New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[JakeStarkey]

NM is now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

So fucking what?

Go dry out and you will see it differently.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Easy solution. Take the business then call in sick the day of the unnatural wedding ceremony. This way they can't sue you for not taking their business.

Actually you would likely be sued for failure to complete the contract. Not only would they likely win, you would have to refund any moneys paid, pay damages for ruining the day, and for breaking the contract have to pay the costs associated with a replacement photographer (if one could be obtained on short notice).

So ya, try that and tell it how that works out.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

The way to handle it is, go and make the day as miserable as possible for everyone there. Stop advertising wedding photography. Include in advertising that you do, a disclaimer that you personally oppose same sex marriage and grudgingly will comply with the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The way to handle it is, go and make the day as miserable as possible for everyone there. Stop advertising wedding photography.

I think you are kind of hung up on the "advertising", it's goods and services offered. If a photographer routinely accepts wedding gigs - whether they are advertized or not - are goods and services routinely offered. The photographer/baker/florist would have to do these things "off book" so that no contracts/income/events are in the company records. Something that would get them in trouble with the tax people for not claiming the income.

Include in advertising that you do, a disclaimer that you personally oppose same sex marriage and grudgingly will comply with the law.

Yep you can do that.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NM is now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

So fucking what?

Go dry out and you will see it differently.

No I won't, my response is still so fucking what? I live in San Francisco, the first place in the entire country to issue same sex marriage licenses. They were promptly bitch slapped by the state for it, but they did it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The way to handle it is, go and make the day as miserable as possible for everyone there. Stop advertising wedding photography.

I think you are kind of hung up on the "advertising", it's goods and services offered. If a photographer routinely accepts wedding gigs - whether they are advertized or not - are goods and services routinely offered. The photographer/baker/florist would have to do these things "off book" so that no contracts/income/events are in the company records. Something that would get them in trouble with the tax people for not claiming the income.

Include in advertising that you do, a disclaimer that you personally oppose same sex marriage and grudgingly will comply with the law.

Yep you can do that.


>>>>

Which means I can force an gay photographer to attend a wedding where they pray away the gay, which shows how stupid the entire concept of public accommodations has become. The fact that I supply a service does not mean I am accommodating the public.

 

[matchless]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it. Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So fucking what?

Go dry out and you will see it differently.

No I won't, my response is still so fucking what? I live in San Francisco, the first place in the entire country to issue same sex marriage licenses. They were promptly bitch slapped by the state for it, but they did it.

So what? What you think of all of this is immaterial.

 

[Katzndogz]

The New Mexico law is correct. It provides several options for business people of conscience.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The way to handle it is, go and make the day as miserable as possible for everyone there. Stop advertising wedding photography.

I think you are kind of hung up on the "advertising", it's goods and services offered. If a photographer routinely accepts wedding gigs - whether they are advertized or not - are goods and services routinely offered. The photographer/baker/florist would have to do these things "off book" so that no contracts/income/events are in the company records. Something that would get them in trouble with the tax people for not claiming the income.

Include in advertising that you do, a disclaimer that you personally oppose same sex marriage and grudgingly will comply with the law.

Yep you can do that.


>>>>

Which means I can force an gay photographer to attend a wedding where they pray away the gay, which shows how stupid the entire concept of public accommodations has become. The fact that I supply a service does not mean I am accommodating the public.

Yup, you are, if you are holding out yourself publicly doing a public business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it. Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

Nope, not at all. It is over for NM.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it.

This is true.

Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

Such a law, based on your description would probably be challenged and found unconstitutional as you make it only applicable to homosexuals.

On the other hand a law that provided that someone could claim religious grounds and discriminated against anyone - black, Chinese, Muslims, Christians, Women, the elderly, veterans, divorcees, lesbians, etc. - probably would be constitutional as it doesn't provide exception to Public Accommodation law to only one group.

But in that case why have an exception if all someone has to do is claim it's their personal religious belief and as such they can discriminate against anyone they want. In such a case each person (as Scalia describe in Employment Division v. Smith) becomes a "law unto themselves".

Better just to repeal the law.



>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it. Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

I think all such issues involving spiritual or religious beliefs should be assigned to mediation.

These are personal matters that only individuals can decide how to resolve between themselves, not for courts or govt to mandate globally for all cases which are different.

Conflict resolution should be encourage and rewarded, if not required, especially in cases like this where people can't help having different religious beliefs or social values.

I think compelling the business is not unlike involuntary servitude.
If they can't provide the customer one service, let them provide a different one
so there is no reason to sue.

If you asked me to videotape a play, that is one thing I could agree to do.
But videotape a sports game that requires knowledge of the rules and actions,
forget it.

There is no way to legislate that, and either the court was wrong or the lawyers didn't present the case well, or the parties failed to negotiate a solution, or something.

I have seen more difficult issues resolved by mediation; these case should be settle individually.

 

[matchless]

I was thinking of a law like the bill in Arizona, which was dropped for political reasons. That bill was modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It came up not long ago in the case of a bakery that refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. Of course any law like that could not single out homosexuals--it would have to let merchants use a free exercise defense if sued by anyone they objected to serving on religious grounds.

Whether any such law would be constitutional will probably become clearer after the Hobby Lobby decision. As was discussed during oral arguments in that case, the Court has never ruled on whether a for-profit corporation can claim exemption on free exercise grounds.

I personally would keep the traditional common-law requirement to take all comers for innkeepers, common carriers, private water companies, and similar businesses where denying service could put the person denied in danger. "Holding out" doctrine may apply to these businesses.

Other than that, I am against forcing business owners to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason. I don't see any basis for federal laws prohibiting landlords or employers from discriminating, either--let any state prohibit those things or not, as a majority of its residents sees fit. I think the Court abused the Commerce Clause in decisions like McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Easy solution. Take the business then call in sick the day of the unnatural wedding ceremony. This way they can't sue you for not taking their business.

Here’s an even easier solution: conduct yourself like a professional, be a responsible member of the business community, and render your goods and/or services to all patrons.

‘Problem’ solved.

 

[emilynghiem]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it.

This is true.

Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

Such a law, based on your description would probably be challenged and found unconstitutional as you make it only applicable to homosexuals.

On the other hand a law that provided that someone could claim religious grounds and discriminated against anyone - black, Chinese, Muslims, Christians, Women, the elderly, veterans, divorcees, lesbians, etc. - probably would be constitutional as it doesn't provide exception to Public Accommodation law to only one group.

But in that case why have an exception if all someone has to do is claim it's their personal religious belief and as such they can discriminate against anyone they want. In such a case each person (as Scalia describe in Employment Division v. Smith) becomes a "law unto themselves".

Better just to repeal the law.

>>>>

How about the right to conflict resolution and consensus on decisions?

If people respect the consent and beliefs of themselves and others equally, then they have a right to consensus on policies.

If they don't, they may require assistance from experienced mediators who do know how to separate and resolve conflicts. Instead of imposing one side of beliefs or views on others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was thinking of a law like the bill in Arizona, which was dropped for political reasons. That bill was modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It came up not long ago in the case of a bakery that refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. Of course any law like that could not single out homosexuals--it would have to let merchants use a free exercise defense if sued by anyone they objected to serving on religious grounds.

Whether any such law would be constitutional will probably become clearer after the Hobby Lobby decision. As was discussed during oral arguments in that case, the Court has never ruled on whether a for-profit corporation can claim exemption on free exercise grounds.

I personally would keep the traditional common-law requirement to take all comers for innkeepers, common carriers, private water companies, and similar businesses where denying service could put the person denied in danger. "Holding out" doctrine may apply to these businesses.

Other than that, I am against forcing business owners to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason. I don't see any basis for federal laws prohibiting landlords or employers from discriminating, either--let any state prohibit those things or not, as a majority of its residents sees fit. I think the Court abused the Commerce Clause in decisions like McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel.

ones & Laughlin Steel/Darby/Wickard and its progeny is sound, intelligent, and appropriate Commerce Clause jurisprudence – accurately recognizing the nature of economic activity that manifested at the beginning of the 20th Century and exists to this day. All markets are in fact interrelated, regardless how local, regardless their size, where a disruption in one market can be disruptive to all other markets, and the Commerce Clause clearly authorizes government to regulate markets to maintain their integrity.

For businesses to refuse service to patrons based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to markets, and public accommodations laws seeking to ensure the stability of the markets are Constitutional accordingly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal. That's not necessarily the end of the story. Isn't it a New Mexico law that imposes this requirement on businesses? If so, I don't see anything to stop the people of New Mexico from repealing that law if they don't like it.

This is true.

Or, they could make a law that gives business people a right to defend themselves on religious-belief grounds if sued by homosexuals for refusing to serve them as requested.

Such a law, based on your description would probably be challenged and found unconstitutional as you make it only applicable to homosexuals.

On the other hand a law that provided that someone could claim religious grounds and discriminated against anyone - black, Chinese, Muslims, Christians, Women, the elderly, veterans, divorcees, lesbians, etc. - probably would be constitutional as it doesn't provide exception to Public Accommodation law to only one group.

But in that case why have an exception if all someone has to do is claim it's their personal religious belief and as such they can discriminate against anyone they want. In such a case each person (as Scalia describe in Employment Division v. Smith) becomes a "law unto themselves".

Better just to repeal the law.

>>>>

How about the right to conflict resolution and consensus on decisions?

If people respect the consent and beliefs of themselves and others equally, then they have a right to consensus on policies.

If they don't, they may require assistance from experienced mediators who do know how to separate and resolve conflicts. Instead of imposing one side of beliefs or views on others.

The issue has nothing to do with “imposing one side of beliefs or views on others,” it has only to do with appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy designed to ensure stable markets and a healthy economy, as government is authorized to do by the Constitution.

Nothing is being ‘imposed’ on anyone, and no one is seeking to ‘impose’ anything on anyone.

 

[matchless]

Just wanted to note that not every market transaction, no matter how local or small, is within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. It's true an activity can come within that power even if it occurred entirely within one state, as in Raich. It's also true that a purely local activity that's part of an economic class of activities will qualify--even if it is not commerce itself. And it's been true since Wickard that it's the cumulative effect of an activity that counts.

Even so, the activity still must have a substantial effect on interstate commerce to come within Congress' power to regulate it. Otherwise, nothing any of us did would be outside the reach of federal law-- and that would violate the federalist structure of the Constitution.

I mentioned the Commerce Clause because it's been the basis for federal laws against discrimination (especially race discrimination) in public accommodations by private businesses. And I don't believe the Commerce Clause was ever meant to prohibit discrimination by private persons.

I think, though, that this is a matter of New Mexico law--free exercise would have been the only constitutional issue involved. The Court held in City of Boerne that the RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments. I suspect that's why Arizona was considering a law modeled on RFRA--to let business owners use a free exercise defense if sued by customers they refused service on religious grounds.

 

[MaryL]

Let me see here if I got this straight: one group of people can impose their beliefs on another that oppose them in the name of equality. Hmm. Ok. What can you do about freedom in this country anymore but just ..let it pass, lift an eyebrow, and be cynical.