New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[WorldWatcher]

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..

The NM law specifically defines various factors under it's Public Accommodation law such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and sexual orientation. If the bar refuses all drunks, ,then that is not discrimination under the standards of the law. However if the bar refuses only male drunks but not female drunks then the criteria based on being drunk, the defining characteristic is being male.

Could you point out in the law where drunks fall under thaw law otherwise that is hyperbole.

Thanks in advance.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

If this judge's ruling is upheld in the supreme court it will stand all public accommodation laws on their ear.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If this judge's ruling is upheld in the supreme court it will stand all public accommodation laws on their ear.

Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

And this one will probably be overturned on religious liberty grounds.

 

[Katzndogz]

If this judge's ruling is upheld in the supreme court it will stand all public accommodation laws on their ear.

Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.


>>>>

You didn't read the ruling or didn't understand it.

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting. This case went one step further. The photograpgher could discriminate if the service being sought was not one offered and the business advertising contained a disclaimer.

All the photograpgher has to do is advertise the fabulous photography services and include a disclaimer like "state and federal law prohibits our advertising wedding photography services".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How would that help when he wants to let states get away with shit like this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is the opinion of the board's biggest idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...?

And if the dogma of that faith required adherents to deny service based on race or gender, would you have no problem with that as well?

As for a church being sued, no – neither 14th Amendment nor Commerce Clause jurisprudence apply to churches.

If it did, why the fuck should the government be able to tell them not to? Wouldn't that violate the fucking Constitution of the United States of America?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How is telling the government that they cannot force people to do something a violation of liberty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Tell that to the idiots that are calling me a bigot for not wanting the government to tell people they have to show up at other people's weddings if they chose not to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

You are % correct, it is all about the gay agenda that you insist does not exist. Why else would anyone sue someone for not coming to their wedding?

 

[Stephanie]

another view on it
links in article at site

SNIP:






Lawyer for New Mexico photographer: Forcing her to work at a gay wedding violates her right of free expression


posted at 4:21 pm on August 23, 2013 by Allahpundit






The comments to Jazz’s post this morning have been raging all day so I figured there’d be interest in hearing directly from her spokesman. Most people, me included, approach this issue from the standpoint of free exercise of religion. If she disapproves of gay marriage because of her faith and the state tells her to ignore her faith and work the wedding anyway, well, then, free exercise ain’t as free as one would think. But that’s probably a nonstarter; read Dale Carpenter’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy to see why. He, Eugene Volokh, and the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in this case siding with the photographer — but free exercise was one of their minor arguments. Under Supreme Court precedent, as long as a law isn’t deliberately targeted at religion, you can’t plead free exercise if it happens to interfere with your religion. The New Mexico Supreme Court found that the state’s antidiscrimination law isn’t targeted, so that’s that.

But what about a free speech claim instead? Photography isn’t just any ol’ profession, says Carpenter. It’s an art, and art necessarily involves expression, in which case we have a problem. Rod Dreher elaborates:

There is simply no way not to see photography as an art. The New Mexico court disagreed. New Mexico does not have same-sex marriage; the ruling was not on marriage law, but anti-discrimination law. Still, the importance of this ruling is that it’s another example of courts establishing in jurisprudence that homosexuality is exactly like race for purposes of non-discrimination — that is, that the only reason to discriminate against homosexuals is irrational animus, as the US Supreme Court has been holding.

I would have granted First Amendment protection to an artist wishing to discriminate on the basis of race, or any other protected category. To compel a writer, photographer, painter, composer, or what have you, to put her talent into the service of something that violates their conscience is a serious wrong. If a gay photographer believed in good conscience that he could not photograph the wedding of Christian fundamentalists, then I think he absolutely should have the right to refuse, on First Amendment grounds.

When I worked as an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, from time to time I had to write editorials taking a position I didn’t believe in, because that was the board’s decision. That was fine; it was part of the job. But I told my editor early on that I could not, in conscience, write an editorial supporting abortion rights, which the paper backs.

Maybe that’s a potential compromise position for the U.S. Supreme Court. Mundane professions have no constitutional exemption from an antidiscrimination law, but a profession that involves a viewpoint — literally, in the case of photography — gets First Amendment protection. That’s not a ruling that’d satisfy everyone, but it’d at least vindicate the principle that you can’t be compelled to adopt another’s perspective, even if you’re being compensated for it.

all of it here
Lawyer for New Mexico photographer: Forcing her to work at a gay wedding violates her right of free expression « Hot Air

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NM is now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

So fucking what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The idiot speaketh.

Would you like a list of cases brought against churches under these laws to prove how stupid you are, or will you just slink away?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No it wouldn't, even if you believe that motels should be forced to hold KKK conventions. The simple reason for that is the hotel is not a person, and thus not subject to the involuntary servitude provisions of the 13th Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting.

Whether you won your case is irrelevant.

1. In this case the photographer (as I remember from different articles over the years) advertised their services for weddings, family events, gatherings, etc. So there was evidence the services were offered in the past.

2. Secondly, Misti Collinsworth then contacted the photographer after Vanessa Willock had contacted the photographer and inquired about shooting a wedding without discussing the gender composition of the couple. The photographer then sent materials and billing rates for the services which were sought. That showing that the photographer, at the time they refused Ms. Willock, was still in the wedding, family, etc. business.


So while they may not have been able to prove your business involved painting portraits, in this case their business conduct and advertising does show they provided that service.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If this judge's ruling is upheld in the supreme court it will stand all public accommodation laws on their ear.

Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.


>>>>

You didn't read the ruling or didn't understand it.

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting. This case went one step further. The photograpgher could discriminate if the service being sought was not one offered and the business advertising contained a disclaimer.

All the photograpgher has to do is advertise the fabulous photography services and include a disclaimer like "state and federal law prohibits our advertising wedding photography services".

What’s sad, ridiculous, and pointless is your refusal to paint the portrait in the first place.

Refusing to paint their portrait in no way condoned their relationship, nor deterred them or others from entering into such a relationship, nor compromised your religious beliefs in any manner.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting.

Whether you won your case is irrelevant.

1. In this case the photographer (as I remember from different articles over the years) advertised their services for weddings, family events, gatherings, etc. So there was evidence the services were offered in the past.

2. Secondly, Misti Collinsworth then contacted the photographer after Vanessa Willock had contacted the photographer and inquired about shooting a wedding without discussing the gender composition of the couple. The photographer then sent materials and billing rates for the services which were sought. That showing that the photographer, at the time they refused Ms. Willock, was still in the wedding, family, etc. business.


So while they may not have been able to prove your business involved painting portraits, in this case their business conduct and advertising does show they provided that service.


>>>>

So what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.


>>>>

You didn't read the ruling or didn't understand it.

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting. This case went one step further. The photograpgher could discriminate if the service being sought was not one offered and the business advertising contained a disclaimer.

All the photograpgher has to do is advertise the fabulous photography services and include a disclaimer like "state and federal law prohibits our advertising wedding photography services".

What’s sad, ridiculous, and pointless is your refusal to paint the portrait in the first place.

Refusing to paint their portrait in no way condoned their relationship, nor deterred them or others from entering into such a relationship, nor compromised your religious beliefs in any manner.

Is she a slave?

If not, what the fuck right do you have to demand she do anything?

 

[Katzndogz]

This case went right along the same way mine did when two lesbians sued me for refusing to paint their wedding portrait. Except I won my case. They could never prove that I was in the business of portrait painting.

Whether you won your case is irrelevant.

1. In this case the photographer (as I remember from different articles over the years) advertised their services for weddings, family events, gatherings, etc. So there was evidence the services were offered in the past.

2. Secondly, Misti Collinsworth then contacted the photographer after Vanessa Willock had contacted the photographer and inquired about shooting a wedding without discussing the gender composition of the couple. The photographer then sent materials and billing rates for the services which were sought. That showing that the photographer, at the time they refused Ms. Willock, was still in the wedding, family, etc. business.


So while they may not have been able to prove your business involved painting portraits, in this case their business conduct and advertising does show they provided that service.


>>>>

It was the advertising. If a photographer advertised services for every kind of photography but weddings, did not mention weddings. The photographer would have won. Which is what the photographer in my art group did. He just eliminated all mention of weddings from his advertising. He still photographs weddings as a private arrangement.