New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[Geaux4it]

What happened to 'No shirt, shoes, no service'? We have the right to refuse service to anyone

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

This is getting out of hand and we need to take this country back

From the court forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, to now I have to provide my service to a bunch of flaming faggots

We are screwed in America

-Geaux

 

[deltex1]

-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.

I am tired of hearing about the manufactured plight of the fags.

 

[FA_Q2]

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...

No. Not going to happen because gun owners are not one of the ‘protected’ classes. We are not special like that.

 

[eflatminor]

What happened to 'No shirt, shoes, no service'? We have the right to refuse service to anyone

-Geaux

The 1964 Civil Rights Act - Title II I believe, which outlawed discrimination based on race in restaurants and other establishments open the public. Such places do not have the right "to refuse service to anyone". While I would stand against any establishment discriminating based on race, I also value private property rights. Title II, in my opinion was not necessary nor constitutional. I stand in support of the rest of the act, which was needed, the right thing to do, and in compliance with the Constitution.

 

[paperview]

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.

Are they open to the public?

Advertise they are open to the public?

 

[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.

I am tired of hearing about the manufactured plight of the fags.

It's not like there are no gay blades out there who are photographers. Sounds like a booming business opportunity. I mean, these freaks of society are people too.

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

This is getting out of hand and we need to take this country back

From the court forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, to now I have to provide my service to a bunch of flaming faggots

We are screwed in America

-Geaux

The church is wining that argument though. There is still some sanity in the system even if it is hard to spot some of the time.

 

[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...

No. Not going to happen because gun owners are not one of the ‘protected’ classes. We are not special like that.

True, but I think a strong constitutional argument can be made. First we'll see if the SC upholds this New Mexico ruling, which I don't think they'll do, nor should they. Forcing a business to violate a fundamental religious principal may be okay within the New Mexican constitution, but not the federal Constitution. It's another slippery slope in the attack on private property rights, the fundamental basis of all civilized society.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is getting out of hand and we need to take this country back

From the court forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, to now I have to provide my service to a bunch of flaming faggots

We are screwed in America

-Geaux

The church is wining that argument though. There is still some sanity in the system even if it is hard to spot some of the time.

I hope so because Adolf Obama gave them a year to comply, and I think it's about up?

-Geaux

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Are they open to the public?

Advertise they are open to the public?

Churches and Mosques are open to the public. Should they be forced to marry gay couples?

 

[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

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

Immie

it is open to one's fantasy. the options are without limits. if one want to force me to do a business against my wishes one must be prepared for surprises

 

[paperview]

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.

Are they open to the public?

Advertise they are open to the public?

Churches and Mosques are open to the public. Should they be forced to marry gay couples?

Churches and Mosques are not for-profit, public businesses. The are not subject to Public Accommodation laws.

This isn't hard, people.

 

[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.

Are they open to the public?

Advertise they are open to the public?

if hey are not a monopoly - the law does not apply

 

[Katzndogz]

You can have a sign that says No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, that applies to everyone, but you can't have one that says service will only be denied to black people without a shirt or shoes.

The court gave very specific instructions on how businesses can comply with the law and maintain their religious principles.

 

[paperview]

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.

Are they open to the public?

Advertise they are open to the public?

if hey are not a monopoly - the law does not apply

??

Weird answer.

 

[WillowTree]

-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.

No but they can take the lousiest photos you've ever seen at no charge!

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Didn't we have a thread where gays refused to serve heterosexual couples? I think we did. Which side did you fall on there?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a really tough one. While I have no problem with gay marriage ceremonies--I continue to think it should be called something other than marriage, but I have attended a couple of such ceremonies and they were wonderful--gay marriage is still not legal in New Mexico.

In 2004 the same New Mexico Supreme Court said so:

In 2004 there were nearly 70 same-sex couples that were actually married. A republican senator named Victoria Dunlap claimed that there was no language that specifically banned New Mexico gay marriage. When news broke out of the senator allowing a couple to be married by ministers there was a flooding of couples who applied to be married. It was not even one day before the licenses were deemed invalid by the Supreme court of New Mexico. Senator Dunlap faced a lot of backlash from her party as well as other state officials. - See more at: New Mexico Gay Marriage

So how could Elane Photography be censured by the same court for refusing to photograph something that isn't even legal in the state?

I support laws that prohibit discrimination against persons who just walk in the door to buy something whether that be a restaurant meal or a dozen bolts at Lowes or whatever. But when it requires the personal and emotional involvement of the service at a different location, we are into some serious rights issues.

Should a photographer be required to provide services for a Satanic sacrifice? A Ku Klux Klan convention? A dog or cock fight? Or should his/her personal sensibilities allow him/her to decline attending such activities?

Elane Photography offered to take a nice photo of the gay couple and even the wedding party at the studio. But to require the business to attend something with which they do not agree is going too far.

I hope this one goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and I hope the Court gets it right.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is getting out of hand and we need to take this country back

From the court forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, to now I have to provide my service to a bunch of flaming faggots

We are screwed in America

-Geaux

The church is wining that argument though. There is still some sanity in the system even if it is hard to spot some of the time.

I hope so because Adolf Obama gave them a year to comply, and I think it's about up?

-Geaux

To date, there have been several legal challenges to this concept and so far I don’t think a single one has ruled in favor of the state. I am fairly confident that they are going to win this battle.