Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786664)

fitty gay weddings :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786627)

Bullshit. She is running PRIVATE venture and reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Ever see that on the door of 7-11 or a restaurant? Imagine some porn star in see thru shirt and ass hanging out of her daisy dukes in Chucke-E-Chees? She'll be shown where the door is pretty damn fast. Why stop at gay wedding? How about some swinger shit where every guest comes naked and bangs the bride later on.

http://www.twistedmwestern.com/image...right_sign.jpg

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786627)

Bullshit. She is running PRIVATE venture and reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Ever see that on the door of 7-11 or a restaurant? Imagine some porn star in see thru shirt and ass hanging out of her daisy dukes in Chucke-E-Chees? She'll be shown where the door is pretty damn fast. Why stop at gay wedding? How about some swinger shit where every guest comes naked and bangs the bride later on.

http://www.twistedmwestern.com/image...right_sign.jpg

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19786685)

You're alluding to dress codes and common-sense social conduct which I should point out, apply to everyone. They're not going to let shirtless white people in but refuse unshirted blacks. The rule applies to everyone. See how that works?

They're not saying "We reserve the right to serve only whites".

What will be your next deluded point be? Let me guess: "What do you mean I can't shit on the floor and fling my shit around? IS THIS NAZI GERMANY?" :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786771)

BUT, she's not refusing to shoot gays, just a Gay wedding ?:winkwink:

and as far as this goes, bring it on, I'll shoot it :Graucho

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786834)

I wouldn't want to shoot it either. Not that I really care what two of them do in their spare time, just don't want to be around flamboyant queens all day long.

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786831)

How is that any different? You don't come to a Jewish celebration with bag of pork rinds and pass them out to the kids. You are running PRIVATE VENTURE (!!!!!) and if you believe filming gay wedding is against you beliefs, contentiousness and rules of conduct tell them to fuck off. You are not government employee or salvation army. You are private business!

Originally Posted by fetish gimp

She's running a business, which means that like all other businesses it must abide and follow rules and regulations set forth, one of which is the anti-discrimination law which was at the center of the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786863)

I guess I'm a tad more open minded then a lot of you in here, but then, I don't do weddings, Piriod, :Graucho :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19786879)

I already addressed that specific point

but just in case clicking that link is too much effort, and by the strenght of your arguments it clearly is, here is the gist of it:



So you see, even though she's running a "private business!" she can't simply pick and choose which rules and regulations she's going to follow.

Just like YOU or I can't.

For example, you could say "fuck taxes, gubirmint spending MAH MONEE letting fags and dykes marry ruining strait marrege's holeeness" but the law specifies that one must pay taxes and if you disregard the law then there are consequences to that.

This has nothing to do with personal beliefs, it has to do with THE LAW. You run a business, you have to follow certain rules. And anti-discriminatory regulations are part of those rules.

And as I also posted, her mistake was lacking business sense and telling those people "I can't do your wedding because you fags" instead of "I can't do your wedding because I'm already booked".

This is basic business sense.

I have turned down clients that set-off my internal alarms not by saying "I can't take you as a client because you're fucking nuts, don't know what the fuck you want and I can tell you're gonna fuck me over when it comes time to pay so get the fuck outta my sight you're wasting my time".

Instead I say "I'm very sorry, my schedule is full and although I'd love to work on your wonderful project I simply can't. Thank you for having thought of me and have a marvelous day".

Please feel free to use that one next time the gays come asking you to shoot their wedding :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19786879)

So you see, even though she's running a "private business!" she can't simply pick and choose which rules and regulations she's going to follow.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19786575)

I am just wondering why these people wanted that photographer so bad. Is the photographer great and in high demand?

If I were getting married I would want a photographer that does want to work for me in hopes that they will put more effort into their work.

I can think of probably a half dozen professional photographers that I know peripherally that would love to shoot my wedding.

Wondering how this ever became a case. Are they trying to prove a point?

I just want the right to get married. I do not demand the right to be able to get married in a Catholic church and I do not want to hire people that despise me when the majority doesn't.

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786904)

Which rules and regulation?

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19786644)

Yeah, I saw the word "fag" in the tagline when I first Googled "The Gay Card", but quickly figured out that it was meant in a whimsical sense, and not in a mean-spirited manner (as you took it):

http://bosguydotcom.files.wordpress....6/gaycard1.jpg

I checked the source of the Gay Card image (a gay guy's blog), and knowing that many gay people use the "F--" word in various ways, I quickly deduced that he meant it in a non-offensive way.

The funniest part is that I thought if you could read the small print, that you might get your panties in a bunch...and you did! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Thanks for playing (again)! :1orglaugh :smilie_we

Here's the link:

http://bosguy.com/2011/06/22/get-your-gay-card/

See, lots of gay people have a wicked sense of humor. If you didn't have such a stick up your butt about gay rights, civil rights, etc., you might have got a chuckle out of it, instead of being the usual incessant racist gay bashing whiner that you are on GFY.

Just so you know, we love you anyway... :wetkiss :winkwink:

You try so desperately to bait people endlessly about race and sexual orientation issues, that it's fun teasing you back a little every once in awhile.

:stoned

ADG

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786863)

I guess I'm a tad more open minded then a lot of you in here, but then, I don't do weddings, Piriod, :Graucho :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786889)

You can call it open mind or what ever but others have beliefs, standards or just feel uncomfortable. I seriously doubt open "minded" gay person is going to have blast at Christian Coalition "Family Values" convention. Somehow you people forget that shit like this works both way. If fucking PETA want to throw paint on peoples fur coats, people in fur coats should have right to punch them in their stupid face. If gays want to have gay pride parade, they should respect Westboro Baptist Church Parade too, no matter how wrong and disgusting it looks.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19786898)

What you describe is a professional business person. GFY severely lacks such so most here won't get it.

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19786933)

I would love to shoot weddings

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786955)

way too much stress :winkwink::2 cents:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19786941)

yes the photographer let her emotions push aside her business sense for sure... she might have been trying to make a point just as the couple was trying to make a point... 2 strong minded people clash with crappy results

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19786958)

shoot content for awhile :2 cents:

btw really interested in the new d4x, not 100% the camera is in the pipe but I read some good sourced rumors, hopefully for sale first 1/4 2014... maybe 54MP... seriously the d800 is like a farm truck to the d3x being a Ferrari, in all seriousness you can't believe how easy the d3x shoots... def night and day.. you comer back to my area shoot it for a bit...

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19786889)

Somehow you people forget that shit like this works both way.

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786986)

well, I'll just lumber along in the farm truck, till I see something amazingly new:winkwink:

, re content, you can always re shoot if you're not happy with what you have. As for weddings, it's a "once in a lifetime" occasion and everyone involved is stressed all to shit. Just dont need the aggrevation:winkwink:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19786923)

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 :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19787460)

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


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".

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787466)

this is the actual issue to my mind: 'against protected classes of people' this = state sponsored discrimination :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19787488)

Someone needs to walk in to gay owned print shop and ask them to print "Fags go to Hell" posters. And then march to very same N.M. court
This gay rights crap is getting out of control. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19787460)

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


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".

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19787460)

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.

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787466)

this is the actual issue to my mind: 'against protected classes of people' this = state sponsored discrimination :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19787606)

I should point out that children, the physically and mentally handicapped are protected classes of people to counter-point that pitiful straw-man but who am I kidding?

You guys seem to having so much fun jerking each other's dicks that I would feel bad trying to inject some common sense into your delusions :thumbsup

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19787506)

you could do that, but once you were in court that gay shop could argue they are not allowed to print hate speech

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19787606)

I should point out that children, the physically and mentally handicapped are protected classes of people to counter-point that pitiful straw-man but who am I kidding?

You guys seem to having so much fun jerking each other's dicks that I would feel bad trying to inject some common sense into your delusions :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787706)

free speech my man

Originally Posted by suesheboy (Post 19785851)

The MOMA in NY has great food.

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787710)

dude you're fucked up... when the government engages in ANY discrimination against it's citizenry that a BIG fucking issue... you're trying to strut your brilliant, mind so think about that and the implications...

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 19786664)

fitty gay weddings :thumbsup

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19787725)

there is boundaries to free speech

You are not free to use hate speech, nor, will the people protecting your free speech remotely approve with what 'free speech' you're trying to use.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19787752)

Wait a minute.

So you're saying that having a law whose purpose is to ensure that businesses not discriminate against individuals based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities or lack thereof is discriminatory because you think fags are disgusting and businesses shouldn't have to be penalized when they decide to discriminate against them?


Well, I thought Just Alex was gifted, but you my friend are a giving him a run for his money :thumbsup

You know, I understand your point of view. It's difficult when the world changes around you and seemingly all of a sudden women can vote, then those goddamn darkies, and by God fags are strutting around like they're as good as you instead of hiding in shame.

But that's the nature of living in this society, change.

You don't like fags/dykes/trannies having the same rights/privileges and obligations as you then you should consider move to a society where they're denied those rights/privileges and obligations like Iran, Uganda or Russia :)

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787793)

I think the boundaries are selected by the government as need to be politically correct. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater but the black party can say lets kill Zimmerman, the Muslims can say lets kill whitey, just like blacks but the KKK can't say lets kill black people :2 cents:

Originally Posted by gamelinkjeff (Post 19787769)

thats pruddy gay dude!



But


nothing gay about being gay!

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787800)

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?

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787710)

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 :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19787710)

dude you're fucked up... when the government engages in ANY discrimination against it's citizenry that a BIG fucking issue...

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19787815)

i hear your concern for the white race.

this is the population percentages of the groups you are concerned with:

0.8% muslim
12.6% black
3.8% gay

so, according to you, .8% of the population is going on about 'killing whitey', of which is about 80% of the population

12.6% of the population, our african-american-heritage brothers, apparently are preaching for the death of a latino-european male, which is 'bad'. I can feel your fear friend, but, considering it's 12% of the populatino, and most likely .0000000001% has actually said 'lets kill zimmerman', your fear is unfounded!

i don't have time for it, but what percentage of banks and politicians screw you guys, every single day, of every single year?

I heard 100%, but thats a crazy number.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19787875)

Fair enough. But let me remind you that you started the implication argument with this



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 :pimp

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 :winkwink:

With that out of the way, let me rephrase my retort without implying anything.



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 :upsidedow

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 :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19788030)

dude you're a total dip shit fuck you and the white race shit :321GFY

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19788032)

if you want intelligent open minded discourse I'm interested, other wise I'm not, apparently unlike you I have an OPEN mind to this :2 cents:

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19788033)

the trick is called 'divide and conquer', and is very old.

id suggest letting it go.

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19788070)

so in other words I put up a post asking if the photographer had been muslin instead of Christian would the result have been the same and you decide I'm a white Nazi??? I get that right you stupid fuck? I hadn't realized you were of such low quality ....

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19788032)

look you've brought up good point then you fuck that up by your a retard etc , fuck you and all the creepy passive aggressive bullshit you pile ... save that for sharing with you're liberal shit head buddies...:thumbsup

if you want intelligent open minded discourse I'm interested, other wise I'm not, apparently unlike you I have an OPEN mind to this :2 cents: