NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[WorldWatcher]

There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

1. The posting in #48 which the posting of the law was in answer to was religious organizations, a for profit photography business is not a "religious organization" form under Chapter 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.


2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.


3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​

New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions



>>>>

Are all businesses "public accomodations"? To me this is desgined to prevent places like hotels, resturants, transportation, etc from discriminating.

Basically, yes. Under New Mexico law if you provided services to the public on a commercial basis you fell under the "Public Accommodation" law.

(Not saying I agree with the law - personally I think a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they want whether it be based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, parental status, or if you decide you want to dress like a pirate and say 'Aarrrgggg matey!" with certain exception in the even of life threatening medical emergencies. "Public Accommodations" should only apply to government entities and restrictions on the government in doing business with businesses that discriminate - other that that private business should be on their own.

Why would you even want a person who doesnt believe in same sex marriage photographing your wedding?

I wouldn't but what does that have to do with anything?

Human Rights commissions are fucking stupid. Either make it illegal via regular due process or leave it alone.

It was illegal under New Mexico Law.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

A distinction without a difference. The 'defendants' were ordered to pay the 'plaintiffs' $6,600. Not sued???? A rose by any other name...

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

 

[manifold]

2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

A distinction without a difference. The 'defendants' were ordered to pay the 'plaintiffs' $6,600. Not sued???? A rose by any other name...

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

 

[martybegan]

1. The posting in #48 which the posting of the law was in answer to was religious organizations, a for profit photography business is not a "religious organization" form under Chapter 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.


2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.


3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​

New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions



>>>>

Are all businesses "public accomodations"? To me this is desgined to prevent places like hotels, resturants, transportation, etc from discriminating.

Basically, yes. Under New Mexico law if you provided services to the public on a commercial basis you fell under the "Public Accommodation" law.

(Not saying I agree with the law - personally I think a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they want whether it be based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, parental status, or if you decide you want to dress like a pirate and say 'Aarrrgggg matey!" with certain exception in the even of life threatening medical emergencies. "Public Accommodations" should only apply to government entities and restrictions on the government in doing business with businesses that discriminate - other that that private business should be on their own.

Why would you even want a person who doesnt believe in same sex marriage photographing your wedding?

I wouldn't but what does that have to do with anything?

Human Rights commissions are fucking stupid. Either make it illegal via regular due process or leave it alone.

It was illegal under New Mexico Law.



>>>>

good points. Hopefully someone takes up thier case on appeal and goes after the whole commission concept on a constitutional basis.

 

[Samson]

Actually, I believe the places you are referring to are Fire Island in NY, and Provincetown in MA.

Besides.......Hedonism II and Martha's Vineyard are both heterosexual places. I've been to one.

I confess to not being very ashamed about my ignorance of Where Queers Gravitate.

My point is, if Harry Chested and Brucey Lovelace want to play house a bugger themselves into oblivion, then why not begin their own goddamn church, where all queers could get married?

I was taken up to Provincetown by a girlfriend I had in RI. Nice place actually........good food, good people, and lemmie tell ya........wanna know what it feels like to be publicly gay? Go to Provincetown with a girlfriend or wife, and walk down the street holding hands. It's pretty much the same reaction that straights have when they see a gay couple walking down the street.

As far as needing to start their own church? Well........again..........there are solutions for that from churches ALREADY FORMED IN THE US!

Some of 'em even have gay preachers.

I'd be surprised to hear it was not so.

So why don't Queers get married there?

BTW: I actually did have a experience being a heterosexual couple among Queers.

Delilah and I were staying in a B&B in Napa Valley. We arrived at breakfast and were soon surrounded by dikes and faggots, but I cut through the uncomfortable atmosphere by chuckling while I passed a bowl and inquiring, "Would anyone like a little FRUIT!!"

 

[bodecea]

A distinction without a difference. The 'defendants' were ordered to pay the 'plaintiffs' $6,600. Not sued???? A rose by any other name...

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

The same applies with discriminating against any minority or women....just be a good liar....right?

 

[boedicca]

My thoughts on this:

Civil unions are a legal construct; any two people should be able to form one (and no this is not advocacy for polygamy and people having relationships with animals). Contractually combining assets and liabilities, and having standing regarding in critical care situations should be legally recognized.

Marriage is a private matter, and the government should stay out of it, which also includes not using the tax code to socially engineer, reward, or punish relationships (if marriage is so important, why do we continue to have a marriage penalty).

The argument against polygamy will get much weaker if same sex unions/marriage become widespread law. I am not going into the fearmongering of animal/underage/toaster type relationships becoming legal due to same sex marriage, as those are lacking the one component needed, consent.

But in the near future I do see polygamous people trying to jump on the bandwagon to get thier relationships certifed by the state. They contain the one needed component the others have: consent.

As most polygamous relationships involve one man with many sister-wives, the fact that we already allow legal unions of a man and a woman provides polygamy advocates ammunition.

 

[manifold]

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

The same applies with discriminating against any minority or women....just be a good liar....right?

 

[Samson]

My thoughts on this:

Civil unions are a legal construct; any two people should be able to form one (and no this is not advocacy for polygamy and people having relationships with animals). Contractually combining assets and liabilities, and having standing regarding in critical care situations should be legally recognized.

Marriage is a private matter, and the government should stay out of it, which also includes not using the tax code to socially engineer, reward, or punish relationships (if marriage is so important, why do we continue to have a marriage penalty).

The argument against polygamy will get much weaker if same sex unions/marriage become widespread law. I am not going into the fearmongering of animal/underage/toaster type relationships becoming legal due to same sex marriage, as those are lacking the one component needed, consent.

But in the near future I do see polygamous people trying to jump on the bandwagon to get thier relationships certifed by the state. They contain the one needed component the others have: consent.

As most polygamous relationships involve one man with many sister-wives, the fact that we already allow legal unions of a man and a woman provides polygamy advocates ammunition.

Anyone wishing to practice polygamy should be required to have One Bullet.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A distinction without a difference. The 'defendants' were ordered to pay the 'plaintiffs' $6,600. Not sued???? A rose by any other name...

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right.

I haven't been discussing "right" and "wrong", I simply pointed out what the law says.

And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Maybe - shrug - that's a matter of personal opinion.

However the same law would have applied if the photographer refused to photograph a wedding for a black couple.

The same law would have applied if the photographer refused to photograph a wedding for a old couple.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Under New Mexico law its fine to discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap - as long as you lie about it.



>>>>

 

[manifold]

Under New Mexico law its fine to discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap - as long as you lie about it.

Technically that's not true. Just because you can get away with it by being dishonest does not make it legal.

 

[Intense]

No.




It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​

Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.

The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>

It may be worked out for now, but it wasn't when the Thread was started. Again, a Judge can arbitrarily change everything. You were not following the arguments . If you were, you would know that Clergy refusing to perform the Ceremony were being compared to Doctors whom might be against performing Abortion procedures themselves, or Pharmacists who refuse to dispense Birth Control, themselves, on grounds of Conscience. There is a serious matter involved here that you want to gloss over. From my perspective, it is like one shoe dropping, then the other. Nothing is at it seems.

 

[Intense]

The fight over the proposed law isn't about whether Churches or other religious organizations will be forced to perform Civil Marriage ceremonies for two reasons: (1) the law specifically provides and exception, and (2) it would violate the First Amendment.


As far as I know there has never been a law or court case that requires a Church to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages where one (or both) of the spouses has been divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church, and (since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been around for a number of years) for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.



>>>>

There was the story of the photographer who, due to religious opposition, turned down business from a lesbian couple that tried to hire her to photograph their wedding. The lesbian couple sued and won.

1. The posting in #48 which the posting of the law was in answer to was religious organizations, a for profit photography business is not a "religious organization" form under Chapter 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.


2. The photographer was not "sued" a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.


3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​

New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions



>>>>

3. The law in New Mexico (28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice) States:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; "​

New Mexico Compilation Commission - Search Statutes, Rules and Decisions

That sort of makes everyone the property of the State now doesn't it. A commodity.

There are issues between each individual and their Maker, the State has no jurisdiction over, matters of Conscience are among them. There are things you cannot force me to do. You may subscribe to "Brave New World" or "Future Shock", I do not. Neither do I worship Government. My own Person is my concern, not yours.

I personally try not to discriminate in any form, I subscribe to "Live and let live", some here seem to want a society, where one needs to raise their hand to get permission to pee. Good luck with that. Just don't impose your stupidity on me, nor the unsuspecting. Have a nice day.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are issues between each individual and their Maker, the State has no jurisdiction over, matters of Conscience are among them. There are things you cannot force me to do. You may subscribe to "Brave New World" or "Future Shock", I do not. Neither do I worship Government. My own Person is my concern, not yours.

I personally try not to discriminate in any form, I subscribe to "Live and let live", some here seem to want a society, where one needs to raise their hand to get permission to pee. Good luck with that. Just don't impose your stupidity on me, nor the unsuspecting. Have a nice day.

Please read my opinions regarding Public Accommodation laws in Post #81.

Just wondering, do "matters of Conscience" only pertain to homosexuals or can someone claim a "matter of Conscience" based on age, race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, martial status, veterans status, or gender?



>>>>

 

[Polk]

My thoughts on this:

Civil unions are a legal construct; any two people should be able to form one (and no this is not advocacy for polygamy and people having relationships with animals). Contractually combining assets and liabilities, and having standing regarding in critical care situations should be legally recognized.

Marriage is a private matter, and the government should stay out of it, which also includes not using the tax code to socially engineer, reward, or punish relationships (if marriage is so important, why do we continue to have a marriage penalty).

Agree on the first part (but if we go that route, everyone should have civil unions), but the notion that there is a "marriage penalty" is absurd.

 

[Polk]

Isn't the current fight now over the exemptions for religous organizations?

No.

Basically allowing churches/synogouges/mosques/temples to deny performing the ceremony, or recognizing the civil marriage as valid? It probably includes exemptions for religously affiliated organziations such as Knights of Columbus.

It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​

Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.

It's a stupid provision. Why should religious bodies have special rights?

 

[Intense]

There are issues between each individual and their Maker, the State has no jurisdiction over, matters of Conscience are among them. There are things you cannot force me to do. You may subscribe to "Brave New World" or "Future Shock", I do not. Neither do I worship Government. My own Person is my concern, not yours.

I personally try not to discriminate in any form, I subscribe to "Live and let live", some here seem to want a society, where one needs to raise their hand to get permission to pee. Good luck with that. Just don't impose your stupidity on me, nor the unsuspecting. Have a nice day.

Please read my opinions regarding Public Accommodation laws in Post #81.

Just wondering, do "matters of Conscience" only pertain to homosexuals or can someone claim a "matter of Conscience" based on age, race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, martial status, veterans status, or gender?



>>>>

Like I implied, matters of Conscience are between Each of us and our Maker. You are projecting outside of yourself trying to snare others for not bending to your will. Look inside of yourself, when you need to address Conscience, or are you waiting for the State to give you permission?

We are Each, Human Beings first, respect that, rather than try to blindly collar and leash. The same choice that you take from others will be taken from you. Every choice bears consequence, both good and bad, and each to it's own degree. My perspective is to give each, as much time and space to figure out the do's and dont's, as needed, when possible. Consequence, cause and effect, follow their own nature, not necessarily yours or mine. Centralized Control is an abomination, in comparison. We each carry burdens WW. We each have baggage and shit to work through. I have no expectation of you or anyone else. Lead by example. Vision, Invention, Discovery, are born or gifted through the Individual, not the collective, though the Society does indeed benefit.

 

[boedicca]

My thoughts on this:

Civil unions are a legal construct; any two people should be able to form one (and no this is not advocacy for polygamy and people having relationships with animals). Contractually combining assets and liabilities, and having standing regarding in critical care situations should be legally recognized.

Marriage is a private matter, and the government should stay out of it, which also includes not using the tax code to socially engineer, reward, or punish relationships (if marriage is so important, why do we continue to have a marriage penalty).

Agree on the first part (but if we go that route, everyone should have civil unions), but the notion that there is a "marriage penalty" is absurd.

Then you don't know much about how taxes are calculated.

 

[bodecea]

A distinction without a difference. The 'defendants' were ordered to pay the 'plaintiffs' $6,600. Not sued???? A rose by any other name...

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

 

[Intense]

No.




It's already in the law that has been proposed.

S 10-B. APPLICATION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
20 PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO OF THE
21 EXECUTIVE LAW, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS
22 LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER
23 LAW OF THIS STATE OR A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
24 EDUCATION LAW OR THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAWS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
25 IN ITS NATURE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE AND THEREFORE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
26 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES RELATED TO
27 THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.​

Bills


>>>>

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.

It's a stupid provision. Why should religious bodies have special rights?

That's your opinion, and a stumbling block to Gay Marriage Rights. I see nothing ethical in forcing you or anyone to act against your belief. You on the other hand cannot see you imposing your will on others as an imposition. What do you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of the flip??? Do the Rights of a Minority automatically forfeit because you don't get your way??? No. You get over it, pick yourself up and carry on. What goes on in other peoples heads, is beyond your jurisdiction, just like what goes on in your head is beyond mine. Get over it. A Law for Everything and everything for a law is Bullshit, and unenforceable.