#1 Forced to Serve Queers Thread

***Alex Linder*** · April 7th, 2014

US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude
William Norman Grigg

A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before that state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” (the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage).

The couple had no difficulty finding another photographer willing to accept payment for that service, and thanks to their punitive impulses – and the totalitarian “public accommodations” law in that state – they were able to use money extracted from Huguenin in the form of fines in order to pay for their photographs.

In declining the couple’s business, Elane Huguenin did not injure or defraud anybody. The same is true of Antonio Darden, a gay hairdresser from Santa Fe who earned nation-wide publicity a couple of years ago when he announced that he would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage. Both Huguenin and Darden sought to exercise their property rights by declining proposed business transactions. Only Darden was permitted to do so, because he – unlike Huguenin – belongs to a “specially protected” class.

In its ruling upholding the actions of New Mexico’s “human rights” soviet, the State Supreme Court claimed that the lesbian couple had a right “to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation.” This assumes that business owners like Huguenin have a duty to provide such services – and no right to decline participation in that transaction. In other words, involuntary servitude – despite being explicitly banned by the 13th Amendment – is justified in the service of “anti-discrimination” policy.

Attorneys on behalf of Huguenin appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court, contending that it violated the free speech and religious liberty “guarantees” of the First Amendment – which it manifestly did. Huguenin’s legal counsel could have argued that the state’s Human Rights Act — which was amended in 2003 to include “sexual orientation” within the protected categories — represents a wholesale violation of property rights. This argument would only find traction, unfortunately, in a society where property rights are properly understood.

Huguenin’s counsel could have pointed out that the preferential treatment of property owners such as Mr. Darden – who is allowed to discriminate against some customers on ideological grounds – violates the principle of equal protection under the law. But such preferential treatment is the entire point of “civil rights” enactments.

The US Supreme Court has declined Hugeunin’s appeal, tacitly ratifying the state supreme court’s endorsement of involuntary servitude in the name of “tolerance.”

N.B. Forrest · April 7th, 2014

"B-But we gotta put a Republican in the White House to keep them goldurn libruls off the Supreme Court!"

8Man · April 7th, 2014

The ruling is consistent with the same legal thought that ruled that Canadian printer Scott Brockie needed to be punished for declining to do business with homos in Ontario.

see: Printer fined for declining homo business

and: Don't even think about declining to service homos

see: Can Your Business Legally Refuse to Serve Homos? for additional info.

Vance Stubbs · April 7th, 2014

"Protected Class" and "Unprotected Class" are excellent terms. We're the Unprotected Class. The United States government does not protect us from violence, theft, "discrimination", or anything else. White heterosexual men cannot be allowed to mince words here.

Kusko J · April 8th, 2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest

"B-But we gotta put a Republican in the White House to keep them goldurn libruls off the Supreme Court!"

The Lincoln log cabin fagpublicans (http://logcabin.org) pull all the strings on that one. Here's the leader.

Mark Weisser · April 8th, 2014

Ass pirates awarded compensation after being refused the opportunity to bugger each others guts out under Christian hotelier's roof:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ersecuted.html

April 7th, 2014	#2
N.B. Forrest Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia, CSA Posts: 11,145	"B-But we gotta put a Republican in the White House to keep them goldurn libruls off the Supreme Court!" __________________ *"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath* *"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin*

April 7th, 2014	#3
8Man "moderate" radical Join Date: May 2004 Location: 33 Thomas St NY 10007 Posts: 3,431	The ruling is consistent with the same legal thought that ruled that Canadian printer Scott Brockie needed to be punished for declining to do business with homos in Ontario. see: Printer fined for declining homo business and: Don't even think about declining to service homos see: Can Your Business Legally Refuse to Serve Homos? for additional info. __________________ "Israel's values are Canada's values" Canadian PM Paul Martin, Nov. 13 2005 "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada" Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 16 2010

April 7th, 2014	#4
Vance Stubbs Hatespeaker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,281	"Protected Class" and "Unprotected Class" are excellent terms. We're the Unprotected Class. The United States government does not protect us from violence, theft, "discrimination", or anything else. White heterosexual men cannot be allowed to mince words here. __________________ "Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like."

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

April 7th, 2014	#1
*Alex Linder* Administrator Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 45,756 Blog Entries: 34	#1 Forced to Serve Queers Thread US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude William Norman Grigg A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before that state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” (the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage). The couple had no difficulty finding another photographer willing to accept payment for that service, and thanks to their punitive impulses – and the totalitarian “public accommodations” law in that state – they were able to use money extracted from Huguenin in the form of fines in order to pay for their photographs. In declining the couple’s business, Elane Huguenin did not injure or defraud anybody. The same is true of Antonio Darden, a gay hairdresser from Santa Fe who earned nation-wide publicity a couple of years ago when he announced that he would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage. Both Huguenin and Darden sought to exercise their property rights by declining proposed business transactions. Only Darden was permitted to do so, because he – unlike Huguenin – belongs to a “specially protected” class. In its ruling upholding the actions of New Mexico’s “human rights” soviet, the State Supreme Court claimed that the lesbian couple had a right “to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation.” This assumes that business owners like Huguenin have a duty to provide such services – and no right to decline participation in that transaction. In other words, involuntary servitude – despite being explicitly banned by the 13th Amendment – is justified in the service of “anti-discrimination” policy. Attorneys on behalf of Huguenin appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court, contending that it violated the free speech and religious liberty “guarantees” of the First Amendment – which it manifestly did. Huguenin’s legal counsel could have argued that the state’s Human Rights Act — which was amended in 2003 to include “sexual orientation” within the protected categories — represents a wholesale violation of property rights. This argument would only find traction, unfortunately, in a society where property rights are properly understood. Huguenin’s counsel could have pointed out that the preferential treatment of property owners such as Mr. Darden – who is allowed to discriminate against some customers on ideological grounds – violates the principle of equal protection under the law. But such preferential treatment is the entire point of “civil rights” enactments. The US Supreme Court has declined Hugeunin’s appeal, tacitly ratifying the state supreme court’s endorsement of involuntary servitude in the name of “tolerance.”

April 8th, 2014	#6
Mark Weisser Junior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 41	Ass pirates awarded compensation after being refused the opportunity to bugger each others guts out under Christian hotelier's roof: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ersecuted.html