New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[Geaux4it]

-Geaux


New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony

Today the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies, even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledged that providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the first major cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now go to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[eagle1462010]

Maybe it's time to test Mark Levin's point on the Amendment process to the Constitution.

Amendment................

We the People of the United States do hereby define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Women. No other forms of Marriage are recognized by Federal Law from the day of passage of this Amendment.

 

[eagle1462010]

If Prop 8 could be passed in California, a Very Liberal Minded State, then such an Amendment could be passed by 38 States.

Want to here the Libs Squeal? That would do it.

It would be poetic Justice.

LOL

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

 

[hjmick]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

There's that...

I was living in New Mexico when the court upheld the fine, I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever, I just don't think a person of faith should be forced to seemingly endorse an activity that goes against their beliefs ( and I am damn near an Atheist).

The one caveat I would throw out is this: they should at least be polite about it, and it sounds as though Elane was just that, polite in refusing the gig.

Now, why a business would want to open themselves up to a potentially damaging situation is beyond me, but you can never tell what some folks will do.

I see a future of "we're booked that weekend" for a lot of businesses...

Does anyone see a day when a church is sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage ceremony...?

 

[dilloduck]

What ever happened to the old - "I have to wash my hair that day". I guess people are tired of having to lie which is also against their religion.

 

[hjmick]

What ever happened to the old - "I have to wash my hair that day". I guess people are tired of having to lie which is also against their religion.

But which is the greater sin?


Don't you think GOD would understand?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

There's that...

I was living in New Mexico when the court upheld the fine, I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever, I just don't think a person of faith should be forced to seemingly endorse an activity that goes against their beliefs ( and I am damn near an Atheist).

The one caveat I would throw out is this: they should at least be polite about it, and it sounds as though Elane was just that, polite in refusing the gig.

Now, why a business would want to open themselves up to a potentially damaging situation is beyond me, but you can never tell what some folks will do.

I see a future of "we're booked that weekend" for a lot of businesses...

Does anyone see a day when a church is sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage ceremony...?

I'm indifferent as to whether they're forced to or not. Because as soon as I found out they were against me I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyways.

I'd feel the same if I were a black person who was refused for my skin color.

 

[dilloduck]

What ever happened to the old - "I have to wash my hair that day". I guess people are tired of having to lie which is also against their religion.

But which is the greater sin?


Don't you think GOD would understand?

Hang on---I think I still have my scales around here somewhere.

 

[Katzndogz]

The next photographer will not provide services for any type of committment or marriage ceremony for anyone. Unless you know them, or know someone who knows them. Such services will move underground. Gays will have only those providers who are already gay friendly to choose from.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The New Mexico Supreme Court is appropriately upholding its state’s law:

The Court ruled that her refusal of service unequivocally violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation:

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

Moreover, abiding by the NMHRA’s nondiscrimination protections does not violate Elane Photography’s freedom of speech, because the law does not compel businesses to speak the government’s message or the message of another speaker. If Elane Photography wishes to be a public business, it does not sacrifice its freedom of speech, but it simply must abide by the law:

“If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large. Elane Photography’s choice to offer its services to the public is a business decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech. [...]

Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious and political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Discriminating Anti-Gay Photographer | ThinkProgress

…providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs.

Sincerely held traditional religious beliefs that endorse hate and ignorance? One is compelled to question the validity of a faith that would authorize such animus toward those also created by its god.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

There's that...

I was living in New Mexico when the court upheld the fine, I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever, I just don't think a person of faith should be forced to seemingly endorse an activity that goes against their beliefs ( and I am damn near an Atheist).

The one caveat I would throw out is this: they should at least be polite about it, and it sounds as though Elane was just that, polite in refusing the gig.

Now, why a business would want to open themselves up to a potentially damaging situation is beyond me, but you can never tell what some folks will do.

I see a future of "we're booked that weekend" for a lot of businesses...

Does anyone see a day when a church is sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage ceremony...?

And if the dogma of that faith required adherents to deny service based on race or gender, would you have no problem with that as well?

As for a church being sued, no – neither 14th Amendment nor Commerce Clause jurisprudence apply to churches.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe it's time to test Mark Levin's point on the Amendment process to the Constitution.

Amendment................

We the People of the United States do hereby define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Women. No other forms of Marriage are recognized by Federal Law from the day of passage of this Amendment.

If Prop 8 could be passed in California, a Very Liberal Minded State, then such an Amendment could be passed by 38 States.

Want to here the Libs Squeal? That would do it.

It would be poetic Justice.

LOL

What is it about you and other conservatives that manifest such contempt and disregard for the civil liberties of other Americans?

 

[eagle1462010]

Maybe it's time to test Mark Levin's point on the Amendment process to the Constitution.

Amendment................

We the People of the United States do hereby define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Women. No other forms of Marriage are recognized by Federal Law from the day of passage of this Amendment.

If Prop 8 could be passed in California, a Very Liberal Minded State, then such an Amendment could be passed by 38 States.

Want to here the Libs Squeal? That would do it.

It would be poetic Justice.

LOL

What is it about you and other conservatives that manifest such contempt and disregard for the civil liberties of other Americans?

The Defense of Marriage and stopping the Moral Degrading of our society as a whole. You would of course probably applaud when these same fruit cakes attack the church.

I've got news for you. It wasn't just conservatives in California that passed prop 8.

 

[Geaux4it]

The New Mexico Supreme Court is appropriately upholding its state’s law:

The Court ruled that her refusal of service unequivocally violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation:

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

Moreover, abiding by the NMHRA’s nondiscrimination protections does not violate Elane Photography’s freedom of speech, because the law does not compel businesses to speak the government’s message or the message of another speaker. If Elane Photography wishes to be a public business, it does not sacrifice its freedom of speech, but it simply must abide by the law:

“If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large. Elane Photography’s choice to offer its services to the public is a business decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech. [...]

Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious and political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Discriminating Anti-Gay Photographer | ThinkProgress

…providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs.

Sincerely held traditional religious beliefs that endorse hate and ignorance? One is compelled to question the validity of a faith that would authorize such animus toward those also created by its god.

God treated those who chose vile, despicable lifestyles with heavy hand

stand by to stand by

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

Can we keep in mind, during the scope of this discussion, that this is a case of Public Accommodation laws being applied and have nothing to do with marriage equality.

I do wish you all would hurry and repeal those Public Accommodation laws. I want to stop serving Christians in my establishment.

 

[FA_Q2]

The New Mexico Supreme Court is appropriately upholding its state’s law:

The Court ruled that her refusal of service unequivocally violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation:

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

Moreover, abiding by the NMHRA’s nondiscrimination protections does not violate Elane Photography’s freedom of speech, because the law does not compel businesses to speak the government’s message or the message of another speaker. If Elane Photography wishes to be a public business, it does not sacrifice its freedom of speech, but it simply must abide by the law:

“If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large. Elane Photography’s choice to offer its services to the public is a business decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech. [...]

Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious and political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Discriminating Anti-Gay Photographer | ThinkProgress

…providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs.

Sincerely held traditional religious beliefs that endorse hate and ignorance? One is compelled to question the validity of a faith that would authorize such animus toward those also created by its god.

No, one is not because it is not YOUR faith but others faith. It is not for you to question the tenants of other’s faith as it is not theirs to question yours.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

There's that...

I was living in New Mexico when the court upheld the fine, I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever, I just don't think a person of faith should be forced to seemingly endorse an activity that goes against their beliefs ( and I am damn near an Atheist).

The one caveat I would throw out is this: they should at least be polite about it, and it sounds as though Elane was just that, polite in refusing the gig.

Now, why a business would want to open themselves up to a potentially damaging situation is beyond me, but you can never tell what some folks will do.

I see a future of "we're booked that weekend" for a lot of businesses...

Does anyone see a day when a church is sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage ceremony...?

I'm indifferent as to whether they're forced to or not. Because as soon as I found out they were against me I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyways.

I'd feel the same if I were a black person who was refused for my skin color.

And herein lies the problem when forcing people to do that which they are diametrically opposed to doing. It is wrong, to the very core of freedom, to demand that others endorse your actions against their faith. Rather than deny them, these institutions are simply likely to turn over a shitty product.

I find it interesting that they essentially stated that it is all right for the lesbian couple to completely disregard the business owner’s basic tenants but it is NOT okay for the disregard to be reciprocated. THIS was one of the base reasons that people fought gay marriage – the idea that gays were trying to FORCE themselves on those that were opposed to their decisions. It appears that this fear was actually well founded. I am sad because I have been fighting that bigotry on this board for a year and here we are with those fears justified.

 

[Seawytch]

There's that...

I was living in New Mexico when the court upheld the fine, I didn't agree with it then, I don't agree with it now.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gay marriage, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever, I just don't think a person of faith should be forced to seemingly endorse an activity that goes against their beliefs ( and I am damn near an Atheist).

The one caveat I would throw out is this: they should at least be polite about it, and it sounds as though Elane was just that, polite in refusing the gig.

Now, why a business would want to open themselves up to a potentially damaging situation is beyond me, but you can never tell what some folks will do.

I see a future of "we're booked that weekend" for a lot of businesses...

Does anyone see a day when a church is sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage ceremony...?

I'm indifferent as to whether they're forced to or not. Because as soon as I found out they were against me I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyways.

I'd feel the same if I were a black person who was refused for my skin color.

And herein lies the problem when forcing people to do that which they are diametrically opposed to doing. It is wrong, to the very core of freedom, to demand that others endorse your actions against their faith. Rather than deny them, these institutions are simply likely to turn over a shitty product.

I find it interesting that they essentially stated that it is all right for the lesbian couple to completely disregard the business owner’s basic tenants but it is NOT okay for the disregard to be reciprocated. THIS was one of the base reasons that people fought gay marriage – the idea that gays were trying to FORCE themselves on those that were opposed to their decisions. It appears that this fear was actually well founded. I am sad because I have been fighting that bigotry on this board for a year and here we are with those fears justified.

Again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with marriage equality, N-O-T-H-I-N-G and everything to do with Public Accommodation laws. Repeal those...but not just the ones that cover "they gheys", get 'em all. The ones that cover race, religion, gender and country of origin too! I want bigotry to have a sign out front saying "No Queers".

 

[FJO]

Why would any gay couple want those assholes at their wedding anyways?

Why would two figurative assholes who want their own literal assholes plugged by said figurative assholes want a normal person be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of snapping pictures of their unnatural and sick so-called wedding?

Is it because they are unnatural and sick?