witfal wrote:

> http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/04/09/adf-to-appeal-nm-commission's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/49l3n4

"...an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and
wife, guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state
antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex
"commitment ceremony."

The long URL worked fine, but this is the first time a tinyurl didn't
work for me. I tried generating another tiny one, buit didn't work,
either.

> First Amendment rights abridged. Cuss 'n Discuss.

2 Jews walk into a photography studio, one a man, one a woman, and ask
for wedding photos. The Christian photographer declines because he
disagrees with their non-Christian lifestyle. Obviously the
photographer was not merely exercising his first amendment rights.

"Johnny Hageyama" <hageyama@hairdresser.net> wrote in message
news:1ba060bf-05bf-4e24-b3ae-b4e89a035d19@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> witfal wrote:
>
>> http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/04/09/adf-to-appeal-nm-commission's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/49l3n4
>
> "...an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and
> wife, guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state
> antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex
> "commitment ceremony."
>
> The long URL worked fine, but this is the first time a tinyurl didn't
> work for me. I tried generating another tiny one, buit didn't work,
> either.
>
>> First Amendment rights abridged. Cuss 'n Discuss.
>
> 2 Jews walk into a photography studio, one a man, one a woman, and ask
> for wedding photos. The Christian photographer declines because he
> disagrees with their non-Christian lifestyle. Obviously the
> photographer was not merely exercising his first amendment rights.


The studio is a private business which can turn down work for any reason the
owner chooses. However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply
should've said he was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.

This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The
justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases, to
save them having to write "No thanks".

On 2008-04-12 05:33:08 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

> The studio is a private business which can turn down work for any reason the
> owner chooses.

Thank you.

> However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply should've said
> he was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.

I tried to imagine one of the "couple" contracting with the photog.
"I'd like to hire you to shoot our wedding. My fiance and I like your
work." No mention was likely made of the nature of the "couple". Can
you think of why this might be so?

> This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The
> justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases, to
> save them having to write "No thanks".

I disagree. This one's staying around for awhile.

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level
and beat you with experience!

On 2008-04-12 00:11:20 -0700, Johnny Hageyama <hageyama@hairdresser.net> said:

>
>
> witfal wrote:
>
>> http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/04/09/adf-to-appeal-nm-commission's-ruling-against-christian-photographer/

http://tinyurl.com/49l3n4

"...an
>>
> Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and
> wife, guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state
> antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex
> "commitment ceremony."
>
> The long URL worked fine, but this is the first time a tinyurl didn't
> work for me. I tried generating another tiny one, buit didn't work,
> either.
>
>> First Amendment rights abridged. Cuss 'n Discuss.
>
> 2 Jews walk into a photography studio, one a man, one a woman, and ask
> for wedding photos. The Christian photographer declines because he
> disagrees with their non-Christian lifestyle. Obviously the
> photographer was not merely exercising his first amendment rights.

Bulls**t.

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level
and beat you with experience!

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:ftqaru$lc6$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-04-12 05:33:08 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> The studio is a private business which can turn down work for any reason
>> the
>> owner chooses.
>
> Thank you.
>

A young woman walked into the car stereo store where I worked many years
ago. While waiting for someone to assist her, she stood in front of the wall
of display units and began flossing her teeth, flicking little bits of food
onto the radios. My boss, who was famous for saying things most people were
afraid to say, walks over and says "Excuse me, but I don't do business with
pigs. Get outta my store."

Any reason at all.

Lakeside restaurant near here: At the patio tables, "no shirt no shoes no
service". At the takeout window, "no shirt no shoes - no problem". But,
people step off their boats and argue with the rules. They're sent back to
their boats, hungry.

Any reason at all.


>> However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply should've said he
>> was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.
>
> I tried to imagine one of the "couple" contracting with the photog. "I'd
> like to hire you to shoot our wedding. My fiance and I like your work."
> No mention was likely made of the nature of the "couple". Can you think
> of why this might be so?


Sneaky? Maybe they used the word "partner", which is a good clue.


>> This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The
>> justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases, to
>> save them having to write "No thanks".
>
> I disagree. This one's staying around for awhile.


If so, hopefully it'll be a huge embarrassment for the couple involved. By
the way, isn't it funny that I'm saying this, in light of my thoughts on gay
marriage? :-) My brilliance allows me to get away with this. Put on your
sunglasses.

On 2008-04-12 05:55:21 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

> onto the radios. My boss, who was famous for saying things most people were
> afraid to say, walks over and says "Excuse me, but I don't do business with
> pigs. Get outta my store."
>
> Any reason at all.

Wish I'd have been there.

> Lakeside restaurant near here: At the patio tables, "no shirt no shoes no
> service". At the takeout window, "no shirt no shoes - no problem". But,
> people step off their boats and argue with the rules. They're sent back to
> their boats, hungry.
>
> Any reason at all.

Again, correct.

>>> However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply should've said he
>>> was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.
>>
>> I tried to imagine one of the "couple" contracting with the photog. "I'd
>> like to hire you to shoot our wedding. My fiance and I like your work."
>> No mention was likely made of the nature of the "couple". Can you think
>> of why this might be so?
>
>
> Sneaky? Maybe they used the word "partner", which is a good clue.

Maybe. But I wonder.

>>> This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The
>>> justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases, to
>>> save them having to write "No thanks".
>>
>> I disagree. This one's staying around for awhile.
>
>
> If so, hopefully it'll be a huge embarrassment for the couple involved. By
> the way, isn't it funny that I'm saying this, in light of my thoughts on gay
> marriage? :-) My brilliance allows me to get away with this. Put on your
> sunglasses.

Brilliance? How about "common sense"? ;-)

Now, to kill two birds, use that abundance to address the issue of
legal, gay marriage.

Here's one for you. Do I think gays have the right to a legal
partnership? You bet. I'm sure divorce lawyers are frothing at the
idea, and are likely the impetus behind gay marriage, with most
politicians being lawyers first.

Give 'em their partnerships. Just don't re-brand it marriage. I
believe Lincoln said "You can call a dog's tail his fifth leg, but that
doesn't make it so.", or something like that.

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level
and beat you with experience!

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:ftqcea$oa2$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-04-12 05:55:21 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> onto the radios. My boss, who was famous for saying things most people
>> were
>> afraid to say, walks over and says "Excuse me, but I don't do business
>> with
>> pigs. Get outta my store."
>>
>> Any reason at all.
>
> Wish I'd have been there.
>
>> Lakeside restaurant near here: At the patio tables, "no shirt no shoes no
>> service". At the takeout window, "no shirt no shoes - no problem". But,
>> people step off their boats and argue with the rules. They're sent back
>> to
>> their boats, hungry.
>>
>> Any reason at all.
>
> Again, correct.
>
>>>> However, to ward off the obvious annoyances, he simply should've said
>>>> he
>>>> was too busy to accept any more work at the moment.
>>>
>>> I tried to imagine one of the "couple" contracting with the photog.
>>> "I'd
>>> like to hire you to shoot our wedding. My fiance and I like your work."
>>> No mention was likely made of the nature of the "couple". Can you think
>>> of why this might be so?
>>
>>
>> Sneaky? Maybe they used the word "partner", which is a good clue.
>
> Maybe. But I wonder.
>


We can't add fake facts to the article. No conjecture. Obviously, they
weren't evasive, because the photographer *did* figure out what the real
deal was. If not, he would've found out when he got to the ceremony.


>>>> This case will evaporate when the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. The
>>>> justices should be given smiley face stamps to use for certain cases,
>>>> to
>>>> save them having to write "No thanks".
>>>
>>> I disagree. This one's staying around for awhile.
>>
>>
>> If so, hopefully it'll be a huge embarrassment for the couple involved.
>> By
>> the way, isn't it funny that I'm saying this, in light of my thoughts on
>> gay
>> marriage? :-) My brilliance allows me to get away with this. Put on
>> your
>> sunglasses.
>
> Brilliance? How about "common sense"? ;-)
>
> Now, to kill two birds, use that abundance to address the issue of legal,
> gay marriage.
>
> Here's one for you. Do I think gays have the right to a legal
> partnership? You bet. I'm sure divorce lawyers are frothing at the idea,
> and are likely the impetus behind gay marriage, with most politicians
> being lawyers first.
>
> Give 'em their partnerships. Just don't re-brand it marriage. I believe
> Lincoln said "You can call a dog's tail his fifth leg, but that doesn't
> make it so.", or something like that.


Well, it's just a word, and people love to disagree about words. You see a
dog and you think "pet". I see a dog and I think "handy target-pass the
ammo", or even "Asian recipes". We'll never settle that difference.

Think of "gay marriage" in this way: One reason gays want it is so they can
gain certain financial benefits. The word "marriage" and its variants appear
thousands of times in documents related to employment, insurance & taxation.
Why force so many industries or agencies to rewrite their stuff? Some Big
Time Christian group will yell about how much money gays are costing society
for all the editing.

On 2008-04-12 06:27:33 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

>> Maybe. But I wonder.
>>
>
>
> We can't add fake facts to the article. No conjecture. Obviously, they
> weren't evasive, because the photographer *did* figure out what the real
> deal was. If not, he would've found out when he got to the ceremony.

Which is why I said "wonder" rather than "know".

>> Here's one for you. Do I think gays have the right to a legal
>> partnership? You bet. I'm sure divorce lawyers are frothing at the idea,
>> and are likely the impetus behind gay marriage, with most politicians
>> being lawyers first.
>>
>> Give 'em their partnerships. Just don't re-brand it marriage. I believe
>> Lincoln said "You can call a dog's tail his fifth leg, but that doesn't
>> make it so.", or something like that.
>
>
> Well, it's just a word, and people love to disagree about words. You see a
> dog and you think "pet". I see a dog and I think "handy target-pass the
> ammo", or even "Asian recipes". We'll never settle that difference.

That's TWO examples of your being wrong and me being right. <g>

> Think of "gay marriage" in this way: One reason gays want it is so they can
> gain certain financial benefits. The word "marriage" and its variants appear
> thousands of times in documents related to employment, insurance & taxation.
> Why force so many industries or agencies to rewrite their stuff? Some Big
> Time Christian group will yell about how much money gays are costing society
> for all the editing.

Then re-write them ALL to reflect "legal partner". Business has no
business determining what's sacred or not. Let the old forms die away.

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level
and beat you with experience!

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:ftqdiu$qom$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-04-12 06:27:33 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>>> Maybe. But I wonder.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We can't add fake facts to the article. No conjecture. Obviously, they
>> weren't evasive, because the photographer *did* figure out what the real
>> deal was. If not, he would've found out when he got to the ceremony.
>
> Which is why I said "wonder" rather than "know".
>
>>> Here's one for you. Do I think gays have the right to a legal
>>> partnership? You bet. I'm sure divorce lawyers are frothing at the
>>> idea,
>>> and are likely the impetus behind gay marriage, with most politicians
>>> being lawyers first.
>>>
>>> Give 'em their partnerships. Just don't re-brand it marriage. I
>>> believe
>>> Lincoln said "You can call a dog's tail his fifth leg, but that doesn't
>>> make it so.", or something like that.
>>
>>
>> Well, it's just a word, and people love to disagree about words. You see
>> a
>> dog and you think "pet". I see a dog and I think "handy target-pass the
>> ammo", or even "Asian recipes". We'll never settle that difference.
>
> That's TWO examples of your being wrong and me being right. <g>
>
>> Think of "gay marriage" in this way: One reason gays want it is so they
>> can
>> gain certain financial benefits. The word "marriage" and its variants
>> appear
>> thousands of times in documents related to employment, insurance &
>> taxation.
>> Why force so many industries or agencies to rewrite their stuff? Some Big
>> Time Christian group will yell about how much money gays are costing
>> society
>> for all the editing.
>
> Then re-write them ALL to reflect "legal partner". Business has no
> business determining what's sacred or not. Let the old forms die away.


If programmers thought the way you do, nothing would work!

On Apr 12, 3:11 am, Johnny Hageyama <hagey...@hairdresser.net> wrote:
> whitney wrote:
> >http://www.clown.fart
>
>
> "...an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and
> wife, guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state
> antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex
> "commitment ceremony."
>
> The long URL worked fine, but this is the first time a tinyurl didn't
> work for me. I tried generating another tiny one, buit didn't work,
> either.
>
> > First Amendment rights abridged. Cuss 'n Discuss.
>
> 2 Jews walk into a photography studio, one a man, one a woman, and ask
> for wedding photos.

Good start...

> The Christian photographer declines because he
> disagrees with their non-Christian lifestyle. Obviously the
> photographer was not merely exercising his first amendment rights.

Lame punchline.

Have you heard the one about the Christian, the Jew, and the Pollack
in the desert?

The Christian is carrying a tub of water which he took by force.

The Jew is carrying a sack of Euros to buy water from the Christian.

The Pollack is carrying a Toyota(tm) car door so he can roll the
window down when he gets hot.