NY's Proposed Ban on Large Sugary Drinks

[nightmare3983]

Stoked and franklin,

Here's the final court ruling in that photographer case after the photographer appealed the initial ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. I mostly just skimmed throught it, but the gist of the ruling is that the photographer's business was deemed to be a "public accomodation" and in violation of NM's Human Rights Act.

https://www.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf

EDIT: I'm going to add that it's interesting that the court basically ruled that having to attend a same-sex marriage in order to provide services like photography, even if you are morally opposed to such events, doesn't violate your religious rights as long as you aren't required to participate in it. So the moral of the story is, if you have strong opinions about things like religion and homosexuality, you'd better think twice before starting a business.

 

[Stoked]

^^^^Horrendous decision.

 

[Deleted member 365]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

 

[Stoked]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

I feel that way when I see congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball.

 

[franklin]

^^^^Horrendous decision.

Don't lie--you tl;dnr'd that.

"Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests"

Obviously in this case there is not freedom of association as the other party (the photographer) is not willing to "express, promote, pursue and defend common interests" with the potential client.

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

As for depending on public infrastructure, the lesbian couple in this case use those roads as well do they not? Using your example one can make the reasonable jump that since everyone uses roads and sidewalks that we should turn over all decisions to government. Since we depend on what they provide for our lively hood. Without roads you cannot get to work, the store, the gas station...so you better ask big brother for a daily schedule of what you should do and say.

1. You choose to depend on the infrastructure for your livelihood.
2. Society builds infrastructure that caters to business districts. We all "depend" on the ports and we all pay for the ports in one way or another. We all deserve access to the businesses which occupy the ports. We all deserve access to businesses that occupy freeway exits. Should the guy with the only gas station on an exit in Southern Utah be able to say "sorry less bows you jest gone hafta walk ta Cedar"?

All that is happening here is that the government is forcing an individual to partake in mandatory association. I do not need government to tell me who I should do business with and who I need to associate with. What the couple sould have done is taken their business to another photographer and promoted their business and steered business away from that idiotic photographer.

Step back and think of the implications of your position. The same line of reasoning says Kentucky Whitey businesses have the right to not hire blacks and gays. If you believe that then own up to it with a simple "yes, Stroked believes those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association".

 

[franklin]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

They are talking about health care, wise guy. Obesity and poverty are also correlated. Poverty and crime are correlated. Education and poverty are correlated.

 

[Stoked]

Don't lie--you tl;dnr'd that.




A simple "yes" would have sufficed.




1. You choose to depend on the infrastructure for your livelihood.
2. Society builds infrastructure that caters to business districts. We all "depend" on the ports and we all pay for the ports in one way or another. We all deserve access to the businesses which occupy the ports. We all deserve access to businesses that occupy freeway exits. Should the guy with the only gas station on an exit in Southern Utah be able to say "sorry less bows you jest gone hafta walk ta Cedar"?




Step back and think of the implications of your position. The same line of reasoning says Kentucky Whitey businesses have the right to not hire blacks and gays. If you believe that then own up to it with a simple "yes, Stroked believes those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association".

Stop trying to put words into my mouth with all that yes crap. You are better than that, even when you are drunk. If this person wants to be a bigot (which she may very well be) then she has the right to be one. Hopefully society would show her what they think of that and withhold business and that woman (photog) loses out for being a tool.

So if a church that is very much anti-gay agenda wants to hire a homsexual to be their pianist/organist should that person be forced to work there/for them? That is what is being said here. If so then we can do away with dreams and opportunity and society itself will decide where we work and we can just shut up and accept it.

As for their stance on religios freedom in that decision I do not understand how they say she is not participating...she is the photographer. The only ones not participating are the guests who are watching the wedding. One could even make an arguement that they are participating.

Your line of thinking forces people into employment. Often in places they do not want.

 

[One Brow]

So if a church that is very much anti-gay agenda wants to hire a homsexual to be their pianist/organist should that person be forced to work there/for them? That is what is being said here.

No, because people who work in a religious ministry are allowed to discriminate (presumably according to the dictates of their conscience). If the woman had set herself up as a Christian photographer with a Christian ministry, she would have been able to refuse to serve anyone she chose.

 

[franklin]

Stop trying to put words into my mouth with all that yes crap. You are better than that, even when you are drunk. If this person wants to be a bigot (which she may very well be) then she has the right to be one. Hopefully society would show her what they think of that and withhold business and that woman (photog) loses out for being a tool.

I'm not going after you and respect your opinion. I think you misunderstood my original question and have taken undo exception to the wording, but not with the actual intent. Your answer to that question is definitely yes based on everything you've written here. That's your opinion and you're not denying it which is cool.

Or in other words--grow some balls like Scat and own it bro.

 

[nightmare3983]

So, the photographer case isn't over yet. It looks like it will go to the New Mexico supreme court.

https://global.christianpost.com/ne...decision-forcing-gay-marriage-services-76278/

 

[Stoked]

I'm not going after you and respect your opinion. I think you misunderstood my original question and have taken undo exception to the wording, but not with the actual intent. Your answer to that question is definitely yes based on everything you've written here. That's your opinion and you're not denying it which is cool.

Or in other words--grow some balls like Scat and own it bro.

Entirely possible. I will have to give it a second look when I can.

As for owning it as you say, look at the second bolded part.

 

[Stoked]

So, the photographer case isn't over yet. It looks like it will go to the New Mexico supreme court.

https://global.christianpost.com/ne...decision-forcing-gay-marriage-services-76278/

I was under the impression that it already had...