New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[Freewill]

How very odd that those who choose one side belittle the other side for doing exactly as they have done. The side promoting gay "rights" have made a decision based on whatever is their belief structure and they seem to be very cock sure that their belief is the belief of God Almighty. No chance that their belief system is wrong or that there can even be conflicting beliefs. No room for discussion with the gay "rights" crowd, they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Yet they use the argument that those who hold to traditional marriage as being stuck on dogma. Interesting how the gay "rights" crowd can be so hypocritical.

Those of you that have a business and want to exclude Christians, please put a side out in front stating that fact. Please. I'll take no offense whats so ever. Matter of fact I will thank you as I walk down the street and give my money to someone else who isn't nearly as closed minded.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Photograhy is an art. Who would want to force someone to take pictures of them if they don't really want to? It would be stretching the integrity of the person taking the pictures to the limit. So it really doesn't make sense to force someone to do something that if not done properly would be a total waste. Of course if the pictures then don't turn out perfect I suppose the gay couple will sue the person they forced to do what they didn't want to do in the first place. There are lots of photographers out there no need to force anyone to do anything.

But that is not what it is all about, it is about acceptance. About people not liking people thinking what they are doing is wrong. Atheists hate the Ten Commandments because it reminds them that we people are not perfect that there are rules and laws we should live by.

That all said I am not sure I care if two people want to join in a civil union. Make laws to protect them, just don't change the traditional definition of marriage and pretend it never was the definition. Lying is so unbecoming.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NM is now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is really simple. Tell the fags your booked that day and every day of the year or go find another homo who is a photographer

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

How very odd that those who choose one side belittle the other side for doing exactly as they have done. The side promoting gay "rights" have made a decision based on whatever is their belief structure and they seem to be very cock sure that their belief is the belief of God Almighty. No chance that their belief system is wrong or that there can even be conflicting beliefs. No room for discussion with the gay "rights" crowd, they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Yet they use the argument that those who hold to traditional marriage as being stuck on dogma. Interesting how the gay "rights" crowd can be so hypocritical.

Those of you that have a business and want to exclude Christians, please put a side out in front stating that fact. Please. I'll take no offense whats so ever. Matter of fact I will thank you as I walk down the street and give my money to someone else who isn't nearly as closed minded.

Oh look, some who got my tongue in cheek point.

 

[FA_Q2]

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".

I somewhat agree with you. The laws covering race, I believe, at one time were needed. I am not so sure anymore. I would hope that communities are more than willing to take a business to task for such things. The one exception that I would have is that such laws should stand for public servants. I don’t think a judge has a right to not perform a marriage for a gay couple but I think a priest does. The same goes for any other situation. It seems that this particular couple does not though and instead thinks it is within their power to force someone to photograph their wedding.

 

[Katzndogz]

I know a photographer who has already stopped doing photography services for ceremonies like this. He's as busy as ever. But no one can walk in off the street and engage him. It takes a personal recommendation. That's how I won my lawsuit when I got sued for this very same reason.

 

[Katzndogz]

The photographer could attend as photographer and use the forced attendance at the ceremony to preach the gospel to the people there. It might be an ideal opportunity to remind the attendees of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Start early, like at the point where the arrangements are being made. The photographer will comply with the law, perform all services competently, and use the opportunity to be a good Christian and Witness himself or herself.

 

[Vox]

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.

it has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.

it is a private business.

if you want to stop serving Christians in your PRIVATE business - you should be able to.

go ahead.

 

[Freewill]

The photographer could attend as photographer and use the forced attendance at the ceremony to preach the gospel to the people there. It might be an ideal opportunity to remind the attendees of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Start early, like at the point where the arrangements are being made. The photographer will comply with the law, perform all services competently, and use the opportunity to be a good Christian and Witness himself or herself.

Interesting, have the photographer state up front that he will be passing out business cards and on those cards is a testimony to Jesus Christ. Not necessarily anti gay just the Good News. I'll bet that in most case it will be a deal breaker, but he better do it for all his customers.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Correct. Plus, wouldn't they want a photographer motivated to take good pictures?

What's wrong with these people... Oh yeah, they probably felt they needed to make some kind of PC point. Ridiculous.

Then a judge says a private business can't refuse business to someone?

The decay continues.

.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Those filthy carpet munchers sure showed us! Selfish, morally bankrupt waste of human life. Hell awaits.

 

[Vox]

the photographer should accept an make the worst possible pictures under the sun

same with other forced businesses - make a cake which will be bad, arrange catering which will ruin the day and so on.

then just pretend - sorry, we did not do anything wrong. if you don't like our business - you should have chosen a different one

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Yeah, let's do away with the First Amendment to cater to decadence and devolution.

Let's equate having standards with hate and ignorance.

 

[Katzndogz]

Say quite loudly before every snap of the camera.

"Lord forgive me. The Bible says to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and obey the law. Know that I am obeying the law and humbly ask your forgiveness for this Act."

In fact, before signing the retainer agreement, get on his or her knees and say the little prayer with the couple right there.

"Excuse me, I must pray I do it every time I have to violate my religious principles".

 

[Geaux4it]

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

Correct. Plus, wouldn't they want a photographer motivated to take good pictures?

What's wrong with these people... Oh yeah, they probably felt they needed to make some kind of PC point. Ridiculous.

Then a judge says a private business can't refuse business to someone?

The decay continues.

.

And now you may kiss the bride...

I think I would lose my lunch.

-Geaux

 

[Katzndogz]

The Court's decision itself has instructed the photographer on what to do. Stop advertising that it offers marriage or commitment services. The Court was quite specific that the photographer may still perform these services, but not advertise that they do. Under the ruling, the Court advises that the photographer may in that advertising, or by any other means, communicate their opposition to same sex relationships.

The Court fashioned a way out of oppression by gays in a ruling that should be used as precedent for every other gay complaint.

 

[Immanuel]

First, I think this ruling is out of line. IMHO the state cannot,or at least should not be able to force a business to provide services to anyone.

Second, turn the tables on this, should a black gun shop owner be forced to sell guns and ammo to known members of the KKK? I think not!

I probably would not perform the services requested in this case either. I would refuse politely. This couple has every legal right to get hitched and I would not stop them, but they have no right to enforce me to participate in any manner whatsoever, and it would truly be a shame if the pictures did not turn out or the disc was accidentally lost... Stolen... Stepped on by an elephant... Eaten by my dog etc. etc etc.

Immie

 

[eflatminor]

If this ruling is upheld by the federal supreme court, I suspect we'd soon see a case regarding our right to bear firearms.

Currently, lots of private establishments have 'no guns allowed' signs at their door. Well, if it's going to be unconstitutional to refuse service based on the right of sexual orientation, it should also be unconstitutional to refuse service based on the right to bear arms, a right codified in the Bill of Rights!

That would mean an end to gun free zones on private property.

Now wouldn't that get the Progressive's panties into a bunch?! We libertarians long ago told you about the slippery slope of infringing on private property rights. Don't say you weren't warned...

 

[Immanuel]

the photographer should accept an make the worst possible pictures under the sun

same with other forced businesses - make a cake which will be bad, arrange catering which will ruin the day and so on.

then just pretend - sorry, we did not do anything wrong. if you don't like our business - you should have chosen a different one

While I made the comment about lost or stolen pictures, I like Katz' solution as presented in post #28 better.

Immie