Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda
not sure why you even read my post, if you do because you're pretty much making everything up and assigning language to me that I didn't say ... how fucking bizarre is that?
|
Fair enough. But let me remind you that you started the implication argument with this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda
are you saying that being gay is mental retardation and gays must be protected legally for their own welfare? definite hate filled, gay bashing mind for sure  |
When I was replying that classes of citizens already receive special protection (children being one of them), which you then used to imply I was calling gays mentally challenged and just to avoid any further misunderstandings, I wasn't
I was simply pointing out that classes of citizens already receive protection under the law so saying that the government "discriminates" by protecting certain sections of it's citizens is a straw-man argument. And we know how you love your straw
With that out of the way, let me rephrase my retort without implying anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda
dude you're fucked up... when the government engages in ANY discrimination against it's citizenry that a BIG fucking issue...
|
The law which brought the case to court, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, is there to ensure that businesses do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc etc.
That means that if you operate a business you're obliged to provide service to EVERYONE. It's an inclusive law, design to discourage discrimination.
Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're arguing that not allowing the photographer to deny her services to the couple based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory against the photographer's religious/moral views.
And here we come to a point which is subtle, that you can't pick and choose which biases you consider worthy of protecting and which aren't. You should do like you suggested I do, follow the implications
What if she had refused to shoot the wedding because the couple was interracial? Her views say that race mixing is wrong. Would you defend that point so feverishly?
Or what if the photographer was black and she refused to shoot the wedding because the couple was Irish and she thought the Irish were a bunch of no-good drunks? Would you defend that point so feverishly?
So you see, the gay angle is the lest important aspect of the case, which is another point I previously made, it's the principle that a business must not discriminate against its clients based on personal bias.
And like the court stated, the photographer is free to put up a sign saying "I do not condone gay marriage", which would be simply her expressing her personal views. But refusing to provide services based on personal bias goes against the established law.
You could argue "but but that's what freedom means, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want! If I don't want to work for blacks/kikes/spics/fags/dykes the gubirmint shouldn't force me to!"
But that's part of being a member of society, one must follow the social contract. You want to have the social benefits of running water, electricity, internet, then you have to follow society's rules.
You can't simply pick and choose what rules you feel like following and which you don't, that's what growing up should have taught you