “that he did not intend for the races to mix.”[73] Earlier, in 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregation in railway cars.[74] The court explained that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”[75] The Pennsylvania court’s appeal to divine authority was used by state supreme courts in Indiana, Alabama, and Virginia to support the validity of statutes banning interracial marriages and by decisions in Alabama and Kentucky to support segregation of transportation and higher education.[76] The latest use of this language came in a 1955 Virginia decision.[77] “[T]he theology of separate races constituted a kind of cultural religion that permeated the hearts and minds of attorneys and judges throughout the courts of the South for a hundred years after the Civil War.”[78]

    Jane Dailey has explicated the religious and biblical case for segregation.[79] The religious case for racial separation was based on a type of selective biblical literalism. By this reading of the Bible, a reading which cited a number of Bible verses, “God Himself” had drawn boundary lines to keep races and peoples separate, or at least to keep them from intermarriage and having sex across the boundaries. Concern about one type of sexual activity was at the heart of the religious case for segregation. According to segregationists, race mixing would lead to interracial marriage and interracial sex, contravening God’s plan. Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo explained that “miscegenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance with the will of God . . . .”[80] A professor at Mississippi’s leading Baptist institution announced, “[O]ur Southern segregation way is the Christian way . . . . [God] was the original segregationist.”[81] A writer in the Baptist Standardagreed: “God created and established the color line . . . .”[82]

    http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012...-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  16. Florida Cracker

    Florida Cracker Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,360
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Florida Cracker
    He's definitely a troll.
     
  17. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Says probably the biggest troll on this forum. :rofl: Sorry equality upsets you so much, but as we see above if anyone here is low-information and poorly informed, it's you. So much hate inside you must really raise your blood pressure to an unhealthy level.

    All I can say is, love wins out ;-)
     
  18. bflynn

    bflynn En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    4,000
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    My mistake. I was thinking Elaine Photography v Willock, but the US Supreme Court refused cert on it. It was the NM Supreme Court that made that ruling and apparently SCOTUS didn't disagree enough to hear the case.

    I believe the phrase the NM court used was something like that it is the price of citizenship that she must use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagreed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  19. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Actually, if you read the opinion, it was said NOT to be compelled speech.

    "However, unlike the laws at issue in Wooley and Barnette, the NMHRA does not require Elane Photography to recite or display any message. It does not even require Elane Photography to take photographs. The NMHRA only mandates that if Elane Photography operates a business as a public accommodation, it cannot discriminate against potential clients based on their sexual orientation."

    "Antidiscrimination laws have important purposes that go beyond expressing government values: they ensure that services are freely available in the market, and they protect individuals from humiliation and dignitary harm. See Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 307-08 (1969) (stating that the purpose of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “to [re]move the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities ostensibly open to the general public”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 299-300 (1964) (discussing the economic impact of discrimination in public accommodations)."

    The fact that compliance with the NMHRA will require Elane Photography to produce photographs for same-sex weddings to the extent that it would provide those services to a heterosexual couple does not mean that the NMHRA compels speech in the manner of the laws challenged in Wooley and Barnette. Elane Photography’s argument here is more analogous to the claims raised by the law schools in Rumsfeld. In that case, a federal law made universities’ federal funding contingent on the universities allowing military recruiters access to university facilities and services on the same basis as other, non-military recruiters. 547 U.S. at 52-53. A group of law schools that objected to the ban on gays in the military challenged the law on a number of constitutional grounds, including that the law in question compelled them to speak the government’s message. Id. at 52, 53, 61-62. In order to assist the military recruiters, schools had to provide services that involved speech, “such as sending e-mails and distributing flyers.” Id. at 60.

    The United States Supreme Court held that this requirement did not constitute compelled speech. Id. at 62. The Court observed that the federal law “neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything.” Id. at 60. Schools were compelled only to provide the type of speech-related services to military recruiters that they provided to non military recruiters. Id. at 62. “There [was] nothing . . . approaching a Government-mandated pledge or motto that the school [had to] endorse.” Id.

    {31} The same situation is true in the instant case. Like the law in Rumsfeld, the NMHRA does not require any affirmation of belief by regulated public accommodations; instead, it requires businesses that offer services to the public at large to provide those services without regard for race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications. Section 28-1-7(F).

    The fact that these services may involve speech or other expressive services does not render the NMHRA unconstitutional. See Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 62 (“The compelled speech to which the law schools point is plainly incidental to the [law’s] regulation of conduct, and it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out 2 Dale also was decided on freedom of association grounds. Id. at 644. Elane Photography has not argued that its right of expressive association was violated. 12 by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Elane Photography is compelled to take photographs of same-sex weddings only to the extent that it would provide the same services to a heterosexual couple. See id. at 62 (speech assisting military recruiters was “only ‘compelled’ if, and to the extent, the school provide[d] such speech for other recruiters”).

    The United States Supreme Court has never found a compelled-speech violation arising from the application of antidiscrimination laws to a for-profit public accommodation. In fact, it has suggested that public accommodation laws are generally constitutional. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (“Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments . . . . [T]he focal point of [such statutes is] rather on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds.”). The United States Supreme Court has found constitutional problems with some applications of state public accommodation laws, but those problems have arisen when states have applied their public accommodation laws to free-speech events such as privately organized parades, id. at 566, 573, 580-81, and private membership organizations, Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659, 659 n.4 (2000).

    Elane Photography, however, is an ordinary public accommodation, a “clearly commercial entit[y],” id. at 657, that sells goods and services to the public.

    The NMHRA does not, nor could it, regulate the content of the photographs that Elane Photography produces. It does not, for example, mandate that Elane Photography take posed photographs rather than candid shots, nor does it require every wedding album to contain a picture of the bride’s bouquet. Indeed, the NMHRA does not mandate that Elane Photography choose to take wedding pictures; that is the exclusive choice of Elane Photography. Like all public accommodation laws, the NMHRA regulates “the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds.” See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (describing the Massachusetts public accommodation law). Elane Photography argues that because the service it provides is photography, and because photography is expressive, “some of [the] images will inevitably express the messages inherent in [the] event.” In essence, then, Elane Photography argues that by limiting its ability to choose its clients, the NMHRA forces it to produce photographs expressing its clients’ messages even when the messages are contrary to Elane Photography’s beliefs.

    {35} Elane Photography has misunderstood this issue. It believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation. This determination has no relation to the artistic merit of photographs produced by Elane Photography. If Annie Leibovitz or Peter Lindbergh worked as public accommodations in New Mexico, they would be subject to the provisions of the NMHRA. Unlike the defendants in Hurley or the other cases in which the United States Supreme Court has found compelled-speech violations, Elane Photography sells its expressive services to the public.

    It may be that Elane Photography expresses its clients’ messages in its photographs, but only because it is hired to do so. The NMHRA requires that Elane Photography perform the same services for a same-sex couple as it would for an opposite-sex couple; the fact that these services require photography stems from the nature of Elane Photography’s chosen line of business."

    I encourage you to read more here: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/sc33,687.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  20. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    Point of fact, Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1953.

    As for the KKK, they were Southern Democrats. That meant that they were not liberal Democrats, in fact, they were conservative Democrats. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican. Having gotten over that, the southern conservatives have pretty much switched over to the Republican party.

    Do you disagree that the biblical quotes are accurate?
     
  21. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    Priest spit on at Gay Pride Parade

    Love, indeed. As angry as you say FC is, I'm not aware of him having spit on anyone.
     
  22. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Yep, the Deep South used to be all Southern Democrats. After the Northern Democrats began supporting civil rights for blacks, all of the Southern Dems switched to the Republican party, which is why the South is now all deep red.
     
  23. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    I think not. You wrote:

    None of which was even close to accurate.
     
  24. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
  25. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    You really have a reading comprehension fail. I was analogizing the historical quotes regarding desegregation & miscegenation to what's currently coming out of the mouths of the politicians I listed. The quotes are almost identical, as you would see if you stopped being purposely dense.
     
  26. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    I guess that the courts are being less generous to the those involved in creative endeavors than I was led to believe, though I find decorating a cake to be much more of an artistic expression than snapping photographs in a venue and of subjects chosen by the customer.
     
  27. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
  28. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    Yep. A troll that posts just like AP and Redtail.
     
  29. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    Then you believe that 3 year old Ricky Perry and the pre-natal others said what was attributed in that post? You would.

    The so-called "Southern Strategy" and the myth of wascally wacist Southern Republicans endures, because its how the white leftists feel morally superior about themselves pulling the lever for another democrat. Even while the plight of the average black family has declined under leadership of the first black president. So said the head of the NAACP.

    Aside from that, I'm not about to pretend to have a serious religious discussion with yet another anti-religious bigot of the left, particularly not where I'd be the only one pretending to be serious about it. It's would be irrelevant in any case, because what I (or you) believe about the religious dogma is quite immaterial.
     
  30. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    You know, you just can't argue with stupid. Blocked.
     
  31. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    I guess all clergy look alike to you...:rolleyes:
     
  32. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Ahhhh.
     
  33. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    You've got to be kidding me. That's pathetic. Anyone who has an IQ above freezing knows that the Westboro clan is nothing more than an inbred cult of three dozen people, and don't represent the "clergy" in any way, shape, or form.
     
  34. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    No, you just can't argue... period. So bury your head in the sand. No chance any nasty facts will burst your precious bubble.
     
  35. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    Ignorance worn with pride.
     
  36. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    Lol. So awesome.
     
  37. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    Cowardly move there, Ace.

    Leave it to the leftists to just want to play with themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  38. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    It's funny because it's like a schizo arguing with himself. Lol.
     

    Attached Files:

  39. DJTorrente

    DJTorrente En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,103
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DJTorrente
    Not cowardly, just immature.

    [​IMG]
     
  40. Kristin

    Kristin Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    SE Alaska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kristin (The Aviatrix)
    You can draw whatever stupid inferences your angst can dredge out of your nether regions, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You stated the wrong date. I corrected you. I will leave you to wallow in the rest of your mess.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.