Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[RumTumTugger]

I said off the self cakes. They never stopped anyone from coming into their shop and buying anything in stock.

Again Sam twists someones words in his own mind so as to attack something the person did nto say

anther sign he is hte Bullies useful idiot bully enabler

[Sam]

Again Sam twists someones words in his own mind so as to attack something the person did nto say

anther sign he is hte Bullies useful idiot bully enabler

The discussion was explicitly dealing with wedding cakes. It's not a twist to infer that someone talking about cakes in that discussion is talking about wedding cakes.

[Sparko]

Asking seer for a citation on a point of fact directly relating to the discussion at hand is in no way inappropriate or even unusual. If you want me to dig through TWeb to refute an unrelated accusation made without evidence then I politely suggest investing in a better search engine.

Yeah that is the answer I got when I asked you for a citation last time, that it was up to me to google it. Funny how when you want to impugn someone's integrity you demand citations, but when they demand citations from you, you run away and tell them to google it.

Well here you go:

You are the one who keeps saying "commissioned works" are an exception to the Civil rights laws that the pro-gays are using against Christians, yet that is not the case. Can you show me where in the law it differentiates between "commissioned works" and "vanilla products?" Just because you keep claiming it does, doesn't make it so. I also would like you to provide me with a quote from the law that gives an exception for a business having to write on a product because of the first amendment. Oh and free speech is more than just "writing" or "saying" something on a product. It would include such things as having to put two men on a wedding cake, or creating any other graphic representation of a political stance. So asking someone to provide pictures at a gay wedding, is forcing that person to go against their right to free speech by making them take the opposite view in their product.

Just because you seem to live in your own little imaginary bubble world doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Read the relevant legal texts and you'll find that the concept not only exists but is highly relevant:

Source: Elane Photography v. Willock. New Mexico Supreme Court. Majority Opinion

Second, we conclude that the NMHRA does not violate free speech guarantees because the NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government mandated message or to publish the speech of another. The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws. We also hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

That is not the law. That is a court opinion of a lawsuit based on the law. It is what the judges THINK about the case and the law involved. Judges can be wrong and often are. This is also one state, and does not even reference the federal civil right act.

try again.

Precidents are not law either. They are biases in favor of certain legal opinions that courts use.

In fact, here is the actual law:

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexi...ection-28-1-7/
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

There is no exception for "commissioned" works as you keep claiming. If there were, then she would have won that law suit. Photography is art and is commissioned. It is not "vanilla"

Basically the NMHRA law doesn't even give an exemption for free speech or the first amendment at all. So that is why she lost the case.

[RumTumTugger]

The discussion was explicitly dealing with wedding cakes. It's not a twist to infer that someone talking about cakes in that discussion is talking about wedding cakes.

NO ti is about how the intolerant bullying bigots you are an enabler are going agasint the Constution by greenmailing and getting UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ENACTED. so as to force others to participate in celebration for their lifesytle whether that person approves of it or not

the only intolerant bigots in thnis case were this gay couple who and the state official who enacted an unconstitutional law.

I have some information for you here Sam the SCOTUS has been and can be wrong. Dred Scott decision mean anything to you?" it the SCOTUS ever rules on this and rules against folks like this bakery and the photographer it will be another DRED SCOTT decision.

[Sam]

Yeah that is the answer I got when I asked you for a citation last time, that it was up to me to google it. Funny how when you want to impugn someone's integrity you demand citations, but when they demand citations from you, you run away and tell them to google it.

Well here you go:

1) I did not impugn seer's integrity by calling for a citation.

2) If you ask for a citation on a point of fact I make on the topic being discussed, I'll generally provide it.

3) As you show above, I clearly did provide such a citation, in this instance the case law from the NM supreme court. So when you wrote:

Funny. You pontificate on many things and provide no evidence or citation, and even get upset when someone questions you (remember when you made the comment about "creative works of art" and then got upset when I asked you to provide any such evidence in the CRA?)

your memory was very clearly wrong. And I get to pat myself on the back for remembering enough of what you were talking about to tie it back into the NM supreme court hearing. Still have a few brain cells in the ol' hippocampus left, it seems.

[seer]

Well, arguing that same-sex couples can't buy a wedding cake but nothing's stopping them from buying the undecorated sheet cake doesn't need a citation, true enough, but it's not particularly relevant to the problem at hand, either.

Of course it is - my son and his wife, who did not have a lot of money, purchased sheet cake from Big Y for their wedding. The point is Sam, this gay couple was not deprived, there were plenty of bakeries in the area that would have been happy to serve them - as a matter of fact, if memory serves, Melissa recommended such a bakery. This law suit was about one thing, and one thing alone - spite, hate filled spite.

[Sparko]

Newspapers don't give up their first amendment rights in order to do business, so why should any business owner give up his first amendment rights in order to remain in business and avoid fines?

[Sam]

Of course it is - my son and his wife, who did not have a lot of money, purchased sheet cake from Big Y for their wedding. The point is Sam, this gay couple was not deprived, there were plenty of bakeries in the area that would have been happy to serve them - as a matter of fact, if memory serves, Melissa recommended such a bakery. This law suit was about one thing, and one thing alone - spite, hate filled spite.

I generally agree that folks being denied service, so long as such discrimination isn't pervasive, ought to simply go elsewhere (especially if they're Christians). However, I support someone's legal right to address discrimination through a lawsuit. And then the question isn't whether other businesses don't illegally discriminate - the question is whether the defendant has illegally discriminated.

If a Christian were to sue Big Dawkin's T-Rex Steak Bar because the owner refused to serve his family after seeing them praying before their meal, would you call that lawsuit "spite, hate-filled spite," just because other restaurants didn't discriminate against that family?

[RumTumTugger]

Of course it is - my son and his wife, who did not have a lot of money, purchased sheet cake from Big Y for their wedding. The point is Sam, this gay couple was not deprived, there were plenty of bakeries in the area that would have been happy to serve them - as a matter of fact, if memory serves, Melissa recommended such a bakery. This law suit was about one thing, and one thing alone - spite, hate filled spite.

Bingo although this something that the intolerant bigoted bully enablers like Sam won't choose to remain IGNOREnt of. they are fine with people being forced to go against their constitutionally protected GOD GIVEN right to not participate in what they feel is sincerely wrong when they are in no way stopping that person from doing or going on with their lifestyle th only ones that are trying to stop someone from following their lifestyle is the aforementioned intolerant bullying bigots like that gay couple.

[Sam]

Newspapers don't give up their first amendment rights in order to do business, so why should any business owner give up his first amendment rights in order to remain in business and avoid fines?

They shouldn't. Which is why the question of "vanilla" or generic works, as opposed to commissioned (content-specific) works, is important. Where there's a message or "speech" being "published," First Amendment rights trump anti-discrimination law. When it's a generic good or service, First Amendment rights aren't involved.

[seer]

If a Christian were to sue Big Dawkin's T-Rex Steak Bar because the owner refused to serve his family after seeing them praying before their meal, would you call that lawsuit "spite, hate-filled spite," just because other restaurants didn't discriminate against that family?

No, but everything the left does is hate filled. That is who they are. Isn't that self-evident?

[RumTumTugger]

I generally agree that folks being denied service, so long as such discrimination isn't pervasive, ought to simply go elsewhere (especially if they're Christians). However, I support someone's legal right to address discrimination through a lawsuit. And then the question isn't whether other businesses don't illegally discriminate - the question is whether the defendant has illegally discriminated.

If a Christian were to sue Big Dawkin's T-Rex Steak Bar because the owner refused to serve his family after seeing them praying before their meal, would you call that lawsuit "spite, hate-filled spite," just because other restaurants didn't discriminate against that family?

As that would not happen. I"d just call T-Rex Steak Bar stupid for doing such a thing. and go on and take my business else where since they have a right to refuse service to anyone. i would reserve the right to tell others about how I was or that family was treated.

[seer]

I"d call T-Rex Steak Bar stupid for such a thing. and go on and take my business else where since they have a right to refuse service to anyone.

Exactly...

[Sam]

No, but everything the left does is hate filled. That is who they are. Isn't that self-evident?

Ah. "Hate-filled spite for thee but not for me," then.

[Sam]

I"d call T-Rex Steak Bar stupid for such a thing. and go on and take my business else where since they have a right to refuse service to anyone.

But you wouldn't call the Christian plaintiff spiteful and hate-filled for filing suit.