April 07, 2014
— Ace Wow.
A "victory for gay rights," and a loss for all other rights.
The Supreme Court refused on Monday to be drawn into the spreading controversy over the right of business firms to refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers, turning aside the appeal of a New Mexico photography studio and its owners. The Court made no comment as it denied review of Elane Photography v. Willock, involving a refusal to photograph a lesbian coupleÂ’s wedding-style ceremony....
The Elane Photography case had gained some prominence on the CourtÂ’s docket because it was the first to reach the Court, in the wake of new successes in achieving legal equality for gays and lesbians, to test whether homosexuals can be turned away as customers of ordinary businesses that are open to the public.
...
At one point, the business in Elane Photography case also raised religious objections, but the studioÂ’s lawyers dropped that issue when they took the case to the Supreme Court. Instead, they argued that, since photography is a form of expression, the government should not be allowed to compel the use of that freedom in ways that the business owners find objectionable.
Courts do not explain why they don't grant certiorari (review), and they didn't make an exception in this case.
Update: The brief submitted by Eugene Volokh and Ilya Shapiro.
They rely heavily on a Supreme Court case called Wooley v. New Hampshire, in which someone sued, objecting to the "compelled" messaging of putting a license plate on his car which read "Live Free or Die." There, the court recognized that compelling someone to speak (or endorse sentiments he objected to) was the same offense as forbidding someone to speak.
They argue, persuasively, that the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision "directly contrary to" the Supreme Court's ruling in Wooley. In Wooley, the Court had recognized an "individual freedom of mind;" the New Mexico ruling -- and now the Supreme Court's refusal to review it -- establishes the contrary proposition.
Apparently our collective freedom of mind trumps it. (My words, any court's, though Breyer's dissent in McCutcheon did attract three other votes.)
Posted by: Ace at
02:42 PM
| Comments (431)
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Carlos Danger at April 07, 2014 02:44 PM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: AltonJackson at April 07, 2014 02:44 PM (oilSo)
Posted by: Your Betters on the Supreme Court at April 07, 2014 02:45 PM (84gbM)
Business owners are just going to have to be really smart about the reasons why they sidestep these clients. Or just do a really shitty job as payback.
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 02:45 PM (JVlsa)
Does this work both ways?
Can we go to a Ghey Bakery and demand that they bake a cake with pro-traditional marriage message on it?
Posted by: wheatie at April 07, 2014 02:45 PM (FWbLS)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 07, 2014 02:46 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: pep at April 07, 2014 02:46 PM (4nR9/)
Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 02:46 PM (M3hAT)
The appeal must have been messed up and/or the case just isn't a good candidate to open this can of worms with... but surely another will come. No doubt.
Posted by: Yip at April 07, 2014 02:46 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: toby928© embraces tribalism at April 07, 2014 02:46 PM (QupBk)
That is apparently the only way to protect your freedom of association.
Deliberately bad service. Crotch shots, and wedding cakes that have no sugar in the frosting or filling. I hope lawsuit-happy Gays like deliberately bad serv ice and unusable products.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (WEuad)
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (72RL7)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (WEuad)
Posted by: SGT. York at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (WFt3Z)
Posted by: Your Betters on the Supreme Court at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: Avi at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (p/izY)
Posted by: Yip
You dream, General.
Posted by: Lord Cornwallis at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (4nR9/)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 07, 2014 02:47 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: toby928© embraces tribalism at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (QupBk)
After the Obamacare ruling, nothing these chuckleheads do surprises me.
Just waiting for the final deathblow: One of 'em retires and Obama gets his 5th radical on the bench.
Posted by: Lizzy at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (udjuE)
The appeal must have been messed up and/or the case just isn't a good candidate to open this can of worms with... but surely another will come. No doubt.
Posted by: Yip
+1
I'm no legal expert, but I tend to think that was why. The grounds they were using seemed shaky to make such a far reaching precedent.
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (JVlsa)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: X at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (KHo8t)
Posted by: Biz Cents at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (wu/TK)
Posted by: rickl at April 07, 2014 02:48 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Avi at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (p/izY)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Fritz at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (oJUxt)
Posted by: The GheyGheyGhey at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: DangerGirl at home with her Sanity Prod at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: WannabeAnglican at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (g0H8G)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 02:49 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (mx5oN)
Cuz the gay mafia will come after us next.
Posted by: Paladin at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (ycm4Q)
When this happens, isn't is a paticular judge, or group of judges that refuse to hear the grou, not the whole court?
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (xcAaF)
Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (5UteM)
Why not just slightly screw up those photos... badly framed.. show up late...talk about how you believe Jesus lives in your camera and inspiration and the baker could use a little less egg than needed and milk, so the cake is dry in the mouth.. heh. There's a joke there..
Posted by: Yip at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: DangerGirl at home with her Sanity Prod at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: toby928
In many ways, isn't this the story of Obama?
Posted by: flounder at April 07, 2014 02:50 PM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (KCYCG)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (mx5oN)
I thought that if you were a business open to the public you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, and (maybe?) citizenship status. So does this mean that gays are now a de facto protected class like the above?
Posted by: Mætenloch at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: toby928© embraces tribalism at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (QupBk)
Not as bad as I originally thought. Shitty artistic expression is not a great defense. Thanks Jen for that info.
VOX will soon explain to us though why this is a huge buttfucker win, and that the baker's religion was started by white privilege and that the baker is in fact racist as is her religion and her great grandmother and likely a closet pedo who drives a pickup truck with a "Don't Tread On Me" sticker and refuses to sign up for obamacare.
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: DangerGirl at home with her Sanity Prod at April 07, 2014 02:51 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: Avi at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (p/izY)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 02:52 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 07, 2014 02:53 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Big Anus at April 07, 2014 02:53 PM (mx5oN)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 02:53 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 02:53 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 07, 2014 02:53 PM (84gbM)
"How do you make a fruit cordial? Be nice to him."
Sincerely,
Frank Sinatra and the remaining vestige of sane America.
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (c6N69)
I'm telling you right fucking now, that the path that the homos are taking is going to lead exactly to them getting murdered. They either are too fucking stupid to realize this, or think it won't happen.
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (72RL7)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: 18-1 at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (M3hAT)
38 Not cool.
At what fucking point do we stop caring about "not cool"?
Serious question.
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 06:49 PM (72RL7)
----------
Not saying you can't think whatever you want to, GMan.
What's 'not cool' is to put it on a public blog...which is like calling in a firestorm on your own position, as well as those around you.
Posted by: wheatie at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (FWbLS)
Posted by: WannabeAnglican at April 07, 2014 02:54 PM (g0H8G)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 07, 2014 02:55 PM (KCYCG)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 02:55 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Avi at April 07, 2014 02:55 PM (p/izY)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 02:55 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: DangerGirl at home with her Sanity Prod at April 07, 2014 02:55 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 02:56 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 02:56 PM (Ng/f0)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 02:56 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: steevy at April 07, 2014 02:57 PM (zqvg6)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 02:57 PM (c6N69)
Maybe she should go work for Mozil...wait, what?
Posted by: SARDiver at April 07, 2014 02:57 PM (ci7Fe)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 02:58 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 02:58 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: rickl at April 07, 2014 02:58 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 02:58 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 02:58 PM (T0NGe)
Ace, side note to your last statement.
Courts GENERALLY/ALMOST ALWAYS make no statement regarding the denial of cert, but in rare instances a Justice will dissent regarding the failure of the court to grant cert., so in very compelling circumstances, a justice will write an entire dissent on the decision to refuse cert.
Btw, your blog post way back when on this was awesome which was, you know, he gheys rather than force the photographer to do something they didn't want to do couldn't you just pick another wedding photographer out of the fucking phone book. It's called the free market you assholes.
Finally, read the NM Sup. Ct. opinion on this case. One of the most disturbing (read foundations of nazism/fascism/statism) decisions I've read in A LONG FUCKING TIME.
For all of you who think the Pauls are wackobirds, they are absolutely fucking right about one thing. The Civil Rights Laws were completely unconstitutional. If we want to abrogate our right to engage in racist behavior a la the First Amendment, then that needs to be done via constitutional amendment.
PROCESS MATTERS HERE FOLKS. And when you fuck up the foundation, everything is rotten.
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (tVTLU)
@3 instead of refusing to do it, he should have just made it outrageously expensive
----------------------
From what I've heard, frequently the SSM people looking for someone to sue wait until after the business has already agreed and provided a price quote before bringing up the fact that it's a same sex wedding. They let you think that it's a traditional wedding through all of the negotiating.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (KCYCG)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 02:59 PM (pgQxn)
Seems like an open and shut case of discrimination under New Mexico law. If a painter was forced to paint gay couples that might be unconstitutional, if you're charging a fee for painting people/couples you're more in the commercial realm than the free expression realm, though.
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 03:00 PM (5UteM)
I've worked as a wedding photographer--very part time and out of my home. I also work in financial services.
It seems to me I have the right to refuse to work with a prospective customer. In both cases I can say decline to work with someone I don't like--because if I don't like them I won't do my best.
If a heterosexual couple wants to hire me to photograph their wedding but the bride strikes me as a bridezilla I would refuse to do business with them. I don't see how I can be compelled to work with someone I don't want to work with.
Could an employee be forced to work for aggressively gay employers?
Maybe not making sense--but these rulings make no sense either.
Posted by: northernlurker at April 07, 2014 03:00 PM (Xmw9g)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 03:00 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (tablet) at April 07, 2014 03:00 PM (a8eFL)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (JVlsa)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 03:01 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 03:02 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 03:02 PM (JgC5a)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 03:02 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 03:03 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: The Jews at April 07, 2014 03:03 PM (uhMMS)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:03 PM (qKrH5)
This was inevitable since the civil rights suits of the 60's and 70's. Once Gays got protected status, it was game over.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:03 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Yip at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (/jHWN)
@107Clutch Cargo: I once was at a party where the baker forgot to put sugar in the frosting or the filling. Trust me, it's inedible without being unlawful.
---------------------------------
My sister once screwed up a batch of lemon bars by accidentally replacing the sugar with salt.
>.<
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (H4aQb)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (9221z)
The Left, now: "You refused to engage in capitalist transactions upon demand! You are evil, and must be destroyed."
The Left, for centuries, "No one should have anything to do with capitalism."
The Left, now: "No one should have anything to do with you capitalists, except for people whose life choices you don't endorse. They should be allowed to force you."
You would think that the photographers, cake shop owners, et cetera would be being given public service medals by lefties for having protected these poor innocent gheys from being contaminated by sordid commerce. Yet instead the lynch mobs are revving up.
Consistent?
Consistent with Fen's Law, at least.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (noWW6)
Kristophr:
The game ain't never over.
Dr. Spank:
True, but that is why the law is unconstitutional. See First Amendment. Thanks fellas!!
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 03:04 PM (tVTLU)
Not any more.
Party's over. Everyone out of the pool.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:05 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2014 03:05 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: I Cair deeply at April 07, 2014 03:05 PM (wu/TK)
Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 03:05 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (NtsQB)
We see all these polls, let's try a few other questions:
"Should individuals be forced to work for gay weddings if it violates their religious beliefs?"
"Should churches be forced to perform gay weddings if it violates their religious beliefs?"
Wonder how those would poll, eh?
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (tVTLU)
So there are all the exclusive artist and clubs and designers who are usually the darlings of the left.
Seems to me that it is time for Billy Joe Bob to start scheduling these high minded lefty heros to do things like "cater muh hunt'n party" and then sue when they say that they are just to damn busy or exclusive.
Personally I would have taken the job, shown up with sticker on my gear proclaiming marriage as man and woman only and then filed a hostile work place complaint.
They want a fight, I'd be all to happy to bring it right into the middle of their little party.
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (xcAaF)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: rickl at April 07, 2014 03:06 PM (sdi6R)
Building on the Left's old-time identity-politics heroes, the Black Panthers and the Gray Panthers, it is unavoidable that "Pink Panthers" be pressed into service to describe this latest nonsense.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 07, 2014 03:07 PM (noWW6)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 03:07 PM (pgQxn)
we have a problem.
bake your own fucking cake and take your own fucking pictures.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (ZPrif)
Mind you, that legislation IS a first amendment violation.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Fritz at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (oJUxt)
Grammie:
Amen. Be proud to walk in the light brothers and sisters. The truth shall set you free.
It is troubling that we must reteach these basic principles, again. The "daffodils become people" crowd is the most dangerous of all religions, atheism must be mocked, ridiculed, and pulled up, root and branch. Otherwise the world is going to burn. Last time the atheists didn't have nukes. This time, watch the fuck out...
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:08 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (mx5oN)
Posted by: Y-not at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (mKRyJ)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (pgQxn)
Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (uhMMS)
Posted by: bergerbilder at April 07, 2014 03:09 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 03:10 PM (JgC5a)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:10 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Puncher at April 07, 2014 03:11 PM (DXTom)
Posted by: navybrat at April 07, 2014 07:10 PM (JgC5a)
point appropriately applied.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:11 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at April 07, 2014 03:11 PM (5xmd7)
I do _not_ recommend you mutter the word "maricon" anywhere around the Mexican guy walking out with one of those cakes.
It is not a culture that warmly welcomes homosexuality. And it's going to get REALLY interesting when businesses owned by the same start getting pressured by the same-sex squad.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 07, 2014 03:11 PM (noWW6)
Kristophr:
Just make the principles of the CRA a Constitutional Amendment. Pretty sure that would pass no problem today. I can't think of anyone that would be in favor of commercial establishments open to the public to discriminate against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin or sex.
On the other hand, forcing ghey celebrations on everyone, nah. Not even at 50%. The Bible, Koran and Torah are pretty clear on that.
And even if these buttfuck nazis tried it, my answer is simple. No. Go fuck yourself. You can put me in prison then. Oh, and fuck you. War.
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 03:12 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 07, 2014 03:12 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:12 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:13 PM (obTkq)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:13 PM (obTkq)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 03:13 PM (5UteM)
Newton:
Agreed. Thank God for the First and Second Amendments, vestiges of which we've still kept through 100 yrs (Coolidge and Reagan excepted) of statist tomfuckery.
Posted by: prescient11 at April 07, 2014 03:14 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:14 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Havildar-Major at April 07, 2014 03:14 PM (kduZC)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 07:13 PM (obTkq)
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:14 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Saltydonnie at April 07, 2014 03:15 PM (RSarH)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:15 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: willow at April 07, 2014 03:15 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Havildar-Major at April 07, 2014 03:15 PM (kduZC)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:16 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: Francis George at April 07, 2014 03:16 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 03:16 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:16 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:17 PM (bitz6)
I will agree that many "civil rights" laws are unconstitutional in my eyes, but that's obviously not on the table as far as things I think conservatives should pursue. It would be a political disaster and we all know there would be a few "Westboro" or false flaggers that would love to make a big show with signs like "no blacks allowed".
People are just going to have to be smart about figuring out ways to get around working with people they don't want to work with and not confront the issue directly.
I remember years ago my religious parents had a rental house and a couple looking at it were living together, but not married. This was still a bit taboo, and my parent thought it spoke poorly of their character. Even then they knew not to confront the reasons why they declined them. We've been living with these sort of rules for a while.
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 03:17 PM (JVlsa)
So let's say I wander into a gay bar, not initially knowing its gay, after I sit down and order a beer I realize what it is, do I have to stay even if I'm uncomfortable?
Would I be guilty discrimination if I paid for my beer and bolted?
Posted by: northernlurker at April 07, 2014 03:17 PM (Xmw9g)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:17 PM (obTkq)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:18 PM (NtsQB)
So sexing up a dead male goat is "protected."
According to the Supreme Failure.
Evolution. We've come so far.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:18 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Count de Monet at April 07, 2014 03:18 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Romano Polanscez at April 07, 2014 03:19 PM (/al0u)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:19 PM (obTkq)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:19 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: Homophobes Anonymous at April 07, 2014 03:19 PM (H4aQb)
Posted by: bergerbilder at April 07, 2014 03:19 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 03:20 PM (hFL/3)
Panama has a good program for gringo retirees, and gun laws at about Canada level ... no self-loaders, but everything else is OK.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:20 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 03:20 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: northernlurker at April 07, 2014 03:20 PM (Xmw9g)
Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (L02KD)
The fascist future is not going to be a boot forever stomping on an upturned human face.
It will be a dick forever being shoved up our asses, whether we want it or not.
Posted by: Sharkman at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (TM1p8)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (9221z)
Posted by: PaleRider, tips back tinfoil hat and rides into sunset. at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (dUS+X)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: Havildar-Major at April 07, 2014 03:21 PM (kduZC)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 07:16 PM (bitz6)
Noted.
English girls are fine until they smile.
Same with Mississippi.
Freaking things look like they're held in by raisins.
Or someone threw a rock through a plate glass window.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:22 PM (x3YFz)
Could be a dangerous thing to force a photo shoot... especially the post-reception candid shots.
Posted by: Burnt Taost at April 07, 2014 03:22 PM (80R0X)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:22 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Max Power at April 07, 2014 03:22 PM (q177U)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: PaleRider, tips back tinfoil hat and rides into sunset. at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (dUS+X)
Posted by: Havildar-Major at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (kduZC)
Posted by: Burnt Taost at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (80R0X)
Posted by: Mickey Pug at April 07, 2014 03:23 PM (vFh9Q)
The proper way to deal with bigotry is boycott, and not by forcing association at gunpoint.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:24 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:24 PM (obTkq)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:25 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:25 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:25 PM (c6N69)
I'm a lawyer. I've argued that same warning for 10 plus years, and its la-la-la-ed away and ignored precisely because they know it will happen. That is coming over the horizon like a choo choo. Better brace for it.
Posted by: Saltydonnie at April 07, 2014 03:25 PM (RSarH)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:26 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Count de Monet at April 07, 2014 07:24 PM (BAS5M)
Just wait till the Bronies weigh in. Heavily.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 03:26 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 07, 2014 03:26 PM (ojnk6)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:26 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:27 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Soothsayer, corn bread assassin at April 07, 2014 03:27 PM (jldxi)
Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at April 07, 2014 03:27 PM (Dwehj)
@210 I have a Q for the lawyers. If someone set up their photography (or catering) business such that they called themselves independent contractors and made clients "hire" them, would they then be able to refuse to work for people they didn't care to and not have these gaystapo types suing them trying to run them out of business? This would come at a cost of their customers having to be willing to do extra paperwork to get their services so it wouldn't be a simple loophole but it might be worth it to some.
-----------------------------
Based on the bits and pieces that have filtered out, I suspect that the only way you could successfully ditch one of these "clients" once they opened negotiations with you was if you included a clause in your contract that allowed you to cancel the agreement if you decided that the client had misrepresented the event. And then ran with the legal argument that since the would-be client couldn't be trusted to provide the pertinent information to you, you had serious misgivings about their ability to live up to other aspects of the contract. This would provide you with an "out" if they decided to spring the same sex nature of the event as a surprise after the negotiations were concluded.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 03:27 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 03:28 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 03:28 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Mickey Pug at April 07, 2014 03:28 PM (vFh9Q)
Posted by: RGallegos at April 07, 2014 03:28 PM (AVODN)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 03:28 PM (5UteM)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:29 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: bergerbilder at April 07, 2014 03:29 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:29 PM (9221z)
And the bakery should charge them court costs too.
Posted by: RGallegos at April 07, 2014 03:30 PM (AVODN)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 07, 2014 03:30 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:30 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 07, 2014 03:30 PM (ojnk6)
In general employees have freedoms to say "I don't want to work for this or that *evil corporation*" w/o having to give any reasons why, whereas businesses have to follow all the civil rights rules so it seems like this might be an out for some of these targets of the gaystapo. Posted by: PaleRider, tips back tinfoil hat and rides into sunset.
I'm sure all of them are already independent contractors, when someone hires a photographer they're not your salaried employee that you need to take out SS, Medicare, payroll taxes, etc.
They can turn away customers, the issue becomes the reason they give. If someone is difficult to work with, you don't have to do business with them.
In a litigious age though, people will try to make the case it was really about race and now, sexual orientation.
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (JVlsa)
Does this work both ways?
Can we go to a Ghey Bakery and demand that they bake a cake with pro-traditional marriage message on it?
Posted by: wheatie at April 07, 2014 06:45 PM (FWbLS)
Not a chance. We subhuman conservatives have no rights.
Posted by: steveegg at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (o44nj)
Oh please let God do to San Francisco what he did to those cities.
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (72RL7)
@251 How about, "This contract may be terminated at any time by either party."
------------------------
If you honestly believe that'll work, then you weren't paying attention to the story at the top.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (f921K)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Kristophr at April 07, 2014 03:31 PM (c6N69)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:32 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Forced Photography, Inc. at April 07, 2014 03:33 PM (1CroS)
Posted by: newton at April 07, 2014 03:33 PM (NtsQB)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:33 PM (qKrH5)
@259 My calendar is full. I'm sick. I've retired, the check is in the mail
------------------------
Problem is, from what I understand they typically don't mention that the wedding is same sex until you've already agreed to do it. It's a bit hard to beg out due to having a full calendar *after* you've already stated that you can do it on that date at that time.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 03:33 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 03:33 PM (QeH9j)
Further, the left will ACCUSE US of these things *whether or not* we actually say or do them.
Fuck it.
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 03:34 PM (72RL7)
Posted by: RGallegos at April 07, 2014 03:34 PM (AVODN)
Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 03:34 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Barack Obama at April 07, 2014 03:34 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:34 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: dogfish at April 07, 2014 03:35 PM (nsOJa)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:35 PM (9221z)
Posted by: bergerbilder at April 07, 2014 03:35 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:36 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:36 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 03:36 PM (5UteM)
I'm not a lawyer any longer, but I did fuck a girl at a Holiday Inn Express last night. The answer to your question is . . . "maybe."
Posted by: Sharkman at April 07, 2014 03:38 PM (TM1p8)
Posted by: Concerned Christian Photographer at April 07, 2014 03:38 PM (H4aQb)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:38 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 07, 2014 03:38 PM (5UteM)
Posted by: Iblis at April 07, 2014 03:39 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 03:40 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: steevy at April 07, 2014 03:40 PM (zqvg6)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:40 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: mugiwara at April 07, 2014 03:40 PM (3a584)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:41 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Blozilla at April 07, 2014 03:41 PM (Dwehj)
Posted by: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign at April 07, 2014 03:41 PM (mETGQ)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:42 PM (qKrH5)
The militant homosexual fascists probably like being referred to as the 'Gay Mafia'.
Because it makes them sound...powerful.
Same with 'Pink Panthers'...it sounds cute and powerful.
So, upon reflection...I'm gonna go with 'Gaystapo'.
'Gaystapo' sounds powerful too, but powerful and Evil.
Then again...'Homostapo' is even better.
Posted by: wheatie at April 07, 2014 03:42 PM (FWbLS)
02/27/2003
Following a sometimes-emotional four-and-a-half-hour debate, the state
Senate on Wednesday approved a bill prohibiting discrimination against
gays and transsexuals. The vote came two days after the House passed similar legislation.
The Senate voted 22 to 18 to pass Senate Bill 28, sponsored by Sen.
Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque.
The vote was basically along party lines, with one Democrat, Sen. Lidio
Rainaldi, D-Gallup, joining all present Republicans in voting against
the measure.
The bill would expand the state's Human Rights Act to cover sexual
orientation and gender identity, making it illegal to discriminate
against gays, bisexuals and transsexuals in matters of employment,
housing and public accommodations.
Sen. McSorley disputed Republican warnings that the bill would lead to
frivolous lawsuits and other problems for businesses in the state.
Because that would be unpossible.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 07, 2014 03:42 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 03:43 PM (QeH9j)
Posted by: Mindy at April 07, 2014 03:44 PM (Ew9Pv)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at April 07, 2014 03:44 PM (f921K)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:44 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 03:45 PM (qKrH5)
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at April 07, 2014 03:45 PM (Qp0nB)
Following a sometimes-emotional four-and-a-half-hour debate, the state
Senate on Wednesday approved a bill prohibiting discrimination against
gays and transsexuals. The vote came two days after the House passed similar legislation.
The Senate voted 22 to 18 to pass Senate Bill 28, sponsored by Sen.
Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque.
Elections have consequences, and this unfortunately was a law that was passed.
We can't expect the Supreme Court to bail us out everytime a bad law is passed.
Posted by: McAdams at April 07, 2014 03:45 PM (JVlsa)
That's why in the Age of Obama we've modified this to "Live Free or Shelter in Place."
Posted by: Fritz at April 07, 2014 03:46 PM (oJUxt)
Posted by: Big John Roberts, Esquire (The Poobah of this Town) at April 07, 2014 03:46 PM (1mtKP)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:47 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 03:48 PM (QeH9j)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:49 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Mohammad at April 07, 2014 03:49 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: rplat at April 07, 2014 03:50 PM (UAHTK)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 03:50 PM (mx5oN)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:52 PM (uhAkr)
We can't expect the Supreme Court to bail us out everytime a bad law is passed.
Posted by: McAdams
The New Mexico House passed the Senate Bill 38 with a vote of 39-27. A bi-partisan vote of 39-27.
We wouldn't need bailing out if the Republicans would stop pouring buckets of water into our little ship of state.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 07, 2014 03:53 PM (kdS6q)
The Eurohomo community skewed hard left for the longest time. And were big supporters of speeding along the de-Christianizing of Europe by importing large numbers of Mideast muzzies.
Old proverb. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Then, after it was too late, the Eurohomo community then realized that their countries now had a large and growing Islamic subculture who viscerally hated them as a matter of irrefutable religious doctrine, and would do things like beat into comas any gay couple found walking in public in their neighborhoods.
Oh my!
Now when you look at the composition of, say, Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands, you see a rapidly growing number of gays. Having come to the belated realization that they had been dangerously foolish.
I think it's probably too late for them. It's going to get very uncomfortable in many parts of Europe from now on for uncloseted gays.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 07, 2014 03:53 PM (noWW6)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:53 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 03:53 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 03:57 PM (mx5oN)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 03:57 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at April 07, 2014 03:57 PM (HLprW)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:57 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 07, 2014 03:58 PM (ojnk6)
Posted by: nerdygirl at April 07, 2014 03:58 PM (dPc6Y)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 03:58 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Insomniac at April 07, 2014 03:58 PM (mx5oN)
It's not the toilet paper that is the problem.
Think property tax.
Catholic,and Protestant Churches here in Baltimore set on property valued into the millions.
And many of the inner city ones simply can-not come up with the money for a tax bill
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 07, 2014 03:59 PM (hDwVv)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 04:00 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 07, 2014 04:00 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: Adam at April 07, 2014 04:00 PM (Aif/5)
317 Also note that the media endlessly repeats the lie that the Supreme Court "legalized gay marriage" in the Prop. 8 case. In fact, just as in this case, they "punted" -- refusing to even hear the case or rule on it, because they determined (in the Prop. 8 case) that no one even had "standing" to sue. So the case was tossed out, and as a result of that the original judge's insane ruling (that gay marriage should be legal because the majority who voted against it had committed thought crimes -- er, "had the wrong motivations") was allowed to stand for all time.
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 07:53 PM (mizYg)
----------
Thanks, zombie.
I had wondered about that...because my foggy brain had a vague recollection of that having happened.
Prop 8 was the 'will of the people'.
And so...it stands? For the time being, at least?
Here in Oklahoma, we passed a similar law that stated 'Marriage is between a man and a woman'.
But it has been tied up in court now.
Other states have passed similar laws.
I suspect they are being challenged in court too.
Posted by: wheatie at April 07, 2014 04:00 PM (FWbLS)
Posted by: Aviator at April 07, 2014 04:00 PM (3rrMW)
Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at April 07, 2014 04:02 PM (hn5v5)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 04:03 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 04:03 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: southdakotaboy at April 07, 2014 04:04 PM (yh4lQ)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 04:06 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Dorcus Blimeline at April 07, 2014 04:06 PM (iB0Q2)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 04:06 PM (uhAkr)
So what happens if the photographer shows up late is sick has a family emergency or for some reason takes a long time to get the pictures back?
Posted by: YIKES! at April 07, 2014 04:06 PM (mETGQ)
Posted by: Lauren at April 07, 2014 04:07 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 07, 2014 04:07 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: LaZrtx at April 07, 2014 04:07 PM (jVM6/)
(It wasn't really "fucking," but rather a ritual "coupling" of the channeled God and Goddess; only lasted 30 seconds or so.)
This wasn't even a regular Wiccan wedding, hut sort kind of OTO/sex-magick offshoot.
But yes, to answer your question: As of today, Polly Prude's Perfectly Prissy Photography is COMPELLED BY LAW to photography this event. With a macro lens, up very close.
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 08:03 PM (mizYg)
Craziness. Were their parents there? Pics?
Posted by: mugiwara at April 07, 2014 04:08 PM (3a584)
Bravo sir,
I was thinking drunk, sloppy, knocking over the cake and Wow they sure is a bunchafroots roun heah yelled repeatedly.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 07, 2014 04:08 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 07, 2014 04:08 PM (lr3d7)
Posted by: thudlike at April 07, 2014 04:08 PM (bjXwX)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 04:09 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 07, 2014 04:10 PM (lr3d7)
Posted by: Zombie Gene Roddenberry at April 07, 2014 04:10 PM (nsOJa)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 04:10 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 07, 2014 04:10 PM (ojnk6)
Posted by: Hal at April 07, 2014 04:11 PM (2wZs/)
Judge Rules Gay League Can Limit Number of Bisexual/Heterosexual Players
'A federal judge ruled Thursday that a gay softball league can limit the number of heterosexuals on its teams, the Courthouse News Service reports.The ruling was announced after three bisexual men claimed they were kicked out of the Gay Softball World Series for not being gay enough and filed a lawsuit in Washington state against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association.
The three men, playing for a San Francisco softball team, were challenged on their sexuality by a rival team, citing a rule that limits no more than two heterosexuals on a team.
The men claim they were “summoned to a hearing room to answer questions about their sexual interests or attractions,” according to the Courthouse News Service.
The men said they were told that “this is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”
U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour struck down the lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs have failed to argue that there is a compelling state interest in allowing heterosexuals to play gay softball,” Coughenour wrote, according to the Courthouse News Service.
“It is not the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization’s chosen expression.”
...except when it is...evidently.
http://tinyurl.com/q5pscbh
Posted by: SoRo at April 07, 2014 04:11 PM (ArL9E)
Posted by: bergerbilder at April 07, 2014 04:11 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 04:11 PM (mizYg)
Posted by: Mickey Pug at April 07, 2014 04:12 PM (vFh9Q)
Posted by: Can I Get Outta This Barrel Now? at April 07, 2014 04:14 PM (H4aQb)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 04:15 PM (HVff2)
Guess I'm out of a job.
Posted by: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign at April 07, 2014 07:41 PM (mETGQ)
Dude, we could go into business!
Posted by: Hole in The Desert at April 07, 2014 04:15 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 07, 2014 04:15 PM (ojnk6)
Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 04:16 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: Boss Moss at April 07, 2014 04:16 PM (bitz6)
Posted by: Hairy Reed at April 07, 2014 04:16 PM (H4aQb)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 04:17 PM (HVff2)
Clint Eastwood is very familiar with this strategy as he chose to fight:
http://overlawyered.com/topics/disab.html
Posted by: GnuBreed at April 07, 2014 04:17 PM (cHZB7)
Posted by: grammie winger at April 07, 2014 04:18 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 07, 2014 04:18 PM (oFCZn)
So we now have a ton of people who have "enrolled" for Obamacare. Without yet actually paying. There's huge federal pressure on insurers to honor those policies regardless, on the grounds that hey, these folks will eventually pay. And the insurers have been told by Sebelius that they will not have to make good on unreimbursed outlays.
Thus: J. Random Deadbeat signs up for Obamacare without paying. The insurer issues him a card. He goes to Dr. Friendly's office for care. Later, Mr. Deadbeat still hasn't paid up on his Obamacare policy. And won't, because he feels better after receiving care. The insurer cancels his policy.
Dr. Friendly's staff call the insurer for payment on the receivable. They're denied. The insurer's claims processing department say, "Call Washington D.C., not we," and hang up.
Question: how much longer will Dr. Friendly's private practice remain open?
Posted by: torquewrench at April 07, 2014 04:19 PM (noWW6)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 07, 2014 04:20 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: SkepticalMI at April 07, 2014 04:20 PM (Jc3Ea)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 04:21 PM (uhAkr)
Gay, athiest, global warmer, 1-legged black woman who seeks social justice.
#score
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 04:22 PM (x3YFz)
The next step would then be to correct the mistake while the child is in the womb, saving the adult numerous operations to change their gender.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at April 07, 2014 04:23 PM (AC0lD)
@317 Also note that the media endlessly repeats the lie that the Supreme Court "legalized gay marriage" in the Prop. 8 case. In fact, just as in this case, they "punted" -- refusing to even hear the case or rule on it, because they determined (in the Prop. 8 case) that no one even had "standing" to sue. So the case was tossed out, and as a result of that the original judge's insane ruling (that gay marriage should be legal because the majority who voted against it had committed thought crimes -- er, "had the wrong motivations") was allowed to stand for all time.
----------------------
Just as classic was the reasoning by the majority in the California Supreme Court case that caused a need for Prop 8 in the first place. The Court's justification was that the because the people had decided to allow civil unions for same sex couples, not allowing same sex couples to get married was a violation of the state constitution.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 04:23 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Aviator at April 07, 2014 04:24 PM (3rrMW)
The next step would then be to correct the mistake while the child is in the womb, saving the adult numerous operations to change their gender.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at April 07, 2014 08:23 PM (AC0lD)
Well, the test we had in the 80's was throw a football at it.
Guess that's not very scientific, but time has proven it's pretty damn tight.
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 04:24 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 07, 2014 04:25 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 07, 2014 04:26 PM (o3MSL)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at April 07, 2014 04:26 PM (5xmd7)
Posted by: garrett at April 07, 2014 04:28 PM (2bPYY)
Yeah, but it's tough for the unborn to catch the football.
Good post birth test though.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at April 07, 2014 04:28 PM (AC0lD)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 07, 2014 04:28 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: rickl at April 07, 2014 04:30 PM (sdi6R)
@391 Just out of random curiosity, how far away are we from being able to genetically test an unborn child and determine if it is "transgender"?
The next step would then be to correct the mistake while the child is in the womb, saving the adult numerous operations to change their gender.
-----------------------
You would need to identify a genetic marker in adults first. And that hasn't occurred. We haven't even identified a genetic marker for same sex attraction.
Although if we ever do, it'll be rather interesting to be sitting on the sidelines for once as a rather violent fight breaks out on the other side... Pro-choice on one side versus the gay lobby on the other.
Posted by: junior at April 07, 2014 04:30 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 04:31 PM (QeH9j)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 07, 2014 04:31 PM (oFCZn)
Not a good one.
God can forgive them, because I can't. I've tried, and failed, many many times.
Posted by: GMan at April 07, 2014 04:32 PM (72RL7)
Yeah, but it's tough for the unborn to catch the football.
Good post birth test though.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at April 07, 2014 08:28 PM (AC0lD)
It's a matter of pushing through obstacles!
Posted by: tangonine at April 07, 2014 04:34 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 07, 2014 04:34 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 07, 2014 04:38 PM (lr3d7)
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 07, 2014 04:40 PM (lr3d7)
Dude made the claim that since his Mormon ancestors worked Fed land, he didn't need to pay the grazing fee for his cattle. A judge ruled that since he owed a large sum and was grazing illegally, his cattle were forfeit
His supporters posted things about a range war. Feds got froggy.
Yeah and Lon Hariuchi should be in jail at minimum.
Posted by: typo dynamofo at April 07, 2014 04:43 PM (IVgIK)
Posted by: RWC at April 07, 2014 04:46 PM (QeH9j)
Posted by: The Political Hat at April 07, 2014 04:53 PM (CTCNK)
Posted by: Hawkins1701 at April 07, 2014 04:59 PM (7aJyE)
Posted by: model_1066 at April 07, 2014 05:18 PM (tNrYO)
Posted by: Baldy at April 07, 2014 05:19 PM (2bql3)
Posted by: model_1066 at April 07, 2014 05:21 PM (tNrYO)
Posted by: zombie at April 07, 2014 08:06 PM (mizYg)
how many other states have sexual orientation as a protected class? seems the problem is the NM law and the governor could just grant her a pardon.
Posted by: rich@gmu at April 07, 2014 05:41 PM (RhQvZ)
Posted by: rich@gmu at April 07, 2014 05:46 PM (RhQvZ)
Got a better idea. Buy up a foreign country, and populate it with pissed off, armed people that actually believe in the Constitution. Any lefties that show up and demand accommodation for their culture are declared legal to hunt.
This case pissed me off back when it started. No money was exchanged, no contract was signed, no promises were made. It was a polite refusal. But that's not good enough for the LGBTOMGWTFBBQ community.
Posted by: NR Pax at April 07, 2014 05:53 PM (owgCK)
Posted by: The Political Hat at April 07, 2014 06:08 PM (AymDN)
Posted by: Jen at April 07, 2014 08:09 PM (CGsAX)
http://tinyurl.com/oaml4fs
Posted by: Rex B at April 07, 2014 09:26 PM (OXzvH)
Posted by: fromabroad at April 07, 2014 09:54 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at April 07, 2014 09:56 PM (rnV3B)
A dose of their own medicine. Why not force a ghey baker to make a cake with Leviticus quotes and or damning homosexuality?
Also, the right loses since their judges are minimalists. If this constitutional question were reversed, the 4 liberals on the court WOULD have granted cert. We supposedly have 5 and could not get it. It should have been taken up. We know the leftists on the court will agree not to, since they already got the result they favor, but there's no excuse for the 5 other robes...
Posted by: Mehow at April 07, 2014 10:18 PM (Lz2tG)
Posted by: fromabroad at April 07, 2014 10:47 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at April 07, 2014 10:50 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: burt at April 08, 2014 04:18 AM (1+kJ5)
Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at April 08, 2014 05:44 AM (qL20/)
Posted by: paulejb at April 08, 2014 07:20 AM (vWTGV)
In such a subjective field as photography... bonhomme has it right
I wouldn't go that far, but I would absolutely take uninspired photographs. Nothing artsy. Group shots, shots of people greeting the couple, shots of people on the dance floor, everything acceptable, but nothing better than an amateur could have done.
Also institute a policy/signed contract...no refunds ..cost it out to cover your time at the "wedding" ...worst case, they will not order reprints
Posted by: jimf at April 08, 2014 08:15 AM (A23Tv)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2422 seconds, 559 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: rickl at April 07, 2014 02:44 PM (sdi6R)