New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[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.

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.

A strong one yes but only to those that think like we do. I fear that the current government to include the court has a very different outlook on constitutional matters. I doubt the case will get that far anyway. I don’t think she is going to bother challenging the 6K ruling.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

This is what I've said all along. Requiring a photographer take pictures at a gay ceremony requires their attendance and participation at that ceremony. It requires them to participate. It is the law, that they must participate. They must take photographs of reasonable competence. It's in the advertising. If they advertise as wedding photographers, they must participate in all weddings. Yes, if they advertise as photographers that take pictures of religious ceremonies they would have to take pictures of satanic ceremonies. If they advertise as convention photographers, they have to take photographs of KKK conventions.

Photographers will have to fix their advertising. They will have to make adjustments like not advertising themselves as wedding photographers. They can advertise as baby picture, bar mitzvah, birthday parties, individual portrait photographers but not wedding photographers. They can put in their advertising that they are Christians who are morally opposed to same sex commitments. This won't hurt their business. People are intelligent enough to know that when they see no advertising for weddings, and a disclaimer, the photographer will perform those services for their wedding.

Since the parameters of advertising were so specifically contained in the court ruling, I would go one step further. I would put in my advertising "Due to recent legal rulings we are prohibited by law from advertising our services as wedding photographers" Now you got the ad in, and complied with the law prohibiting the advertising.

 

[paperview]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:
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?
...

It was for a commitment ceremony. Not illegal.

 

[paperview]

I posted this here in 2010, when the story was floating around here:

First this was a state law. (This is where the states rights people get floundered) -

I think that was a rare case though. Two STOOPID things happened there.

The photographer (like most business owners in fields such as the photographer) can still discriminate if they like, they just have to be more creative about it.

Just say no. Too busy, booked, etc.., or refer her to another photographer - You don't even HAVE to give a reason. She did though, and quite vocally.

Second, the major unfortunate problem the photographer faced was: She said it to someone whose job it was to enforce discrimination laws.

The lesbian (radical, in my view) worked for the NM version of the EEOC. It was what she made her living doing. Yikes.

Bad Bad mistake. It was like telling the Liquor Commissioner you own a bar and serve booze to minors, or telling a cop you speed every day around a certain stretch of road (maybe not great analogies, but it's a slow-firing neuron day. lol) Not wise.

The photographer was nabbed in a very unfortunate situation, but it was state law.

My personal views are that art fields, including photography and such, are not something that should be open to Civil Rights Laws.

It is quite different than a general store, restaurant or hotel.

 

[FA_Q2]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:
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?
...

It was for a commitment ceremony. Not illegal.

A marriage ceremony would not be illegal either to be honest. It is not legally RECOGNIZED but there is absolutely nothing the government can do about you having ceremony and calling whatever the hell you want be it marriage or commitment or asdfasdfjkl.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

This is true. It was also a hell of a lot of Mormons in Utah that funded opposition to prop 8.

 

[FA_Q2]

I posted this here in 2010, when the story was floating around here:

First this was a state law. (This is where the states rights people get floundered) -

I think that was a rare case though. Two STOOPID things happened there.

The photographer (like most business owners in fields such as the photographer) can still discriminate if they like, they just have to be more creative about it.

Just say no. Too busy, booked, etc.., or refer her to another photographer - You don't even HAVE to give a reason. She did though, and quite vocally.

Second, the major unfortunate problem the photographer faced was: She said it to someone whose job it was to enforce discrimination laws.

The lesbian (radical, in my view) worked for the NM version of the EEOC. It was what she made her living doing. Yikes.

Bad Bad mistake. It was like telling the Liquor Commissioner you own a bar and serve booze to minors, or telling a cop you speed every day around a certain stretch of road (maybe not great analogies, but it's a slow-firing neuron day. lol) Not wise.

The photographer was nabbed in a very unfortunate situation, but it was state law.

My personal views are that art fields, including photography and such, are not something that should be open to Civil Rights Laws.

It is quite different than a general store, restaurant or hotel.

It think that FF said it best when she differentiated between a locality providing a service or product and the individual actually having to go to the event and actively participate in that venue. I think that is pretty clear – have a store or restaurant, deal, have a catering service no deal. I would prefer the real free way of doing things – get rid of all those asinine laws – but I could compromise with something like that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NM's law will not be upheld by SCOTUS, nor should it be upheld.

Bad law.

 

[Intense]

Moved to Law and Justice System

 

[paperview]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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:


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

It was for a commitment ceremony. Not illegal.

A marriage ceremony would not be illegal either to be honest. It is not legally RECOGNIZED but there is absolutely nothing the government can do about you having ceremony and calling whatever the hell you want be it marriage or commitment or asdfasdfjkl.

Good point.

 

[Katzndogz]

I recall TWO weddings that numerous photographers refused to do because they did not want to participate in the ceremony by having to be there and take pictures.

One was an underwater wedding and one was a skydiving mid-air wedding.

The couple could have sued to force the photographer to qualify as a scuba diver and sky diver?

According to this ruling YES.

 

[Vandalshandle]

While this decision seems to overreach common sense, there is also this:

Should it be legal for a motel or restaurant to refuse service or lodging to a gay couple?

The exact same law would apply to that, and that would be clearly discrimination based on sexual preference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Katzndogz: The couple could have sued to force the photographer to qualify as a scuba diver and sky diver? According to this ruling YES.

False. There is no human rights connection.

 

[paperview]

NM's law will not be upheld by SCOTUS, nor should it be upheld.

Bad law.

This is the gist of the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
1
Fact Sheet: New Mexico Human Rights Act
1. What is the New Mexico Human Rights Act?
The New Mexico Human Rights Act is a state civil rights law that, among other things,
guarantees full and equal services and accommodations to all people regardless of race,
religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal
affiliation or physical or mental handicap.


http://www.cdd.unm.edu/ecspd/resour...ession_3/8_NM_Human_Rights_Act_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Why do you think it is bad law, and why do you think it will not be upheld?

 

[paperview]

I recall TWO weddings that numerous photographers refused to do because they did not want to participate in the ceremony by having to be there and take pictures.

One was an underwater wedding and one was a skydiving mid-air wedding.

The couple could have sued to force the photographer to qualify as a scuba diver and sky diver?

According to this ruling YES.

No. There is no discrimination based on the classes listed in NMHRA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NM's law will not be upheld by SCOTUS, nor should it be upheld.

Bad law.

This is the gist of the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
1
Fact Sheet: New Mexico Human Rights Act
1. What is the New Mexico Human Rights Act?
The New Mexico Human Rights Act is a state civil rights law that, among other things,
guarantees full and equal services and accommodations to all people regardless of race,
religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal
affiliation or physical or mental handicap.


http://www.cdd.unm.edu/ecspd/resour...ession_3/8_NM_Human_Rights_Act_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Why do you think it is bad law, and why do you think it will not be upheld?

(1) because it infringes on the photographer's religious liberty

(2) because excepting 'religious freedom' poses no burden on the prospective customer to find another photographer

 

[Intense]

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...?

It brings up another question in the battle against Individual Rights and Liberty.

What portion of a person's life does another have a right to? Who is free to say no and who is not free to say no. Government is not God, and obviously, in some cases a failed imitation. Regardless of the issue, or, what side of an issue, one finds them self, what is gained by compelling others, to act against their conscience, will, better judgement? In a circumstance where there is no alternative, there may be legitimate argument, otherwise, what justice is served?

 

[Foxfyre]

Some valid points made here. And I'm thinking it through as we go.

There are many things that I think should never be the prerogative of the federal government to force upon the entire nation, and yet I do support the states being able to have whatever sort of society they want to have. So however much I think this case to be a really thorny issue, I think some of you have made a good argument that it is the law itself that should be changed.

Yes anybody open for business should be required to serve anybody who walks through the doors so long as they are dressed and conduct themselves in an respectable manner. But when the business is required to perform services at somebody else's location, a different standard should apply and nobody should have to lie to protect themselves.

 

[Immanuel]

I recall TWO weddings that numerous photographers refused to do because they did not want to participate in the ceremony by having to be there and take pictures.

One was an underwater wedding and one was a skydiving mid-air wedding.

The couple could have sued to force the photographer to qualify as a scuba diver and sky diver?

According to this ruling YES.

No. There is no discrimination based on the classes listed in NMHRA.

So, the answer would be yes if the engaged couple were gay?

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some valid points made here. And I'm thinking it through as we go.

There are many things that I think should never be the prerogative of the federal government to force upon the entire nation, and yet I do support the states being able to have whatever sort of society they want to have. So however much I think this case to be a really thorny issue, I think some of you have made a good argument that it is the law itself that should be changed.

Yes anybody open for business should be required to serve anybody who walks through the doors so long as they are dressed and conduct themselves in an respectable manner. But when the business is required to perform services at somebody else's location, a different standard should apply and nobody should have to lie to protect themselves.

(1) States should have the society they want within the constructs of the Constitution.

(2) I really like your inside outside parsing: that makes sense and comports I think with the Constitution.