Don't Look If You Have a weak Stomach : New York City’s Gay Pride 2011

[Odysseus]

I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.

Don't pretend that you've won the argument. You've simply applied superior force in the form of money, political clout within a party that is committed to American decline in all areas (and this will accelerate it), and media noise. It doesn't make you right, just more powerful in the short run.

[NJCardFan]

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

Bullschtein. There is already precedent. There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly. But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof. However, the linked story grants someone's lifestyle choice over someone's Constitutionally protected rights. Now, I'm quite sure there are more than 1 photographer in New Mexico, especially in a big city like Albuquerque but IMO this lesbian purposely picked this photographer to stir the shit pot and they got what they want. I'm guessing you're happy about this.

[Novaheart]

There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly.

How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


"Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

[Novaheart]

B But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof.

The free exercise of religion does not include everything you say and do as long as you say , "In Jesus' name" after you do it.

[jnkbortka]

Here's a real Drama Queen thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts?q=1&;page=1

It wishes everything on NY from another 9/11 to a nuclear strike, after the gay marriage vote.

well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.

[jnkbortka]

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

because theres nothing in the good book against it DUH

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.

NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be. The grandeur of the South is the only place that is, to my mind, comparable with NYC.

[linda22003]

NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be.

As Fran Leibowitz memorably said, "When you leave New York, you are astonished at how clean the rest of the world is. Clean is not enough." :p

[Rebel Yell]

Nova, if you had asked me 10 years ago if I thought the government would dictate what kind of light bulb I had to buy, I'd probably laughed at you. If you had asked the average American 100 years ago if the government would have it's filthy hands in as many aspects of our lives as it does now, you would have been committed. Don't think for a second that the government (notice I didn't just say Dems) wouldn't jump at the first chance to get into the church. That's the final frontier.


As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.

[NJCardFan]

How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


"Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Thank you for opening this can of worms. Let me ask you: Does an exclusive restaurant have the right to deny service to someone who doesn't wear a jacket and tie or who doesn't dress appropriately? And in NY, aren't there clubs that the average person will not get in because they are not one of the beautiful people? Be careful how you answer.