Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Photographer Found in Violation of N. M. Discrimination Law
home.imageshack.com — A professional photographer was found in violation of New Mexico's Discrimination law when she refused to take photographs of a gay couple at their commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs.
Conspiracy20- 16 diggs
- digg it
- Conspiracy20, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10All she said was they only took pictures of traditional weddings.
- LoneRanger85, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6And liberalS say it is conservatives who are crushing our freedoms. Where are all the secular fanatics screaming, "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!"
- USNavyBlue, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Civil Rights Act of 1968 with its Fair Housing Act ostensibly enforced equality, equal opportunity, and voting rights to blacks
- that was a done with good intentions and rightly so, however the HIDDEN consequences are bearing their ugly fruit of this bill.
In reality, these acts also granted unprecedented power to the federal government to invade states' rights and enforce not just equality but special rights and privileges for black Americans. These laws were built on the premise that blacks, having suffered so long and bitterly, were entitled not just to equal treatment but to special perpetual compensation. They would not have to earn equally high GPA's to enter college, medical, or law school. Business owners would have to atone for years of discrimination by guaranteeing annual quotas of blacks in their workforce (many of whom were less qualified than white applicants). Predominantly white taxpayers had to fund expensive bussing programs to place black children in white public schools far from their home districts.
Such preference violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids government to grant special benefits to any group -- regardless of how deeply it has suffered.
These civil rights acts also dealt a body blow to the sanctity of personal property. The forgers of our nation believed that anyone who is a US citizen has rights to equality and justice before the law. Citizens can use all publicly owned facilities and services. They may serve on juries and in the military. They may enjoy public education, unrestrained voting rights, and freedom from involuntary servitude.
But our early ancestors never taught that any citizen can entitle himself to enjoy others’ rental property, businesses, private institutions of learning, fraternal groups or even churches, contrary to the owners’ wishes. People might suffer hurt feelings if they’re not included in privately owned organizations. But the founders knew that a much worse injustice would result from destroying private control—a right as fundamental to our heritage as free speech. (This does not apply to vital or emergency services. No privately owned companies in that business could or should ever safely deny assistance to people of any race.)
Federal civil rights acts eroded this foundation. They made private property and institutions into essentially public-controlled properties. Restaurants, apartments, educational institutions, etc.—created and kept running by the hard work and financial investment of individuals—could be sued by a racial minority who was denied access to them. Americans who insisted on their property rights became federal criminals.
Civil rights laws were predominantly meant to grant special rights to blacks, yet feminists claimed similar victim status under centuries of “male chauvinism.” They demanded and got federal concessions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Feminists won the right to sue employers for discrimination in hiring or firing.
In 1968 the parent of the present federal hate crimes bill (Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 2a) led to later enactment of triple penalties against anyone who committed a crime motivated by bias against federally protected groups. It also stipulated that anyone whose speech might provoke another to violence against these groups should be indicted along with the active offender.
Inevitably, homosexuals demanded the same privileges and protections as blacks and women. Through the nineties, roughly 45 states passed hate crimes laws. Most granted homosexuals virtually the same protections that blacks acquired in 1964.
Protection of homosexuals, transvestites, and transgendered people is a critically important demand of the federal hate bill, repeatedly submitted to Congress since 1998.
There you have it in a nutshell - business owners now get sued for a hate crime and or discrimination because they did not want to provide services to a "gay couple". I guess business owners DON'T have the right to pick and choose the clients regardless of their Christan beliefs. This is NOT a free republic people it is anillusionn that is coming to an end real soon.- Conspiracy20, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Perfectly said Navy!
- USNavyBlue, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Thank you and this is WHY under the cover of night we the people are trying like hell to have the Civil Rights act ruled unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment equality clause.
- Siegfriedson, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Navy, I almost always agree with your posts, but this is an exception. Well, I do agree with most of what you wrote except:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Civil Rights Act of 1968 with its Fair Housing Act ostensibly enforced equality, equal opportunity, and voting rights to blacks - that was a done with good intentions and rightly so, however the HIDDEN consequences are bearing their ugly fruit of this bill."
What I disagree with is your use of the terms "good intentions" and "rightly so".
If you ask me, the civil rights legislative measures were pushed through Congress not by congressmen who were motivated by good will, altruism, or whatever you want to call it, but by congressmen who, like always, want to be on the "winning team" for the purpose of winning votes. Politicians have an uncanny sense of knowing which horse is going to win the public relations race , and they all try to hop on it. Look at how every single politician besides Ron Paul was unquestionably with Bush and supported the war in Iraq from 2001 until about 2005.
As far as "rightly so"...it is right to destroy freedom of association and attempt to enforce multiracialism by legally mandating it? Is it right for the government to get into the business of Marxist social engineering? Who benefits from that?
- MeanYogurt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9What happened to freedom? Shouldn't a small business owner be free to choose with whom they do business?
- n0gnuz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Not if that freedom conflicts with the interests of some radical minority group, apparently.
- Erich100, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5This is an outrage. Our government has shown itself to be out of control once again. Personal or religious beliefs are no longer allowed. State sanctioned thought is all we have available to us now.
I hope the lovely couple is proud of themselves for helping the government free us of one more freedom we really didn't need. I hope they realize when someone else loses a freedom they do as well. This is the type of thing that will backfire. I seriously doubt people with anti gay attitudes are going to see this bad court decision and say to themselves, gee I should probably change my mind toward gay people. This crap will just bring more discrimination. It's a false victory. I hope it was worth the measly $6,637 they were awarded. - radiantarchon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6wtf she doesn't have to take pictures of anyone no matter what the reason
- Siegfriedson, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Once again, it all comes back to political correctness which is the attempt to force cultural Marxism, an alien ideology, on Western nations:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Origins_of_P ...
They say communism is dead...yeah, right.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by