New Mexico Supreme Court effectively ends religious liberty for individuals

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by adjensen

 

I found this quote by the judge interesting and I would like to get your opinion on it.

The New Mexico Legislature has made it clear that to discriminate in business on the basis of sexual orientation is just as intolerable as discrimination directed toward race, color, national origin or religion.

So i have to ask what about sexual orientation is different from race, national origin, or religion?

As I pointed out in the OP, the photographer didn't say she wouldn't photograph gay people and gay couples, she said that she wouldn't photograph the ceremony, because she had a religious objection to gay marriage, not a religious objection to gay people.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by beezzer

 

Sure, and Catholics can go to a Mosque and demand to be married there
in a Christian Ceremony, while the woman wears a low cut dress and no burka.

edit on 22-8-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Excellent point!

Im glad she got sued.

Hopefully she will lose her business and give more deserving photographers a nice paycheck. She can pray to her god and receive nothing.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Im glad she got sued.

Hopefully she will lose her business and give more deserving photographers a nice paycheck. She can pray to her god and receive nothing.

You're right! Freedom of expression is entirely over-rated. That damned 1st Amendment is just getting in the way of "right thinking" folks!

reply to post by adjensen


But again the business in not compelled to condone the activity only provide the service in which they provide to the public.

I mean do you believe you have the right to refuse your service to anyone for any reason (i.e. race, nationality, etc)?

reply to post by beezzer


Well, we know that is not going to happen, but the thought serves to prove
the point that in reality it seems that there will be the untimately free protected "classifcation".

reply to post by beezzer
You might have to expect him to cook it to the best of his abilities. With that said, it may be burnt crispy, seasoned funny or something else. All the while, he will take your money.

Now, moving on to photographers, if they tell you that gay ceremonies aren't their specialty and you still insist to hire them, they could rob you of your special day by taking the worst possible shots or something. You don't usually get a redo of the day so why would you want to force someone who doesn't want to work with you to do so?

There are plenty of cooks, photographers, etc. who would be up to the task, why risk it. Take your business elsewhere and enjoy your meal, special day, whatever. The law does not limit ones ability to make an informed decision about whose services they secure.

I don't get the argument here anyway.

Someone doesn't want to take your picture how hard is it to find someone else ?

Hell in this economy would be rather easy.

reply to post by neo96


I was wondering about that as well.

Some people just want to jump at the opportunity to be a crusader for the cause, or maybe even make a quick buck.

I d not agree with the photographers decision or business model, but there really is no need for legal action against them.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by adjensen

 

But again the business in not compelled to condone the activity only provide the service in which they provide to the public.

I mean do you believe you have the right to refuse your service to anyone for any reason (i.e. race, nationality, etc)?

I believe that I at one time had that right, but court decisions such as this are in the process of taking it away.

The defendant in this case was not injured -- they still got married, they got pictures taken, they even apparently got a better deal from the second photographer. There are thousands of professional photographers, so it seems unreasonable for the state to tell this particular individual that she either needs to change her religious views, or change her career.

Put another way, the state is, in effect, establishing a religious requirement for certain careers -- bakers, photographers, who knows what's next, maybe priests and pastors -- if you want to be in those fields, you cannot profess a religion that is opposed to gay marriage.

That is patently unconstitutional, but I hold out little hope that it will be found so, given the state of the nation today.

reply to post by evc1shop


But why would I want to impose my beliefs onto someone who thought differently?

Why would anyone?

Isn't the gay couple violating the photographers rights?

reply to post by beezzer


Yes their religious beliefs.

Guess that 1st amendment doesn't mean what we think it means.

reply to post by beezzer
I agree with you and many other that this law is deplorable.
My point is that once a person knows that the people they are contracting with are not receiving them openly, they should break off the chase. I was just thinking that the folks having this imposed on them have a way out because they can stand behind the law, do a crappy job etc.. , state it was to the best of their abilities and get back at those forcing it on them.
I am not a fan of this law and I simply wanted to point out that those who feel the need to force their views / lifestyle onto others may just reap what they are sowing.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by adjensen

 

But again the business in not compelled to condone the activity only provide the service in which they provide to the public.

I mean do you believe you have the right to refuse your service to anyone for any reason (i.e. race, nationality, etc)?

Yes, I actually do believe any business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. They hold all of the risks businesswise... therefore they should also have the right to run their business as they see fit client-wise. Bottom line, it probably isn't the best business model in this current era to openly restrict customers based on issues like race and handicaps, so the market as run by customer opinion will handle those who make truly bigotted choices. This is absolutely none of the government's business, IMO.

It is legalized extortion. Imagine if the tables were completely reversed here and the law stated that businesses had a right to force customers into their shops and force them into contracts. "Hey look, people planning a wedding! Quick, run out there and drag them into the shop so I can demand they sign this $500 photography contract! Go, quickly!" The idea that only customers should have the right and freedom of choice is so beyond the pale that only the government could have possibly come up with it.

reply to post by adjensen


I can understand your position.

However, I fail to understand why business owners enter into the public sphere providing services to anyone but those they have philosophical disagreements with.

If this photographer for example decided to photograph the ceremony despite her objection to gay marriage, but upon finding out the gay couple in question failed to hire her solely because of her position and not the quality of her work I would find that equally as ridiculous.

If you have a business that caters to the public then expect to do business with the public and leave your philosophical douchebaggery at home, because it doesn't get you paid

That photographer is just full of pure hyperbole. Photographing a wedding or anything is not a religious practice. Therefore not protected by freedom of religion. Photographer does not perform any religious duty. If she has a problem just say that she is busy or just plain "no". Don't start making up excuses based on your bigoted views.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Im glad she got sued.

Hopefully she will lose her business and give more deserving photographers a nice paycheck. She can pray to her god and receive nothing.

That's mature and sure meets the criteria of a free market... If there was that big of a demand for gay marriage photos (which, I might point out, NEW MEXICO DOESN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE AS A LEGAL UNION) then those "more deserving photographers" would have their own robust businesses. As it stands now, apparently you're endorsing an attitude of "If we can't compete against them, let's shut them down!" An attitude which is entirely unAmerican and bigotted. "I don't agree with your opinion so you should suffer" is just brimming over with acceptance and love... not.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If she has a problem just say that she is busy or just plain "no". Don't start making up excuses based on your bigoted views.

...I know, right? Lying is just always such a better idea than being open and forthright.

It's funny, taking an unpopular stand over an issue you agree with the stander on = Courageous!
Taking an unpopular stand over an issue you disagree with the stander on = Bigoted!

THIS is logical and standard operating procedure for modern life now?

How much you want a bet if that was a muslim photographer they never would have been taken to court.

Second verse same as the first verse with the third verse saying:

See cognitive dissonance ?

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
...I know, right? Lying is just always such a better idea than being open and forthright.

She might not be busy but how about just say plain no? How is that lying? Discriminating is against the law and she got what she deserves.

It's funny, taking an unpopular stand over an issue you agree with the stander on = Courageous!
Taking an unpopular stand over an issue you disagree with the stander on = Bigoted!

THIS is logical and standard operating procedure for modern life now?

How is the popularity of some stand at all relevant? Homophobes have always been bigots.