It is greater minds than I, *cough bullsh*t cough*, that think sexual preference should go hand in hand with race, color, religion, and national origin.....

@LaDawn: Btw, heres one abt photographers....

"" The New Mexico Supreme
Court ruled in a unanimous
decision Thursday that a
wedding photographer who
refused to provide services
to a same-sex couple
violated the state's Human
Rights Act.
"[W]e conclude that a
commercial photography
business that offers its
services to the public,
thereby increasing its
visibility to potential clients,
is subject to the
antidiscrimination provisions
of the [New Mexico Human
Rights Act] and must serve
same-sex couples on the
same basis that it serves
opposite-sex couples," the
state's highest court ruled.
"Therefore, when Elane
Photography refused to
photograph a same-sex
commitment ceremony, it
violated the NMHRA in the
same way as if it had
refused to photograph a
wedding between people of
different races."
The ruling comes in the case
of Elane Photography v.
Vanessa Willock , which was
filed after Elaine Huguenin,
co-owner of Elane
Photography in Albuquerque,
turned away Vanessa
Willock and her partner in
2006 on the grounds that
photographing the ceremony
would violate her religious
beliefs.
An investigation by the state
Human Rights Commission
that found the company was
guilty of discrimination
based on sexual orientation
was upheld by the New
Mexico Court of Appeals in
June of 2012.
In its decision today, the
New Mexico Supreme Court
ruled that the state's Human
Rights Act, which was
amended in 2003 to add
"sexual orientation" as a
class of people protected
from discrimination, does
not violate free speech
because it does not compel
the photographer to either
"speak a government-
mandated message or to
publish the speech of
another."
"The purpose of the NMHRA
is to ensure that businesses
offering services to the
general public do not
discriminate against
protected classes of people,
and the United States
Supreme Court has made it
clear that the First
Amendment permits such
regulation by states," the
decision states. "Businesses
that choose to be public
accommodations must
comply with the NMHRA,
although such 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
antidiscrimination laws."
In a statement, Louise
Melling, deputy legal director
of the American Civil
Liberties Union, which filed
an amicus brief in support of
Willock, said the ruling was
in line with guarantees made
in the Constitution.
"When you open a business,
you are opening your doors
to all people in your
community, not just the
select few who share your
personal beliefs," Melling
said. "The Constitution
guarantees religious
freedom in this country, but
we are not entitled to use
our beliefs as an excuse to
discriminate against other
people.""

Link, heyyyyyyyy.

Oh....and carry on comrades....





















Yep, I went there.

IDC what the government says if I own a business and worked my ass off to buy a building and do all the blah blah to get my business up and running then imma do whatever tf I want to do with it. If I don't want to cater to gays, racists, cows, or aliens then I'm NOT gone do it. Point. Blank. Period.

If only we cld proclaim it and it wld be true lol




And yet, it is happening......

I work in a convenience store and I can refuse anyone with a good reason but I then get a colleague to serve them while I go in the back I've never not served anyone yet thou not had reason even when they shout abuse at me I just smile and ask do you want anything else or a bag lol anyone like that gets annoyed if you make it look like your not bothered

[QUOTE=WalkSoftly;453784]If only we cld proclaim it and it wld be true lol


Lol right.... :/ but my rant sure sounded good.

@Luvbug21: It sure did lol!

I think Gays should have same rights as everyone else-but...I dont believe those rights should infringe on other humans religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs were that a cow was sacred and someone tried to force you to eat a burger that would compare to being forced by gov. to serve a gay couple if it is against the owners religious beliefs. I do think a sign stating this would solve all 'humiliation and embarrassment' issues therefore solving all problems lol

@SammyToo: I agree but, what's sad is even if you were to put up a sign announcing who you didn't want to serve or whatever you would get bashed and called names and most likely become a victim of hate crimes just because you don't agree with something. There's really no "right" way.