<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New &#34;Human Rights&#34;</title>
	<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/115173</link>
	<description>High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 20:17:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Doug Payton</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/115173#comment-296588</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Payton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/115173#comment-296588</guid>
		<description>The Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts to decide who they would offer their services to, mostly for the reason that they were a private organization.  Elane Photography, I assume, is similarly private, not government run or government funded.

You make a fair point, but we're not talking Jim Crow laws or separate-but-equal government schools.  The free market can and should be allowed to deal with businesses that the community  doesn't want or approve of.  The community is free to do that, just as the proprietor is free to choose with whom to enter into a contract.  Unless you believe lesbians are in a position to force people to sign contracts with them.

I have a commentary segment on the &lt;a href="http://podcast.shirenetworknews.net/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Shire Network News&lt;/a&gt; podcast where I'll be covering some other problems with this ruling.  That episode should come out on the 21st.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts to decide who they would offer their services to, mostly for the reason that they were a private organization.  Elane Photography, I assume, is similarly private, not government run or government funded.</p>
<p>You make a fair point, but we&#8217;re not talking Jim Crow laws or separate-but-equal government schools.  The free market can and should be allowed to deal with businesses that the community  doesn&#8217;t want or approve of.  The community is free to do that, just as the proprietor is free to choose with whom to enter into a contract.  Unless you believe lesbians are in a position to force people to sign contracts with them.</p>
<p>I have a commentary segment on the <a href="http://podcast.shirenetworknews.net/" rel="nofollow">Shire Network News</a> podcast where I&#8217;ll be covering some other problems with this ruling.  That episode should come out on the 21st.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simoh Fleischmann</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/115173#comment-296185</link>
		<dc:creator>Simoh Fleischmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/115173#comment-296185</guid>
		<description>First off, I agree that these HTCs are getting out of hand. However, in this case, the complainant does have a point. ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY owners may consider it offensive to bend their "art" to documenting a same sex union, but they are offering their "art" as a "service". Refusing the contract to photograph the same sex ceremony is akin to a commercial mural artist refusing a contract because the clients are Black or Jewish. Whether or not the state of NM recognizes same-sex unions or not is beside the point. The complainants were refused a service because they are "gay" - full stop. I'm sure discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is against NM human rights legislation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, I agree that these HTCs are getting out of hand. However, in this case, the complainant does have a point. ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY owners may consider it offensive to bend their &#8220;art&#8221; to documenting a same sex union, but they are offering their &#8220;art&#8221; as a &#8220;service&#8221;. Refusing the contract to photograph the same sex ceremony is akin to a commercial mural artist refusing a contract because the clients are Black or Jewish. Whether or not the state of NM recognizes same-sex unions or not is beside the point. The complainants were refused a service because they are &#8220;gay&#8221; - full stop. I&#8217;m sure discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is against NM human rights legislation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
