NY State tells Nassau OTB when Easter

Sunday and Palm Sunday occur. Greeks, straight, gay or other can go hell. See NY Const. Art. 1, Sec. 3
NY PML Sec 109 is unconstitutional. I want to sue. Please help.

HI-

Thanks for the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy, if you give me a mailing address.

Claude Solnik

(631) 913-4244

Long Island Business News

2150 Smithtown Ave.

Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348 

Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays

Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012

Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.

Sidebar

Weighing Free Speech in Refusal to Photograph Lesbian Couple’s Ceremony

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: November 18, 2013

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Save
• E-mail
• Share
• Print
• Reprints
• 

WASHINGTON — A New Mexico law forbids businesses open to the public to discriminate against gay people. Elaine Huguenin, a photographer, says she has no problem with that — so long as it does not force her to say something she does not believe.

Enlarge This Image

Bruce Ellefson, Alliance Defending Freedom

Elaine Huguenin turned down a request from a lesbian couple to document their commitment ceremony.

Related

• Alabama Judges Retain the Right to Override Juries in Capital Sentencing (November 19, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.

So she turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography. So far, the studio has lost in the courts.

There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech. I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.

Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices. Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said, and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”

But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.

“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day, it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’ ”

Other supporters of gay rights and same-sex marriage said they would strike a different balance.

“Photographers, writers, singers, actors, painters and others who create First Amendment-protected speech must have the right to decide which commissions to take and which to reject,” the libertarian Cato Institute and two law professors — Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota — told the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Most discussions of conflicts between religious beliefs and laws banning discrimination against gay people center on the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. Ms. Huguenin’s case relies on a different part of the amendment: its protection of free speech.

Ms. Huguenin says the government should not be allowed to compel her to say something she does not believe — that same-sex weddings should be celebrated. For the same reason, she says, she would not want to work on a fictional film about a same-sex marriage even if the actors were straight.

Most courts, to say nothing of serious photographers, agree that photography is expression entitled to First Amendment protection. Ms. Huguenin composes and selects images, arranging them in picture books that tell the stories of memorable days. But there are stories that she does not wish to tell.

Tobias B. Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who represents Ms. Willock and Ms. Collinsworth, said Ms. Huguenin had given up the right to make that choice when she opened the doors of her business to the public.

“This was a straightforward case of discrimination in the public marketplace,” Mr. Wolff said. “No court has ever held that the First Amendment gives businesses a license to sell goods and services to the general public but then reject customers based on race or religion or sexual orientation, in violation of state law.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed, saying Ms. Huguenin’s “services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work.” Laws banning discrimination, the court said, apply to “creative or expressive professions.”

Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Elane Photography, said Ms. Huguenin should be able to decline assignments at odds with her beliefs in a way that, say, motels and hardware stores may not. “There are some professions that are inherently expressive — an ad agency, website designer or even a tattoo artist,” he said.

“A tattoo artist should not be forced to put a swastika on an Aryan Nation guy,” Mr. Lorence said. “The government could not force someone to put a bumper sticker on their car that says, ‘I support same-sex marriage’ or ‘I support interracial marriage.’ ”

The court agreed, to a point. “If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery,” it said, then it could say what it liked, but a business open to the public must take all comers.

Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”