Radicals try to revive deceptive equal rights amendment! - Page 13 - PhillyBlog

Phillybud · #**121** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 01:36 AM

Just so that there is no confusion of what I mean to say, when I speak of discrimination I am NOT speaking of discerning a preference. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to prefer a Robert Mondavi burgundy wine over the Ernest & Julio Gallo Burgundy wine because the first one has a superior taste in your estimation.

When I was referring to discrimination - the prohibition of access or the denial of opportunity based on a person's status as a minority member - I meant it in this context: When the Levitt Brothers developers were creating the towns of Levittown, Long Island, New York, and Levittown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania they decided on a policy of discrimination against black people. In other words they did not want black people buying any of their homes in their planned cities, using the parks or playgrounds in that city, shopping in the supermarkets of that city. Both Levittowns were designed to be segregated white-only cities.

john w k · #**122** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 09:45 PM

SEE:

Photographer sued, found guilty of not covering lesbian ceremony

Quote:

CBNNews.com

April 15, 2008

CBNNews.come- A Christian photographer in New Mexico was found guilty last week of breaking state law for refusing to take pictures of a lesbian ceremony.

Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography was contacted in 2006 by a same-sex couple wanting pictures taken of their "commitment ceremony."

After Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.

JWK

Mixiboi · #**123** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 09:58 PM

In future linkage, please link to a less bias source, because people will fight you over that then the actual story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...256068479/1015

But as to the story:

Quote:

Carrie Moritomo, a public-information officer with the New Mexico Office of Workforce Solutions, would not say whether she considered the case a violation of the Huguenins' religious freedom.

She would say only that the Human Rights Bureau is a neutral agency created to enforce the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

"The bureau accepts and investigates claims of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, age, physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, disability, spousal affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation," she said.

I like how they protect everyone...So if a Gay photographer, the best photographer EVER, rejected a Christian couple, they would have the same rights as the lesbians in this case.

So, I don't see how an advantage for one side here, as no one can discriminate against anyone with this type of law..

john w k · #**124** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theLovebelow

In future linkage, please link to a less bias source, because people will fight you over that then the actual story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...256068479/1015

But as to the story:

..

Your link is old news (February 25, 2008). The link I provided is dated April 15, 2008 and notes the guilty finding.

JWK

Michael Tree · #**125** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

Repeatedly is correct. And you continue to avoid discussing why you support an ordinance which is designed to allow the persecution of property and business owners for making business decisions which they believe are in their best economic interests. SEE POST 112

I have, repeatedly, pointed out that different rights often conflict, and that enforcing one right necessarily diminishes another. When that happens, the most appropriate thing to do is weigh the interests involved. In the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, the right to free speech comes up against the right to public safety, and courts have determined that in that circumstance the public safety interest outweighs the free speech interest.

The interests involved in protecting people from prejudicially discriminating against others is more important than the interest in protecting people's right to prejudicially discriminate. I know you disagree. If this also happens to make people more careful about acting prejudicially against others, I don't see that as a bad thing neccessarily. Of course, there are times when it affects other people who haven't done anything wrong, but that's true of everything in the law. And the courts do protect against frivolous lawsuits by throwing them out of court or even imposing sanctions.

Quote:

Is the law directed at people who are not business or property owners? Of course not. Those who you claim are “persecuted” couldn’t care two licks about a penniless homophobe or sexist.

Considering that such lawsuits are usually brought under such ordinances for being unjustly fired from jobs, it's hardly surprising that businesses tend to be the defendants. No one's going to go to court because some guy on the street called them a bad name.

Mixiboi · #**126** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

Your link is old news (February 25, 2008). The link I provided is dated April 15, 2008 and notes the guilty finding.

JWK

And it is still bias. It's like getting something from PETAs or Greenpeace site...Finding a less bias source, helps your cause.

john w k · #**127** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 10:31 PM

.

SEE:

eHarmony's 29 Dimensions of... Litigation

Quote:

eHarmony's 29 Dimensions of... Litigation
By
David Nieporent
on June 1, 2007 7:01 AM

The plaintiffs here are actually arguing that eHarmony is obligated not just to open up its existing service to people of all sexual predilections. It is requiring eHarmony to actually provide new services that it claims neither an interest nor any degree of expertise in, and which may require an outlay of millions of dollars. Let’s not even get into the moral preferences of the owners and management, which are presumed irrelevant by laws which outlaw discrimination against homosexuals or, in this case, may mandate the provision of special services to them.

JWK

Michael Tree · #**128** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 10:56 PM

You're really not getting the concept of linking to unbiased sources.

As for the substance of these cases, while they sound like not great cases, all your posting shows is that sometimes people file odd lawsuits. This is news? Should contract law be abolished because sometimes people make dodgy claims? Should free speech claims be abolished because sometimes people made odd arguments?

Two lawsuits, out of thousands. Welcome to the wonderful world of anecdotal information. If you like, I could link to a few articles about 7-foot-tall Chinese people, to demonstrate that Chinese people are all extremely tall.

Mixiboi · #**129** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 12:56 AM

SEE:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:

Christian group sues Pa. university over free-speech rights

A religious student group claims that Shippensburg University violated its free-speech rights by threatening to shut it down because it requires members to be Christians and its president to be a man.

Oh wait, they aren't radicals....

john w k · #**130** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theLovebelow

SEE:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Oh wait, they aren't radicals....

Well, welcome to the truth: there are homosexual extremists, born again extremists, lesbian extremists, homophobe extremists, Republican extremist, Democrat extremists, etc. and many of these extremists, with the assistance of our leech infested lawyer industry, attempt to use the force of government to impose themselves upon others.

Lesbian sues eHarmony for not trying to hookup mate!

SEE:

eHarmony's 29 Dimensions of... Litigation

Quote:

Now eHarmony is being sued for "sexual orientation discrimination" in California by a woman named Linda Carlson who claims she was "denied access" to eHarmony because she's a lesbian. She's seeking class action status plus unspecified damages, and wants the court to order eHarmony to change its policies.

The parsing of words by lawyers has all but destroyed our entire legal system.

As I correctly stated above, “These type of laws” (and cases) “ultimately benefit our leech infested lawyer industry.

Question is, why has a judge not reprimanded Linda Carlson and the lawyer representing her for obstruction of justice by consuming the Court’s limited time with a frivolous law suit? Oh, I forgot, judges are lawyers too ____ one big happy family!

JWK