New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[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?

(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

Did you read through the 30 page unanimous Opinion of the Supreme Court, by chance?

 

[Vandalshandle]

There should be room for exceptions in this law. I believe that it is wrong for a person who holds himself forth as a pharmacist, who refuses to fill a script for a a morning after pill, based on the pharmacist's religious beliefs. On the other hand, I see no harm in a photrapher not providing services for a gay marraige ceremony.

This law is essentailly an extention of laws already in effect that protect handicapped people. Yet, there are many businesses on second floors of 2 story buildings with no elevators.

Someone should codify a little common sense into this law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Did you read through the 30 page unanimous Opinion of the Supreme Court, by chance?

Does it adequate respond to my points? I don't think it does

SCOTUS can handle it for us.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

See posts 59, 64, 67.

 

[paperview]

(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

Did you read through the 30 page unanimous Opinion of the Supreme Court, by chance?

Does it adequate respond to my points? I don't think it does

SCOTUS can handle it for us.

Ah, so you haven't.

Give it a try: Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have read the relevant portions, I disagree with it, and I think SCOTUS will agree with me.

Time will tell. I will let the chips fall as they may.

 

[paperview]

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

I just took a look at your source for this.

Yikes.

Poorly written, and incorrect. I was drawn to look it up after reading this in the Reuters article:

"So far, the New Mexico Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether gay marriage should be allowed in the state, sending the matter to lower courts."

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal | Reuters

Here is a more up to day source of information: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Expect some nanny stater to make the claim they are. Count on it. Either way, one's religion does not end at the church's doors, which is why I stand against New Mexico's ruling...as well as on the grounds of general private property rights.

 

[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

I just took a look at your source for this.

Yikes.

Poorly written, and incorrect. I was drawn to look it up after reading this in the Reuters article:

"So far, the New Mexico Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether gay marriage should be allowed in the state, sending the matter to lower courts."

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal | Reuters

Here is a more up to day source of information: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reporter's conclusion written in 2013 may or may not reflect what actually transpired in 2004 and I insist that Wikipedia accounts be backed up with a second reliable source before I accept their version as accurate either. However the Wikipedia article does come closer to supporting my source than it does Reuters.

Another point of view:
Same-sex marriage in New Mexico


Your post did inspire me to do some additional research and while it appears that the Supreme Court in fact did refuse to overturn the Attorney General's dictate, it was the AG and not the Supreme Court who made the ruling to negate licenses for gay marriage in 2004.

 

[Freewill]

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

By what I have seen pictures of two lesbian getting married would pretty much assure they are going to be the worst possible pictures regardless of the Photographer.

That said, it is not Christian to not do ones best, it would be stealing to do so.

 

[Geaux4it]

So if Billy Joe Ray Bob wants to marry a pig or let say a sheep, will the photographer be forced to take those horrific pictures too?

-Geaux

 

[Camp]

Did you read through the 30 page unanimous Opinion of the Supreme Court, by chance?

Ofcourse not. Some may claim to have read "relevant" parts, meaning they cherry picked through it to find the parts that taken out of context will support their opinions. Not only was it unanimous, the court gave the photographer options on how to do almost exactly what they wanted in the first place, but in such a way that they would be within the law. This is a typical Breitbart spin and propaganda piece. Misinformation to rile up the uneducated sheeple who will declare that the ruling is proof of the war of Christians and big government intrusion. Money will be donated by these fools to fight the war and the photographer has become a celeb in the community of Christain warriors. But, it's all about nothing. A photographer can still refuse to provide service to whoever they want. They just have to follow some simple quidelines.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Bad law.

Public Accommodation law have already been upheld by the Supreme Court, the case was Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. This case was in regards to federal Public Accommodation laws and it was upheld. If they upheld such laws under federal law, then there is no issue with such laws existing under state laws either.

Read more: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The NM law specifically defines various factors under it's Public Accommodation law such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and sexual orientation.

Could you point out in the law where scuba diving and sky diving fall under thaw law otherwise that is hyperbole.

Thanks in advance.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

There should be room for exceptions in this law. I believe that it is wrong for a person who holds himself forth as a pharmacist, who refuses to fill a script for a a morning after pill, based on the pharmacist's religious beliefs. On the other hand, I see no harm in a photrapher not providing services for a gay marraige ceremony.

This law is essentailly an extention of laws already in effect that protect handicapped people. Yet, there are many businesses on second floors of 2 story buildings with no elevators.

Someone should codify a little common sense into this law.

Yet even with the pharmacist's example there are two side to those who want big government:

1. On the one hand there are those that say they want to require that pharmacist's provide services even if it goes against their religious beliefs.

2. Then on the other side there are those that say employers should not be able to fire pharmacists (i.e. and employee) when they refuse to provide services that the employer requires.​

Same coin, just two different sides. One wants to limit the pharmacists actions (or inaction) and the other wants to limit the conduct of the employer to decide what services they will offer.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

There doesn't need to be exceptions to the law. The Judge was quite clear in how to use the law. Almost to the point of poking gay advocates in the eye.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So if Billy Joe Ray Bob wants to marry a pig or let say a sheep, will the photographer be forced to take those horrific pictures too?

-Geaux

False derivative analogy, so, as usual, Geaux's post does not add to the discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The NM law specifically defines various factors under it's Public Accommodation law such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and sexual orientation.

Could you point out in the law where scuba diving and sky diving fall under thaw law otherwise that is hyperbole.

Thanks in advance.>>>>

SCOTUS will overturn this law.

 

[Stephanie]

well how about that...

When will they stop bars from refusing to serve anyone who is drunk? that's discriminatory isn't it?

You would think homosexuals would step up and speak out over these types of judgments, but they don't seem to care about others who it INFRINGES ON and the RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE in their business..

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The NM law specifically defines various factors under it's Public Accommodation law such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and sexual orientation.

Could you point out in the law where scuba diving and sky diving fall under thaw law otherwise that is hyperbole.

Thanks in advance.>>>>

SCOTUS will overturn this law.

Why?

Federal law prevents discrimination based on biology (race) and choice (religion), such law has already been upheld. If a Christian photographer had said they will not provide their services to a Jewish couple getting married, specifically because they were Jewish or if a photographer refused to provide their services to a Nigerian couple getting Civilly married specifically because of their race, then the same outcome from a legal perspective would be expected.

It wouldn't be called a "bad law" by many of the same people that are calling it a bad law (not saying you in particular, I speaking of those that are against any equal treatment by gays).

So the SCOTUS has already upheld Public Accommodation laws from a federal perspective under the commerce clause and the ability of the States to have similar laws under the 10th Amendment.


>>>>