ACLU and Gayinc Sues School over a book that is behind the counter instead of on the shelf.

From ThinkProgress site,

ACLU Sues Utah School For Banning Gay-Inclusive Children’s Book |

The ACLU has filed suit against Utah’s Davis School District for banning the children’s book In Our Mothers’ House in its elementary school libraries. Back in June, a small group of 25 parents petitioned the school that the book, which features a family with two moms, “normalizes a lifestyle we don’t agree with.” The school complied and agreed to keep the book off shelves, storing it instead behind the library counter and only allowing students to check it out with a parent’s written permission. The suit argues that parents can limit what their own children read, but that it’s unconstitutional to let them restrict books for everybody else.

OMFG, really ACLU is letting Gay INC run their offices.

The book is still in the Library at the school the official will let those children who’s parent agree to let them read it, to read.. so what is so unconstitutional about this??? I guess the teachers can get it anytime they like.. who just who rights are being violated by this.. None. But we all know that GayINC is destroying our rights to free speech one case at a time.

Student’s Shirt gets her sent home.

A Louisiana middle school student sent home by the principal for wearing a pro-equality t-shirt is receiving support from the American Civil Liberties Union. 

 

see more at the Advocate

 

I personally don’t think it was the word gay they had a problem, it was FCKH8.COM which was causing the problem.

 

However Gay INC has it’s bloggers and medial outlets pushing this story..

Bitch: Please

A Queens mom says a Long Island Toys "R" Us store sold her a kid-friendly "Go, Diego, Go!" video that turned out to be an X-rated surprise.

Candice Connor's jaw dropped when she and her two young boys sat down to watch the cartoon about the animal-loving Nickelodeon character and saw a nude couple having sex.

Instead of getting "Nickelodeon All-Star Sports Day" featuring Diego, she got a graphic video titled "Bubble Butt Bonanza No. 17."

"I was disgusted," Connor, 31, told the Daily News last night. "As a parent, my job is to make sure my children are safe."

 

Bitch Please,

First off you didn’t notice that the disk didn’t have a printed picture of Dora on it. You didn’t notice The opening credits revealed it was made by Hush Hush Entertainment and warned it was for "adults only."

She hasn’t call Toy r us, but she is search for a lawyer, where no doubt she will claim her two sons are traumatize by see to white folk fucking on screen. I can only guess this Bitch need cash, and she thought lets me get a lawyer before I call the store and complain..

Frist off Bitch if it was truly in inside the DVD Case, and the plastic covering was broken then please tell us how this is Toy-R-Us fault.

Connor said she bought two cartoon DVDs for her sons, Logan, 3, and Nigel, 11, on Friday at the Toys "R" Us in the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream. They watched the first one without incident.

On Saturday morning, Connor told Nigel to play the "Diego" DVD for his little brother

So they watch one Friday night, then the other on Saturday, MMM, so its possible that either she was watching the Porno and forget about it. Or, her oldest was watching it and got caught and lied  where he got the DVD from.

"I want apologies all around," said Connor, who used to work at a different Toys "R" Us store. "It's not about the money."

I will also take a nice big check too why you are at it…

Thank you, you f'ng lesbian cow from hell

a ruling today by the New Mexico courts that upheld a decision by the state's Human Rights Commission which awarded lesbian Vanessa Willcock (insert snarky pun) $6,637.94 because Elane Photography refused to photograph Vanessa's commitment ceremony to Misty Pascottini on religious grounds.

The website for Elane Photography (www.elanephotography.com) is down Elane is not answering her phone either.

I want to personal thanks this cunt,

In this class, this very in your face dyke didn't have a contract, she was searching for a photographer, once she was inform by this Christian photographer that she wouldn't be able to be their photographer, she stewed for a while and got mad because a Christian told her NO, she in turn file this stupid ass lawsuit to make a point. The point was you don't mess with us Dykes, "we will fuck your life up". Another dyke screwing things for everyone, this reminds me of the cartoons series "Dykes to watch out for". Since this one has help to give us a bad name (photographer), I'm just glad it wasn't me, I just might have told her NO as well.

I personally hope those of you, that have public service business in NM, maybe a printer business, I hope one day NOW walks into your business and get to hire you and you turn them down, I hope they will file the some complaint against your business..

That's right this ruling will and I hope it will be used against every damn gay business owner in NM, by our enemies..

NYC man who claims cops sodomized him to sue

(New York City) A tattoo parlor employee who claims he was assaulted and sodomized by New York City police officers has filed papers to sue the city and the police department.

Michael Mineo says he was attacked Oct. 15 in a subway station. Officer Richard Kern was charged with aggravated sexual abuse and assault; fellow Officers Alex Cruz and Andrew Morales were charged with hindering prosecution and official misconduct for allegedly covering up the crime.

All three pleaded not guilty.

Mineo filed a notice of claim in the first step to filing a lawsuit against the city. He seeks $200 million in damages for permanent and severe injuries.

The city’s Law Department is reviewing the papers.

First off even he knows he want get that much, he will be lucky to get about 5 million if lucky after his blodd sucking lawyer gets 40% of what ever he is awarded. 

State: It's Discrimination Photographer Refused to Shoot Gay Ceremony

By Andrew Webb
Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
The state Human Rights Commission ruled this week that an Albuquerque wedding photographer discriminated against her would-be client by refusing to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.
Vanessa Willock filed a civil complaint with the labor department's Human Rights Bureau in 2006, saying Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Albuquerque's Elane Photography, told her in an e-mail that she only photographed "traditional" marriages and would not photograph same-sex ceremonies.
In an order issued Wednesday, a panel of commissioners ruled that Huguenin discriminated against Willock based on sexual orientation and ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock's attorney's fees of $6,637.93.
An attorney for Huguenin promised to appeal in state District Court, contending the commission violated Huguenin's constitutional rights to practice her religion.
Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said Huguenin declined the job because her and her husband's religious beliefs were in conflict with the ceremony's "message."
Willock, in an e-mailed statement issued through her attorney, said she was pleased with the ruling.
"I feel that it is an important decision towards defining the responsibilities of business when they offer their services to the public in this state," she said.
Lorence said the refusal "stemmed from the couple's evangelical Christian and ideological beliefs, and they didn't want to further a ceremony that defines marriage in a different way, just as Elane Photography would not want to photograph a polygamist wedding," he said. "This couple is free to have any ceremony they want, but they don't have the right to force unwilling people to participate in it."
Lorence represents a conservative religious organization that frequently enters court cases involving same-sex marriage, abortion and school prayer.
Until recently, Willock was an equal employment opportunity specialist with the University of New Mexico's Office of Equal Opportunity.
After considering the evidence, including e-mails, the Human Rights Bureau issued a determination of probable cause in June 2007, allowing the case to go before a panel of three of the state's 11 Human Rights Commissioners, all of whom are appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson.
State law prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation.
State law does not, however, recognize a marriage between two members of the same sex.
Francie Cordova, the bureau's labor relations director, said the case fell under public accommodation.
Although employment complaints are more common, she said, several public accommodation complaints are filed annually, typically when people feel they have been illegally denied service by a business.
This case was unique, she said, because Willock only sought a discrimination ruling and attorneys' fees.
"Normally, the complainant also asks for damages," she said.
Typically, a discrimination investigation takes about six months, Cordova said, but this case was delayed while a federal court considered a request from the defendant that it be removed from the commission's hands.
The court remanded the case to the commission early this year, she said, and hearings began in January.
The case drew considerable attention from right-leaning blogs and publications, like the Washington Times and the National Catholic Register.
Some Internet commentators cited the case as erosion of their religious freedom, while others suggested Huguenin could have handled the situation better to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
"Had the photographer ... simply said 'I don't think I would be a good fit for your ceremony,' or even said she had other obligations, that would have been the end of it," New Mexico blogger SJ Reidhead wrote on her blog, thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com, which she describes as Republican, Christian, pro-immigration and pro-Bush.
Julie Sakura, an attorney for Santa Fe-based law firm Lopez & Sakura who represented Willock, said the case should not be considered precedent-setting.
"This is an appropriate application of existing New Mexico law to the facts of this case," she said.

---

I know this is old but it deserves another look.

As an amateur photographer myself, I must said this law-suit was just plain stupid, this damn lesbian could have took her damn ceremony to another photographer. I think she want to make a damn statement.

However, it does bring up an interesting point. What if, a group from the KKK asked her to photograph one of their so-social events and refused, would this same commission find in their favor.

What if I was being interviewed to see if I would be willing to photograph a highly sexual event and I said no, and told them I don't do such work, would that give them the right to sue me. However if I signed a contract without reading what it was that I would be photographing then withdrew, then yes they would be in their rights to sue me for breach of contract.

In this class, this very in your face dyke didn't have a contract, she was searching for a photographer, once she was inform by this Christian photographer that she wouldn't be able to be their photographer, she stewed for a while and got mad because a Christian told her NO, she in turn file this stupid ass lawsuit to make a point. The point was you don't mess with us Dykes, "we will fuck your life up". Another dyke screwing things for everyone, this reminds me of the cartoons series "Dykes to watch out for". Since this one has help to give us a bad name (photographer), I'm just glad it wasn't me, I just might have told her NO as well.

---

read more here
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticizing Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121306.html

Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112706.html

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html

Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal for Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html

U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html

Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html

Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html

Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06073106.html

CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html

Fired HR admin sues over firing

A former University of Toledo administrator who was fired after writing a column for a local publication is suing the university.

Crystal Dixon, former associate vice president for human resources at UT, filed a complaint Monday in U.S. District Court in Toledo alleging violation of her first and fourteenth amendment rights.

The lawsuit lists UT President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs and William Logie, vice president for human resources and campus safety, as the defendants.

The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor is representing Ms. Dixon.

Ms. Dixon was fired from the university in early May after her April 18 guest column in the Toledo Free Press expressed her opinion that gay rights cannot be compared to civil rights because she could not choose to not be a black woman.

The column was in response to one previously written by editor-in-chief Michael Miller which said Ohio lags in gay rights.

When will this crap end? People getting fired for voicing their opinion and their right to free speech because it what they say is ticking off our community. I canonly hope she wins her case agaisnt the University.

Man Who Infected Ex-Wife With HIV Ordered to Pay $12.5 Million

A six-year legal battle may be coming to an end now that a Los Angeles County superior court judge has ordered a man to pay $12.5 million for infecting his former wife with HIV.

The Los Angeles couple, called "Bridget B." and "John B." in court documents, have been sparring in courtrooms for years over who infected whom first. In 2006 the case reached the California supreme court, which decided Bridget's case against John could go forward, and that a person would be held liable for failing to inform a new partner of previous risky sexual behavior.

In Friday's ruling Judge Rolf Treu said John B. acted with fraud and malice by lying about his past risky sexual behavior, and ordered him to pay his former wife $5 million for future loss of earnings and $7.5 million in general damages, according to the Los Angeles Times .

Two months after the couple's October 2000 honeymoon, Bridget B. tested positive for HIV and was guilt-ridden, believing she may have exposed her husband to the disease. But two years later Bridget B. discovered John. B. had visited sexually explicit gay websites and found e-mails showing he had unprotected sex with men he met online. In her testimony Bridget B. claimed John B. admitted to her he had sex with two men prior to their marriage.

John B. represented himself in the trial and argued that Bridget B. infected him first. (Neal Broverman, The Advocate)

What if he didn't know he was postive, these judge and juries in CA just love to make new law, I wonder how many lawsuit eill now be file against ex-lovers now. Just goes to show how f-up CA really is, no wonder the citizens of CA took Gay marraige back (away)

233,000 Americans May Unknowingly Have HIV

I guess that 233,000 lawsuits waiting to happen thanks to CA.....

Mc Donalds sue again

McDonald's sued over nude photos

McDonald's has so far refused to comment on the case

A US couple is suing McDonald's for $3m (£2m) after nude photos of the woman, which were on her husband's mobile phone, ended up on the internet.

Phillip Sherman says he accidentally left his phone, with the photos, at a McDonald's in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
He says staff promised to secure the phone until he could retrieve it.
The Shermans claim they had to move to a new home after the womans's name, address, and phone number appeared online along with the photos.
Tina Sherman says she began receiving offensive calls and text messages about the pictures from her husband's mobile phone after he left it at the McDonald's on 5 July.
The couple then discovered that the nude pictures she had sent to her husband's phone had been posted online.
The Shermans are suing McDonald's Corporation, the owner of the franchise involved and the restaurant's manager, saying they have suffered emotional distress, embarrassment and damage to their reputations.
They also allege loss of earnings and want to recover the cost of moving to a new home.
McDonald's Corp, the franchise owner and the manager have so far refused to comment on the case.
The nude pictures have been removed from the website that had posted them.

You watch and see that 12 people will give her millions for her own dumb ass mistake. She send took them and send to her husband cell phone. Then he let the phone and someone at Mc Donalds finds the phone. I personally would love to see how she is going to prove that an employee of Mc Donalds actually posted the pic on line.

Persoally I'm getting sick of these dumbasses sueing companies for thier stupidity. When will this crap ends. However you know that Mc Donalds will settle out of court. If I owned the store where this happen I would fight this all the way.

SNT: E-harmony lawsuit settlement,

Dating site eHarmony to allow gay matchmaking in settlement deal: "The California-based company will begin providing same-sex matches under as part of a settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division. Garden State resident Eric McKinley filed a complaint against the online matchmaker in 2005. Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples. Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit any liability. In addition, eHarmony will pay the division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will pay McKinley $5,000 and give him a free one-year membership to its new service."

Why do we do this? Why do we force these companies that we know are own by the religious right to cater to us. Why? We bitch and complain when they try to force their beliefs on us, and in turn we do the same, by suing them and to force to accept us.This is counter productive isn't it. What would happen if one of our gay gyms were sue by them. What if they sue us to force us to cater to them?

So when will our lesbian sister sue Manhunt to be included on their site.. Better yet when will str8 men sue manhunt for their rights to find a female for a quickie. 

SNT: From the North Lesbians sue over apartment rejection

Spurned gay renters file human rights complaint

Updated: Fri Oct. 31 2008 14:41:22

The Canadian Press

A lesbian couple, who say they were turned down for trying to rent a basement suite because they're gay, have filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights tribunal.

In sworn affidavits, Kathleen Webb and Liana LeBlanc say they were shown the suite and told by owners Brenda and Marc Rovner that they were the first choice for tenants.

The documents say that when LeBlanc called back to arrange a damage deposit Brenda Rovner asked about the women's relationship and LeBlanc told her they were gay.

The women claim Rovner then asked if they would be comfortable living in a home with Christian beliefs and that she didn't want to rent to two people.

LeBlanc and Webb want the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to decide if they were discriminated against because they're in a lesbian relationship.

The Rovners asked the tribunal to dismiss the complaint, but tribunal member Barbara Humphreys ruled it should be heard because the affidavits are contradictory and if the couple is successful the decision could further the purpose of the Human Rights Code.

Another couple suing a religious bigot who refuses to rent them an apartment. All then have to do was lie, and say they were friends but no they had to make it a point to tell her about their relationship. However, if this is apartment complex that is owned by a business then yes it is wrong. On the other hand if the complex is privately own, then I believe the owner has to right to rent to whoever they want. Even here in the US if they don't want rent to you they can claim anything, too many jobs, bad credit, criminal background, don't make enough, yet I don't see anyone suing owner or companies over these items.

No we have to make it a point to tell everyone that we couldn't get the place because we are GAY, or LESBAINS. Then many of you wonder why they don't like us much.

Lambda Sues City over Sex Stings

Lambda Legal has filed a federal lawsuit against Johnson City, Tennessee, and its police chief for conduct following mass arrests of men in a public sex sting operation in October 2007. Lambda called the practice of releasing photos of 40 alleged perpetrators, including its client Kenneth Giles, to the press "highly unusual" compared to the department's customary practices.

Staff attorney Greg Nevins said in a release, "In America, the police do not get to add an extra punishment to people they don't like," adding that the department "went out of its way to humiliate Mr. Giles and caused irreparable damage."

Local news media ran the pictures of the suspects, along with their names and addresses. Lambda reviewed 600 press releases by the department over a one-year period and found "none pertaining to arrests were accompanied by photos or personally approved by the chief."

One of the men arrested in the sting killed himself, and several others lost their jobs, including Giles, who worked at a Veterans Administration hospital.

I'm sorry to hear that one guy kill himself after his arrest; however is the police really to blame. Maybe they are guilty of running these arrests into the ground, with all the news press and photos; however it doesn't erase what was going on in the parks. It's true that the cops don't arrest str8 for have sex in the parks, most of the time the str8 are having sex in their cars not in the woods or on or near the paths. 


Just maybe if it wasn't for the fact that some of these didn't leave the used condoms just lying around on the ground in these parks then no one would know what has been going on in the woods. However since these assholes leave the condoms and other items that proves that they were having sex in the park. So boys when you are playing in the park, stop leaving your toys behind…

To Lambda, you are wasting your time and money on this case.

SNT: I just don't get

A legal fight erupted Tuesday over the ability of consumers to copy DVDs onto their computers, setting the stage for a new battle between Hollywood and a purveyor of technology that could alter how consumers watch movies at home.

The six major Hollywood movie studios sued Seattle-based Real Networks, asking a federal court in Los Angeles to bar the digital media company from distributing new software that they say lets consumers copy movies illegally.

If this is a major problem for Hollywood, then why are they including a digital copy of the movies on DVDs now. I have five movies that have digital copies that I can download on my laptop and if I wanted I could share them over the net.

Did Hollywood raise the same complaints when VHS video recorder came out..

SNT: California Insemination

<a href="http://www.365gay.com/" target="_blank">California Insemination (365)</a>

California Insemination (365)

I think she knew before hand that she wouldn't beable to get the Insemination done. I think she did it as PR stunt and a way to get some free cash in the process. Since she was able to get it them at another clinic.

We need to stop crying discrimination at every chance we get.

SNT: Straight model sues gay magazine Genre over 'vulgar' photo

Links to story one, two

The hunky model with eight-pack abs is suing a gay men's magazine and a Manhattan fashion photographer for bringing him unwanted male attention by publishing a "cruel and vulgar" picture of him nearly in the buff.

The sizzling snapshot listed his first name, where he lives and provided viewers an online avenue to reach Massing - subjecting him, the lawsuit says, to advances from strangers who "solicit him for homosexual sex."

The invasion of privacy suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, says Massing wanted the pictures for his portfolio - and never expected Day to peddle them to a magazine that made him look "lustful and sexually promiscuous."

I love this quote from Kenneth (212);

Maybe if "straight" model Benjamin Massing didn't go around yanking on his skimpy undies with those bedroom eyes then the "gays" wouldn't be so inclined to make him seem so "lustful and sexually promiscuous." Read the full story HERE. (Bottom line: did he sign a release or not?) And believe me, this is real. I once had a douche bag of a model demand that a photographer who had given me pics he had taken of him get me to take them down. You know what a stigma homosexuality is in the fashion industry ...

Its funny that you don't hear gay models complainting when they have to photo shoot with women, ruining thier careers, so you. I think this is just a PR stunt, also if he signed a release without reading the fine print then its his fault. However I personally don't think those photos harmed his career, I wonder how many job he got after those photos were published...

here is something to read about contracts

What should a Model Release form include and what should beemphasized in it, in order to defend the model's rights?

Models, especially when they are just starting out, often feel intimidated. They fear that if they question the slightest thing in a model release, they will not get the job, more work, or be branded as being trouble. The problem is, if a model simply signs whatever she is given to sign, it will almost certainly favor the photographer and the client and take away almost every right a model may have to prevent the photos of her from being misused.

While it is true that a photographer needs some leeway, if you give an unscrupulous photographer the right to do anything he or she may conceive of doing with their photos of you, they may just use them in a very offensive way, and there is little a model can do to know what is in the mind or heart of a photographer he or she has just met.

Models who are just starting out rarely have confidence in any clout they may have. However, if the client or the photographer has selected you from all the other models they could have chosen, you may have more clout than you realize. And if you are willing to sign away every right you have in your images, you are in the wrong business to begin with.

People will tell you that only as you become more in demand that you can demand your fees for only certain uses of your images and allow their use for a limited amount of time. But it is at the very start of your career that you are most vulnerable to having your images being misused and if they are misused, you may find your career ending before it’s begun. Be prepared to see this type of term in a model release, and to either run from the building, have it altered, or accept the consequences that may result from agreeing to: “I hereby release, discharge and save harmless the photographer or any other person distributing the finished product, even if the finished product is distorted, blurred, altered or used in such a way, intentionally or otherwise, or used in any manner such as to subject me to scandal, scorn, indignity or ridicule and waive any right to approve any use of the finished photograph or its use.”

On the other hand, a photographer must be allowed to enlarge a negative, manipulate the photograph, convert it to digital form, use Photoshop or other software to enhance the quality of the photograph. While it is difficult to obtain the right to approve the uses of the photographs taken of you, you can limit the uses by excluding those uses that would be harmful to your career or reputation. If you want to prevent a photographer from using the photographs in such a manner, seek a provision that in the event of intentional humiliation of you in the use of the photos by the photographer, the release will be void. Some models who are unsuccessful obtaining such provisions will at least write restrictions in the margins of releases such as, “Photos may not be used on sexually explicit web sites or pornographic materials.” Be wary of allowing any use in the release and then limiting those uses only in a separate waiver of copyright. Conflicting provisions are a nightmare for the courts to weigh.

WTF: Photographer Fined for Refusing to Shoot Commitment Ceremony

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in favor of Vanessa Willock, who in 2006 filed suit against photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph her commitment ceremony because of her personal religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

This person said it best:

This is wrong!! Where did we get the idea that we can force people to work for us even if they find what we are forcing someone to do objectionable? What's next? Will it be forcing a clergyperson to perform our domestic/marriage unions? This is a private business, not a government tax payers service. This is the wrong path and I really hope that the judgment in this case gets overturned. Wrong-headed is wrong-headed.

Ron, Bryan, Texas

I can only guess Vanessa Willock is not more than a sorry ass dyke who at the time of her sorry ass commitment ceremony needed more money. This is why many straights hate us. The dumb ass judge should have never allowed this to go to trial.



These dyke is need a life…



Some info on this bitch

Vanessa Willock
has been with UNM since 1997 and is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. Ms. Willock earned a Bachelors of Business Administration from UNM in 1989 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado in 1994. She was previously an attorney with an Albuquerque law firm specializing in insurance defense matters and is a certified mediator.

From the site of box turtle bulletin:

The Decision and Final Order of the Human Rights Commission lays out the facts leading to the determination.

Vanessa Willock sent to Elane Photography the following e-mail on September 21, 2006, a year in advance of her ceremony.

We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.

This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information.

Thanks

Elaine Huguenin responded

Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer's portfolios.
-Elaine-

Willock wrote again

Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I'm a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
Vanessa

Huguenin in conclusion

Hello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine

In November 2006 Willock's partner, Misty Collinsworth, contacted Huguenin and - without mentioning the sex of the partners - inquired about services. Huguenin responded enthusiastically and sought to follow up.

On December 20, 2006, Willock filed a charge of discrimination against Elane Photography.

The decision included two questions: did discrimination occur based on sexual orientation, and was Elane Photography a public accommodation. The commission found the answer to both questions to be in the affirmative.

Elane's attorneys argued that Ms. Huguenin's religious convictions provided exclusion to the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The commission found that questions of the constitutionality of the NMHRA was "not before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for determination in this proceeding and, accordingly, are not addressed here.

Then there is this:

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt."A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. . . . We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

WE are tired that the others try to force us to comply with their ways, and here we are doing the fucking same. I can only hope that Willock and her bitch break up very soon..

SNT: ex-judge who sued a dry-cleaner back in the news

This piece comes from The Consumerist Blog.

I must say that I thought this stupid case was done and over. What is this ex-judge problem with this dry cleaner.

Roy "Fancypants" Pearson, the ex-judge who sued a dry-cleaner for $54 million over a misplaced pair of pants, that the cleaner even offered to replace, is continuing to press his case. He lost his original suit, he lost his job, now a court has agreed to hear his appeal. This man gets the award for worst...consumer...ever

I can only guess that Roy Pearson is some kind of ass, and that he is living up too that "N" racist slur word. I guess he wants a free ride or something. Please anyone who is anyone at sometime in their life has lost a piece of clothing at the Dry Cleaners or had the piece temporary lost by them. 

you can read more by click here and here or just do a internet search on him or lost pant lawsuit.

SNT: There something very wrong with this Story.

(Dyersville, Iowa) An Iowa gay man says he was fired by a McDonald’s franchise in Dyersville after it was learned he was HIV-positive.

Daniel Carver, 46, has filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and has served notice to the franchise that he intends to sue for wrongful dismissal.

Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of physical disability, which includes HIV. Under Iowa state law it is illegal to discriminate against an employee because of race, religion, perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Carver worked for the franchise for about four months, but was fired in February.
He alleges in the filing with the commission that after management learned he was HIV-positive, he was denied promotion, had his hours reduced and was subjected to derogatory remarks, violence and death threats.

The filing claims that Carver on one occasion was punched in the stomach by a manager and in another instance was slapped in the face by an employee who called him homophobic names.

“In November 2007, I was threatened by other employees because of my HIV status and my sexual orientation, that I ‘better watch my back or I might get shot,”‘ Carver said in his claim to the commission.

When contacted by The Associated Press, Carver said his lawyer advised him not to discuss the case.

Neither the McDonald’s Corp. nor Glenn and Lois Karpinske, owners of the Dyersville McDonald’s, have commented on the case.

---

Ok, first off if he was punch by the manager why didn't he filed charges against the manager, also why would he stay there to work. Why didn't he just quit on the spot file charges for assualt and then file his complaint?

Why would anyone gay or str8 stay and work in a place where  you are receiving death threats? Please losing a job at Micky D's isn't a big lost.

I personally feel that this jerk stay and put up with the Manager and crew long enough to get to this point. a big payday...

SNT: Dyke Linda sues eHarmony

Linda Carlson was looking for a partner and decided to try eHarmony, the Pasadena-based online dating service that advertises its ability to "deliver matches that have the foundation of compatibility based on a lifetime of joy.'' When the San Mateo County woman tried to log in, she was given two options: "man seeking a woman'' or "woman seeking a man.''

Neither suited Carlson, who was seeking another woman. Her complaint to the company this February got nowhere, and on Thursday, she filed suit in Los Angeles accusing eHarmony of violating a California law that prohibits businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Ok First off eHarmony is a Christian ran business, as a religious business we should know ahead of time that may not support the Gay Community.

So some lane ass lesbian bitch and whine about not being able to find a fellow lesbian online. I'm sure there is more than one match making website. Why didn't she try them, better yet she could have just post a damn Craigslist ad for free. But if she did that then she couldn't sue a company for not serving her damn ass.

Here is another site that you might like to read.

I couldn't find a pic of that dumb ass Linda, but how on the pic you can clearly see the two options that you have when choosing eHarmony. So she knew before hand that she wouldn't find other dykes on the site. However I'm sure 12 stupid ass citizens of San Francisco will find for her ass and award a nice large sum. I can only hope that eHarmony fight it all the way.

SNT: Lesbians Sue

A Swedish lesbian couple is seeking 50,000 kronor ($7,700) in compensation from the Västerbotten County Council. The ombudsman against discrimination due to sexual orientation (HomO), arguing for the couple, says that in order to receive county-financed assisted insemination, a couple must be diagnosed with a medical problem. A lesbian couple's inability to have children by themselves "is naturally no less involuntary than that which is caused by a disease," and it is unfair that they are forced to pay for a medical investigation when the answer is pre-determined. (Thanks, PageOneQ.)

Now these damn lesbians claim that the inability to have children is Involuntary than that which is caused by a disease. These ladies want the county to flip the bill for getting one of them knocked up. Please bitches just get a guy to fuck you once in a while. It's not like you never had a dick inside of you, well maybe a real one that is. Why can't these two lesbian pay for it themselves. Then you wonder why we face so much discrimination from many groups. I wonder if this group would sue on behalf of a male couple if they want a child. I be the answer would be no.