Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-23-2017, 11:47 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-couples-argument-refusing-gay-customers-123831545.html
U.S.
Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing gay customers
[Associated Press]
Associated Press•September 21, 2017
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota couple's lawsuit challenging a state law for the right to refuse to shoot wedding videos for same-sex couples.
Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis dismissed Carl and Angel Larsen's case Wednesday.
The St. Cloud couple, who own a videography company, Telescope Media Group, sued over a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that bars discrimination by businesses, the Star Tribune reported. They argued that the law amounted to "a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage," and they sought to post a notice on their company's website that they won't shoot same-sex weddings, based on their religious beliefs.
In his ruling, Tunheim described that as "conduct akin to a 'White Applicants Only' sign" that may be outlawed without infringing on First Amendment rights.
"Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself," the judge wrote. "As conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment."
Jeremy Tedseco, an attorney for a conservative Christian group representing the couple, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the group will appeal.
"Tolerance is a two-way street," Tedesco said in a statement. "Creative professionals who engage in the expression of ideas shouldn't be threatened with fines and jail simply for having a particular point of view about marriage that the government may not favor."
The case is similar to an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court showdown involving a Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The alliance is also representing the baker, Jack Phillips.
Where the hell do these ffn judges come from????
So now a --sexual preference-- is considered a right that trumps others freedom of religion rights???
Obvious to anybody that a sexual preference is not a damn right!!!!
If it were then bigamy laws must be voided, laws against having sex with animals, underage children must be voided, etc..
As all those are sexual preferences!!
This is liberalism and its party--the dems-- on full display-- stomping on clear and understandable rights to have objections of religious grounds in favor of rewarding a damn voting bloc!!
And have their ffing piece of shit liberal judges act to aid them in that glaring injustice!!
That judge should be removed from his position of authority..
HE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ONLY A DUMB-ASS BUT QUITE LIKELY JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL SHILL POSING AS A FAIR MINDED AND DECENT OFFICIAL THAT IS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND SERVE JUSTICE TO ONE AND ALL.
In short the judge is a maggot, IMHO..
HERE WE HAVE A DAMN FFING MORON RULING THAT A DAMN SEXUAL PERVERSION(SEXUAL CHOICE) OVERRIDES A RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
More proof that we that have so often pointed to that slippery slope and were made fun of for doing so-were dead on the damn mark!
Have you ever noticed how none of these ffing rulings are landing in court to rule against Islam???
Lets see when some muslims object and bring their case(THEY HATE AND HANG GAYS) to court--how these stinking pro-muslim judges decide to rule..
You know--the muslims that were given an automatic exemption from obamacare, right off the bat--without having to ever fight it in court..
Those special dem allies that got exempted as the damn obamacare crap was being written. - -TYR
U.S.
Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing gay customers
[Associated Press]
Associated Press•September 21, 2017
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota couple's lawsuit challenging a state law for the right to refuse to shoot wedding videos for same-sex couples.
Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis dismissed Carl and Angel Larsen's case Wednesday.
The St. Cloud couple, who own a videography company, Telescope Media Group, sued over a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that bars discrimination by businesses, the Star Tribune reported. They argued that the law amounted to "a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage," and they sought to post a notice on their company's website that they won't shoot same-sex weddings, based on their religious beliefs.
In his ruling, Tunheim described that as "conduct akin to a 'White Applicants Only' sign" that may be outlawed without infringing on First Amendment rights.
"Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself," the judge wrote. "As conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment."
Jeremy Tedseco, an attorney for a conservative Christian group representing the couple, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the group will appeal.
"Tolerance is a two-way street," Tedesco said in a statement. "Creative professionals who engage in the expression of ideas shouldn't be threatened with fines and jail simply for having a particular point of view about marriage that the government may not favor."
The case is similar to an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court showdown involving a Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The alliance is also representing the baker, Jack Phillips.
Where the hell do these ffn judges come from????
So now a --sexual preference-- is considered a right that trumps others freedom of religion rights???
Obvious to anybody that a sexual preference is not a damn right!!!!
If it were then bigamy laws must be voided, laws against having sex with animals, underage children must be voided, etc..
As all those are sexual preferences!!
This is liberalism and its party--the dems-- on full display-- stomping on clear and understandable rights to have objections of religious grounds in favor of rewarding a damn voting bloc!!
And have their ffing piece of shit liberal judges act to aid them in that glaring injustice!!
That judge should be removed from his position of authority..
HE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ONLY A DUMB-ASS BUT QUITE LIKELY JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL SHILL POSING AS A FAIR MINDED AND DECENT OFFICIAL THAT IS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND SERVE JUSTICE TO ONE AND ALL.
In short the judge is a maggot, IMHO..
HERE WE HAVE A DAMN FFING MORON RULING THAT A DAMN SEXUAL PERVERSION(SEXUAL CHOICE) OVERRIDES A RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
More proof that we that have so often pointed to that slippery slope and were made fun of for doing so-were dead on the damn mark!
Have you ever noticed how none of these ffing rulings are landing in court to rule against Islam???
Lets see when some muslims object and bring their case(THEY HATE AND HANG GAYS) to court--how these stinking pro-muslim judges decide to rule..
You know--the muslims that were given an automatic exemption from obamacare, right off the bat--without having to ever fight it in court..
Those special dem allies that got exempted as the damn obamacare crap was being written. - -TYR