Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
The New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA which is the regulation the photographer violated when she told them she refused to shoot the wedding because they were gay (which falls under discrimination, therefore illegal) and which is the reason they went to court and which would have been the same if she had told them that she refused to shoot the wedding because the groom was white and the bride black (which falls under discrimination, therefore illegal) or because the bride and groom were law-abiding Christians (which falls under discrimination, therefore illegal) you hopelessly silly goose you  |
Bullshit, son. Her only mistake was is using word gay first and not religious beliefs. Great victory for lawyers tops. Here's supreme court opinion. Note the very last phrase about
first amendment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3798948.html
Quote:
|
"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 state. 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 anti-discrimination laws."
|
Her only mistake was that she didn't post that sign. I bet now she will and they all can go find some gay photographer to be happy with. Just like I said earlier - "No shoes, no shirt, no service". In her case "Two cocks, two pussies - go look somewhere else".