Posted on 01/09/2022 5:48:50 PM PST by marshmallow
An Upstate New York wedding photographer has lost her bid to refuse service to same-sex couples after a federal judge dismissed with prejudice her lawsuit against the state.
Emilee Carpenter, a photographer and blogger based in the Southern Tier, sued the state in April, alleging that the state’s human rights law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and free religious expression. She also said the law violated the establishment clause and her right to due process.
Carpenter named New York Attorney General Letitia James and Interim Human Rights Commissioner Jonathan Smith as defendants.
Carpenter said that the law violates her First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion because she uses her wedding photography business to exercise and express her religious beliefs about marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawandcrime.com ...
It’s the “with prejudice” part that bothers me.
“Maybe Plan B should be to say, “Sure, I’ll take pictures of your ‘event’”, and then just royally screw up the pictures. Just because I have to allow you to hire me doesn’t mean that I have to do a good job.”
‘Im sorry, but the photos of your debauchery were lost in a tragic boating accident.’
“Someone try using a gay photographer for a wedding and have the bride and groom holding AK’s or something for their wedding photos. Let the photographer say they won’t photograph guns and violate the couples 2A rights.”
Better yet, Muslims.
I was responding to the notion that people should refuse service to certain people. One poster said that he/she didn’t want to buy food from anyone who ‘hates’ him/her.
It seems to me that business owners refusing to serve anyone would set themselves up for lawsuits. Maybe they’d be lucky, and get the very occasional judge who would back them up, but they’d more likely destroy their businesses.
I also wonder about the morality of it. How does anyone know whether or not someone walking into their establishment ‘hates’ them, or is a bad citizen whom they wouldn’t want for a customer?
How do they know whether someone walking in is actually a member of a group that the business owner ASSUMES hates them?
It’s a sticky wicket, and regardless your assumption that it’s ‘not complicated’, it wouldn’t go that way in a court.
Not really.
You are confusing refusing service with refusing employment.
It is a common mistake.
When you offer a service to everyone such as sandwiches you do indeed have to offer them to everyone.
Anyone can come in and order a sandwich and, as long as you have a sandwich to sell, they are not disorderly or any of a number of other things you sell them the sandwich.
That falls under service.
What does not fall under service is what we call commissions. That is when some one contracts you to provide a special service exclusively for them.
To continue with the food analogy, they want you to make a platter of sandwiches spelling out "Happy Abortion!"
That is a commission and you, for the time in question, are working for that person.
You are not obliged to take that commission. You can refuse for any reason or even no reason. You are not required to take employment that you find distasteful.
That is what I am trying to explain.
Her business seems to be only commissions. There is a contract, they say what they want her to do and she is free to accept or decline.
Service and commissions are two very separate areas. That they are trying to co-mingle the two is dangerous. Must a book keeper do the taxes of a mob boss? Must a lawn service clean out a lot full of poison ivy? Will a vegan baker be forced to make a cake with eggs, lard and honey?
The foundation of all liberty is the ability to say, "No, I do not wish to do that no matter how much you pay me."
They’re afraid to do that to nuzzles
I don’t think you’ve actually noticed the posts to which I responded.
I was responding to comments about service.
You can think whatever you like about the rights of people entering into ‘contracts’; but I believe that it’s wrong to refuse service to anyone just on the basis of what you may ASSUME about them.
I do not necessarily read all the posts or assume I know what people are talking about. If they respond to me, I judge they are responding to me.
but I believe that it's wrong to refuse service to anyone just on the basis of what you may ASSUME about them.
Ah, you have left legal and moved into philosophical.
Ok, I don't.
I have thrown people out of my store for being jerks to my employees. That is my hard and fast rule on the service I will offer. Don't care about anything else but you WILL be polite to my employees. They are nice hardworking young people (or slightly beyond young in a couple of cases) and you as a customer will not be rude to them.
Other people have different criteria. I believe they should be allowed that.
I believe you should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason no matter how crazy or hair-brained.
If you want only to give service to red-haired, brown eyed, left handed females that should be your prerogative.
Perhaps.
But refusing service to someone simply because of what you assume by their ethnicity or skin color - and the assumption that they 'hate' you on account of those - is stupid.
Maybe.
And maybe not.
I know a certain amount of people hate me. Some for the shade of my skin, some for my religion, some for reasons that only exist in their rather vivid imaginations. The world is not a benevolent place and becoming even less so.
In my job, which is at least partly a service job, I do not refuse service to anyone but I also do not assume benevolence by people I do not know either.
Too many people have suffered and died because they turned off their people warning system.
Mine is on high at all times.
I have some innocent and harmless people to protect.
And that is not my job but my career.
Do you know any individuals who hate you for the shade of your skin, your religion, etc? and have they done anything to harm you?
Yes.
So, what did you do about it?
I don’t know. You simply implied that it had happened, and you didn’t give us any particulars.
You must live in a very happy and safe world.
I envy that.
I don’t recall implying that at all.
You made a statement about your personal experience. I just asked you to give us some details, instead of merely an unsubstantiated assertion.
(And Yes, I do live in a ‘happy and safe world’. Human beings largely create the worlds that they live in.)
Only if they ask for something NOT NORMALLY on the menu, if they demand some weird ass shit that does not normally belong on the menu then HELL YES!
Let them go find their pickled goat, camel, or crocodile dicks somewhere else!
Otherwise, serve’em; JUST WHATS ON THE MENU PAL!
Just glad that somebody besides me understands that the QUEERS and LESBOS have been hijacking the language.
I have tried telling people for years that the word “GAY” means happy, merry, fun filled, care free.
Been saying that for years now but nobody seems to hear.
GAY = CARE FREE.
QUEER = STRANGE, PECULIAR, BIZARRE.
And in my opinion they are MISERABLE and SELF DESTRUCTIVE!
They’d probably be happy with a hamburger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.