Gays and Lesbians (GLBT) versus Christians

[Crazy Liz]

It will be interesting. She does appear to "get artistic" but it looks like she also does the traditional photos. Her problem is going to be that it is the business that is denying service, not her personally, so her First Amendment rights don't really come into play.

Since she is a sole proprietor, distinguishing her from her business is pretty hard to do. A person doesn't give up their First Amendment rights by purchasing a business license.

It further hurts her that she lists "wedding photography" as a service offered.

And what she was asked to photograph in this case wasn't a wedding. IIRC, her state doesn't allow same-sex couples to marry. In any case, the stories say it was a commitment ceremony, not a wedding, that she refused to photograph.

Isn't it ironic that a state commission could penalize her for making a distinction in her business that the state makes in its laws?

The state of New Mexico is allowed to discriminate against gays, but a freelance photographer in New Mexico is not?

In many ways it is the same as the First Amendment right to evangelize (regardless of the religion) can be denied by employers.

There is one big difference. An employee can decide not to work for a particular employer if the employee doesn't like the employer's workplace rules.

It will be interesting to see how the various courts (as I assume any result will be appealed) rule.

The commission's decision has already been appealed to the courts. I would guess that the defendant will appeal until she wins - all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary, but I doubt the commission will take the appeals that far. If a state court decides against the commission (which I think is likely) the case will probably end there.

 

[Mling]

What if thugs wearing their pants sagging below their buttocks, their underwear touching seats where other people have to sit when these thugs are done, demand to be served at Denny's or Cracker Barrell?

Now, I agree with you that Christians should submit to gays ruling over them in the secular realm. We survived Nero and Hadrian without a First Amendment to protect us, so I'm sure we can get through the current phase of socially motivated perverted miscreants forcing themselves on us in todays modern world.

This is really a very revealing statement. Somebody mentions "gay" and you leap to, "socially motivated perverted miscreants." Somebody mentions "black" and you leap to "thugs wearing their pants sagging below their buttocks." Somebody mentions that people you don't like have a social voice and political figures have to actually do some diplomacy with them, like they do with many others, and you leap to destructive and violent dictators.

Basically, you cannot simply dislike a person, or a group of people. If you don't like somebody, you seem to need them to be a monolithic force for the ultimate evil. Even if they are standing in front of you saying, "Look at my life! This isn't what you're describing!" You just brush them aside and basically say "Yes it is. You're evil. You know it. You know it because I'm saying it, and that makes it right."

Nietzsche described that as the "slave" mindset, for what it's worth. The slave establishes his own morality, and then calls everything else "evil." He declares as "evil" anybody who has "evil" traits.

The Master establishes his own morality or ethics (legal codes, not necessarily having to do with good and evil), and then calls everything else "bad." He hates those who have traits he can respect, but who are opposed to him--fighting against them because they are opposed to his goals, but respecting their honorable traits at the same time.

It is easier to be a slave, but more honest to be a master.

edit: And besides that, where's [URL="http://www.tip.duke.edu/loyo/African%20American%20Male%20with%20Desktop.jpg"]the automatic [/URL]connection between sagging and race?

 

[Mling]

Since she is a sole proprietor, distinguishing her from her business is pretty hard to do. A person doesn't give up their First Amendment rights by purchasing a business license.

The person as a person, and the person as the owner of a business are two separate entities. The person as a person can do all sorts of stuff, loan money to whoever she wants, hang out with whoever she wants. The owner of the business needs to keep track of these things and is bound by certain laws regarding what she may do with her money and associations. If you read through the regulations concerning how to handle jury duty, for example, it states that if you own your own business, you must pay yourself under the same conditions that any other employer must pay their employee. I've heard of one case, also, where a man, as an employee of a business, sued himself, as the owner of the business and then, as the owner, petitioned for...I believe it was workman's comp, to cover the cost.

(for the record, I do think that a small, completely private business should be allowed to discriminate in any way they want. Completely private means that they have paid off all business-related loans and personally own the land and building).

And what she was asked to photograph in this case wasn't a wedding. IIRC, her state doesn't allow same-sex couples to marry. In any case, the stories say it was a commitment ceremony, not a wedding, that she refused to photograph.

Isn't it ironic that a state commission could penalize her for making a distinction in her business that the state makes in its laws?

The state of New Mexico is allowed to discriminate against gays, but a freelance photographer in New Mexico is not?

That's a very good point. I think that's checkmate.

 

[Crazy Liz]

The person as a person, and the person as the owner of a business are two separate entities.

Not in my state (California) and not under common law.

The person as a person can do all sorts of stuff, loan money to whoever she wants, hang out with whoever she wants. The owner of the business needs to keep track of these things and is bound by certain laws regarding what she may do with her money and associations. If you read through the regulations concerning how to handle jury duty, for example, it states that if you own your own business, you must pay yourself under the same conditions that any other employer must pay their employee.

Can you give me a citation? I've never heard of a law like this.

I've heard of one case, also, where a man, as an employee of a business, sued himself, as the owner of the business and then, as the owner, petitioned for...I believe it was workman's comp, to cover the cost.

Was this business, by any chance, incorporated?

If so, then the corporation is a separate legal entity from its employees and from its shareholders, and can be sued by its employees or shareholders. However, a person cannot sue him/herself in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

BTW, I'm seriously interested in these citations because I teach Business Law. If my legal education and the texts I've been using for the last 10 years are inaccurate, I would really like to know. It is very important to me professionally.

(for the record, I do think that a small, completely private business should be allowed to discriminate in any way they want. Completely private means that they have paid off all business-related loans and personally own the land and building).



That's a very good point. I think that's checkmate.

 

[Mling]

I can't cite the case of the man suing himself. As for jury duty, this is what it says in my "Trial Juror's Handbook" ("Prepared by Office of Jury Commissioner for the Commonwealth" [of Massachusetts] "March 1998, Sixth Edition." It was sent to me by the court earlier this year and so, presumably, still in effect.)

Q. I am self-employed. Who will pay me for juror service?
A. A self employed person is treated no differently than any other employer. Self-employed jurors must compensate themselves for the first three days of juror service unless they can demonstrate extreme financial hardship to the judge...If you serve more than three days, the state will pay you up to $50 per day after the third day.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/handbook.htm

 

[Crazy Liz]

I can't cite the case of the man suing himself. As for jury duty, this is what it says in my "Trial Juror's Handbook" ("Prepared by Office of Jury Commissioner for the Commonwealth" [of Massachusetts] "March 1998, Sixth Edition." It was sent to me by the court earlier this year and so, presumably, still in effect.)


http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/handbook.htm

In my state, employers are not required to pay employees who are off work for jury duty. But what the pamphlet seems to mean is just that the state doesn't pay you for the first 3 days unless your employer (or you, if self-employed) show an extreme hardship. The state can't make a person pay him/herself. It's just a nicer thing to say than if you're self-employed, you're out of luck, just like the employers of employees who have jury duty.

Thanks for the link. I was afraid I'd missed something.

 

[Mling]

I'm pretty sure, in my state, employers *are* required to pay their employees for the first three days of jury duty, and after that, the state pays. That seems to be saying that if you own your own business, you do have to pay yourself.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm pretty sure, in my state, employers *are* required to pay their employees for the first three days of jury duty, and after that, the state pays.

I got that, too.

That seems to be saying that if you own your own business, you do have to pay yourself.

And how exactly would a self-employed person do that?

 

[Mling]

I assume it comes down more to paperwork than anything else.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I highly doubt the state makes them do paperwork.

This is kind of a sidetrack, though. Here's a quick rundown on how sole proprietorships work:

http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/3FED35C1-7BBA-4468-901354F101CBEBE2/111/182/147/

 

[Mling]

edit: eh, never mind. I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[SaintInChicago]

It begs the question, how are you going to react when Congress extends gays the same rights as outlined in the Civil Right's Act of 1964 ?

Given that homosexual is a behavior and race is a physical trait that will never happen.

 

[Aerika]

Given that homosexual is a behavior and race is a physical trait that will never happen.

I love it when people use the word never or always. Both of them should be used with extreme caution.

3

) appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to denials of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion or national origin or in the administration of justice

appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to denials of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, sexual orientation, religion or national origin or in the administration of justice

There fixed !



http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

 

[Beanieboy]

Given that homosexual is a behavior and race is a physical trait that will never happen.

Being Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc. is a behavior, and not a physical trait, and yet, people's religious practices are protected under the Constitution as Civil Rights. Those in 1964 were just reinforcing what the Constitution should have from the start. Most will agree that enslaving Africans, beating, raping and killing them, injustice, etc, was not right.

I can't refuse to serve you in a restaurant because I see you wearing a cross or a WWJD band, and say, "we don't serve Christians here. Get out!"

I'm unclear why conservative Christians, then, in turn, fight to keep injustice legal, from fighting to keeping firing people for simply being gay (whether they were a teacher, a bank teller, or a stock trader), prevent them from housing, etc. Currently, its gay marriage (so that a gay couple can simply have legal protection - shared property rights, immigration rights, be able to visit the partner in the ICU). Why would anyone spend energy to prevent that, unless they lacked love in their heart?
It puts Christianity and Christ in a very unfavorable light.

 

[Maren]

Given that homosexual is a behavior and race is a physical trait that will never happen.

Not to mention, "homosexual" is a sexual orientation -- which is not behavior but rather who people are attracted to. Further, there is no evidence that most homosexuals can change their orientation; rather the evidence points to the fact that most homosexuals cannot change their orientation.

 

[TheManeki]

Given that homosexual is a behavior and race is a physical trait that will never happen.

The more we study homosexuality, the more it appears it is indeed biological in origin.

• The more older siblings a male has, the greater likelihood he will be gay. Blanchard, R. (1997). "Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females." Annual Review of Sex Research, 8, 27–67.
• Heterosexual males have a hypothalamus that is twice as large as the hypothalamus in women, while homosexual males have a hypothalamus that is similar in size as the hypothalamus in women. LeVay, S. "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men." Science. 1991 Nov 1;254(5032):630.
• Female maternal relatives of homosexuals are more fertile than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals. Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C. "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity." Proceedings of the Biological Sciences. 2004 Nov 7;271(1554):2217-21.

And these are just a sampling. While a "gay gene" has yet to be found, the correlation between biology and sexual orientation indicates that one probably exists.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is a Gay Agenda, But will it silence Christians?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html
Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

If this happened to racial minorities and racists (a hotel owned by the KKK refused to serve non-Caucasian people, say), would you still be on the side of the perjurers?