And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.
Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.
Excuse me? Jillian? I dare you to get into a case law debate with me. I've studied the law a lot longer than you have, granted. Your lack of an argument tells me all I need to know. Nobody cares that your argument is inferior, jillian. Your lack of understanding on free expression and religious freedom is limited only to that which the liberal elite in Washington tell you.
I agree with you in principle. You just aren't understanding this case. Instead of suppressing freedom of expression, the law is mandating an expression that the messenger (Elane's Photography) doesn't want to carry. In this case, that the photographer approves of same sex marriage. The issue was, NOT that the government is telling Elane to sit down and shut up, it's the reverse. The government is telling Elane that she must express her approval of same sex marriage even if she doesn't really have that opinion. That was the issue in this case.
In the ruling, the Judge disposed of the "compelled to agree" decision by saying that all advertisement for weddings could contain a disclaimer indicating disagreement and disapproval, but that the services were offered solely in order to comply with the law. Under this ruling, Elane could have an advertisement for wedding photography but in 24 pt, bold typeface include a disclaimer that says "I hate gays" and be perfectly within the confines of the ruling.
A segment of the state Supreme Court's decision, via Metro Weekly:
"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by state. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or 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 anti-discrimination laws."
The solution to Elane's dilemma is contained right in the court's decision.
If Elane Photography took photographs on
its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer
its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane PhotographyÂ’s choice of
whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that
are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces
for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation.
Business owners should take advantage of the options available to them, not rail for the options that are not available to them.
