New Mexico Court: Christian PhotographerCannot Refuse- Gay Marraige Ceremony

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and the authority the Clause affords Congress to regulate commerce, where refusing to accommodate patrons based on race, religion, or gender can indeed effect commerce and markets. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Currently, and unfortunately, homosexuals are not protected by that case law.

Consequently, whether this case goes to the Supreme Court or not, or whatever its outcome should the case be granted cert, will have no effect on current public accommodations laws with regard to race, religion, or gender.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and the authority the Clause affords Congress to regulate commerce, where refusing to accommodate patrons based on race, religion, or gender can indeed effect commerce and markets. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Currently, and unfortunately, homosexuals are not protected by that case law.

Consequently, whether this case goes to the Supreme Court or not, or whatever its outcome should the case be granted cert, will have no effect on current public accommodations laws with regard to race, religion, or gender.

Excuse me, genius, can you explain how the commerce clause applies to a state law?

Wait, you haven't read a damned thing in the thread, haven't looked at the decision, but still findy ourself to be an expert on it.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the New Mexico case the photographer was willing to take any wedding photographs that did not require her to attend the wedding itself. She didn't object to doing the work but attending the wedding.

Now we know. The court can force someone to attend and participate in a wedding no matter what objections they might have.

It would only be fair for the photographer to go, take the very best pictures possible and spread the word at the wedding reminding those who are there of pertinent Biblical passages. Make an opportunity to save souls. Turn people from their wicked ways. Loudly.

Fall on your knees and pray for their salvation. And forgiveness for having to attend. Beg for forgiveness. Loudly.

The law says you gotta go. You have to perform services competently. There is no law governing behavior. The worst that can happen is the photographer is told to leave after making sure everyone knows that the willingness to continue is enthusiastic.

 

[paperview]

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?

Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.

 

[Geaux4it]

let fags be fags then answer to the man on judgement day

No soup for them

Sickos

-Geaux

 

[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.


>>>>

So what?

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.

You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.

Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So what?

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.


In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.


In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.


>>>>

There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.

 

[Geaux4it]

So what?

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

I don't know much about what is in your post.

Can't get past your avatar.

-Geaux

 

[paperview]

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?

Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.

You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.

Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review

As I suspected.

I knew for certain you would bring up the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

Clue hammer: It's not a church.

Your other link is to a UK story. Geeze.

Not much of a "list."

 

[paperview]

"In his written decision, Judge Solomon A. Metzger of the Office of Administrative Law found that in March 2007, when Paster and Bernstein filled out a reservation form, the pavilion was a public accommodation.

The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein’s application.
...

The pavilion was used for community and charitable events and the owners of the property, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, received a tax exemption from the state Green Acres program, which provides exemptions to non-profit organizations who use their property for recreational or conservation purposes. An important condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.”

Judge Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple in Discrimination Case :: ACLU of New Jersey

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Public accommodations laws are not motivated by government’s desire to protect citizens from discrimination, this is Commerce Clause jurisprudence, concerning Congress’ regulatory authority only, having nothing to do with ‘discrimination.’

Businesses refusing to accommodate patrons based solely on their race or religion would clearly be disruptive to their respective markets, where Congress has both the authority and responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of commerce, as all markets, regardless of size, are interrelated, and ultimately effect interstate commerce.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

Though God creates all people, NOT all people are God's. John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. Here's the thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.

You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.

Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review

That a religious organization might be sued in its capacity as a property owner only has nothing to do whatsoever with that religion’s doctrine and dogma concerning same-sex couples. The same-sex couple is merely using the venue for a wedding ceremony, invoking the rites of a completely different faith, or a civil ceremony absent religious rites.

Such a suit would in no way compel the religious organization to ‘recognize’ same-sex couples, or compel the religious organization to perform same-sex marriage, or alter its doctrine or dogma in any manner concerning marriage and same-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what?

So What What?


Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.

However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.



>>>>

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

According to whom?

You?

You’ll understand if no one finds that the least bit compelling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.

"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.


In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.


>>>>

There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.

There is no ‘law’ that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.

 

[Moonglow]

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

 

[Immanuel]

So, it is true that a black owner of a gun shop would be required to sell the KKK guns and ammo knowing full well that the klan intends on using those weapons to intimidate and threaten his own family. I gotta say... that sucks.

Immie