NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

[MachZer0]

Said laws existed because said attitudes were prevalent.



My side of the aisle? Which side of what aisle would that be?



The very nature of law is not whether the law forces people to do what they don't want to. To believe otherwise is anarchism. What separates libertarians from statists is where the line is drawn. Anti-discrimination laws to prevent a majority from leaving an entire race of people without access to basic necessary goods, I don't have a problem with. Anti-discrimination laws to ensure that a marrying couple gets their top choice if photographer is extreme.

It doesn't seem very libertarian to me to use the force of law to compel businesses to provide any service it doesn't wish to provide

 

[variant]

It has nothing to do with the civil rights movement

Then you don't quite understand why those signs aren't up anymore.

 

[MachZer0]

Then you don't quite understand why those signs aren't up anymore.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand, noting that the signs were up well past the civil rights battles.

 

[variant]

I'm not the one who doesn't understand, noting that the signs were up well past the civil rights battles.

And yet they couldn't turn people away for any reason. Odd no?

 

[variant]

It wasn't halted.
Establishments are entitled to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they choose as long as that choice is not deemed discriminatory under law.

Reserving a right that you don't actually have then? Funny.

 

[MachZer0]

And yet they couldn't turn people away for any reason. Odd no?

Businesses can turn people away. They are not required to service everyone. Said signs again have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. Here's a legal discussion of the issue

 

[variant]

Businesses can turn people away. They are not required to service everyone. Said signs again have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. Here's a legal discussion of the issue

Seems like your source supports my position.

 

[kellhus]

By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter
August 23, 2013|10:15 am
In New Mexico, professional photographers may not refuse to work at gay weddings, that state's Supreme Court decided Thursday. (Christian Post Full Article)



Most Americans Say Christian Photographer Has Right to Deny Gay Wedding Request

By Tyler O'Neil , CP Contributor
July 17, 2013

Praise God that the State Supreme Court made the right decision.

 

[MachZer0]

Seems like your source supports my position.

In part, the point being however that the purpose of the signs is not related to the civil rights movement

 

[BlunderAngel]

Reserving a right that you don't actually have then? Funny.

No, they have the right. As I outlined earlier. And those signs can be posted and remain in force accordingly.

 

[Illuminaughty]

When people complain that their "right" to blatantly discriminate against gays in public business dealings is being infringed on it doesn't really evoke much sympathy from me. People are just going to have to live with the fact that they don't get to treat gay people like dirt anymore. I know the " EVIL civil rights movement" keeps protecting the groups they enjoy kicking around and now one of their last prey groups is being taking off the hunting list but they will just have to live with it.

 

[variant]

When people complain that their "right" to blatantly discriminate against gays in public business dealings is being infringed on it doesn't really evoke much sympathy from me. People are just going to have to live with the fact that they don't get to treat gay people like dirt anymore. I know the " EVIL civil rights movement" keeps protecting the groups they enjoy kicking around and now one of their last prey groups is being taking off the hunting list but they will just have to live with it.

It's only a matter of time before treating gay people poorly is seen as just as obnoxious as racism is.

This scares the crap out of some people.

 

[MachZer0]

When people complain that their "right" to blatantly discriminate against gays in public business dealings is being infringed on it doesn't really evoke much sympathy from me. People are just going to have to live with the fact that they don't get to treat gay people like dirt anymore. I know the " EVIL civil rights movement" keeps protecting the groups they enjoy kicking around and now one of their last prey groups is being taking off the hunting list but they will just have to live with it.

What about the business owner's right to freely exercise her religion?

 

[BlunderAngel]

What about the business owner's right to freely exercise her religion?

The new politic is slowly evolving to the point where tolerance is going to be forced under color of law, while an irreligious subtext is also.

Religious merchants can always find a way not to revoke their moral values so as to be forced against conscience to serve what is unconscionable.
No one can force an independent contractor, like a photographer, a baker, to work for anyone they do not want to.

Any number of excuses will suffice and there is no law that says that excuse has to be proven valid.
"I'm sorry my schedule will not allow me to accommodate your wedding on that day." "I do apologize but the shop schedule of cakes will not allow room for the time it would take to create that particular cake on__________"

The irreligious platform and it's proponents very often will argue that hate is a component of religious values. In fact it's a retail market slogan now that you can find on stickers and tee shirts.

However, hate has not a thing to do with it. God, religious ethics, religious morality, and doctrinal allegiance does. And in matters of the first amendment in this free country there is no one who can force any one who invokes those values in their personal or professional life to revoke them by force of law.

Federal law supersedes State law. And the U.S Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So a merchant can make an excuse, gently, and refuse service to gays. And there isn't a thing that couple or individual can do in reprisal. And if they attempt to pursue the matter legally, that Christian shop owner, independent contractor, can counter charge based on religious civil rights violations.
And make it public! Calling the media to cover the matter so as to show other Christian business owners what they can do when their values are attacked and their first amendment rights are threatened.

There is nothing so hypocritical as those who scream for tolerance while pursuing an agenda of intolerance.
Christians are called to love their neighbor. Gay or Straight. And we do. However, Christians are not called by God to tolerate, enable, support,enable, accommodate, approve, remain mute, tolerate, or defend the sinner in the commission of their sin.

The racial component is introduced into a discussion like this so as to, by proxy, imply anyone who holds to Christian values relating to the sin of sexual sodomy are racists. And that is why with the gay rights civil rights fight being waged now, they're opposed to gay progress in that area just as they were to that of blacks in their day when they pursued civil rights equality.
The sins of the past are then being painted onto Christians as racist sinners in the present.

It's a poor argument and yet it indicates the level of desperation for promoting intolerance for Christian values when those who ascribe to Christian values are called racists in order to intimidate them away from holding to religious values relating to sexual immorality. (Which applies to straight behaviors as well, of course)

I think those who throw the racist card at Christians today due to the gay marriage issue are largely ignorant of what blacks suffered in their pursuit for freedom from slavery and in seeking citizen equality back in the day.
In fact I'm sure of it. Otherwise, no one with knowledge could equate gay's agenda today to that of the blacks of yesterday.

Gay's today aren't property of a master. They're not called animals, with no soul, by law. They're not able to be bought and sold as property, or killed with impunity.
So the civil rights struggle for the black community that sought to overcome all those labels and the laws that backed them up, is in no wise similar to what gays pursue today.
Gays have always been equal as citizens in America regardless of their gender. They've simply not been allowed to get married.

That one issue alone is what further demonstrates there is not a thing related to the black civil rights fight of the past that would rightly apply to the gay marriage issue today.
Because back when blacks were prohibited from marrying whites it was because they were considered soulless, and like unto animals.

That is not why gays are prohibited from marriage today. Therefore, the racial component in the argument is an artificial corollary and has no merit. Even civil rights leaders have said as much. When they say that and many of them were in the civil rights fight back in the day, others who insist that can not possibly be true and here's why....are defeated before they speak.

 

[kellhus]

What about the business owner's right to freely exercise her religion?

If you read the court decision, you'd have noticed that the justices note that the free individual exercise of religion in the USA does not permit the violation of consumer protection laws in running a public accommodation business.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

Under established law, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith
, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (internalquotation marks and citation omitted).
In order to state a valid First Amendment freeexercise claim, a party must show either (a) that the law in question is not a “neutral law of general applicability,”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted) or (b) that thechallenge implicates both the Free Exercise Clause and an independent constitutional protection,
at 881, or possibly (c) that the law operates “in a context that len[ds] itself toindividualized government assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct.”
at 884.Elane Photography does not claim that the individualized assessment situation is applicableto the present case. We address its claims under the other two categories below.

{66}
Once again, Elane Photography’s interpretation rests on a distorted reading of thestatute. Section 28-1-9(B) allows religious organizations to “limit[] admission to or giv[e] preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or [to make] selections of buyers,lessees or tenants” that promote the organization’s religious principles. In the context of “buyers, lessees or tenants,” “buyers” clearly refers to purchasers of real estate rather thanretail customers.
Id.
Subsection (C) exempts religious organizations from provisions of the NMHRA governing sexual orientation and gender identity, but only regarding “employmentor renting.” If a religious organization sold goods or services to the general public, neither subsection would allow the organization to turn away same-sex couples while catering toopposite-sex couples of all faiths. Subsection (B) permits religious organizations to serveonly or primarily people of their own faith, as well as to discriminate in certain limited realestate transactions; Subsection (C) applies only to employment and, again, to real estate.
{67}
In other words, neither of the religious exemptions in Section 28-1-9 would permita religious organization to take the actions that Elane Photography did in this case.Furthermore, these exemptions do not prevent the NMHRA from being generally applicable.Exemptions for religious organizations are common in a wide variety of laws, and theyreflect the attempts of the Legislature to respect free exercise rights by reducing legal burdens on religion.
See, e.g.
,
Hobbie v. Unemp’t Appeals Comm’n of Fla.
, 480 U.S. 136,144-45 (1987) (observing that the United States Supreme Court “has long recognized thatthe government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices” and listing

24examples). Such exemptions are generally permissible,
see Corp. of the Presiding Bishopof the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos
, 483 U.S. 327, 329-30 (1987)(upholding religious exemption to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against anEstablishment Clause challenge), and in some situations they may be constitutionallymandated,
see Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC
, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 694, 705-06 (2012) (holding that the First Amendment precludes theapplication of employment discrimination laws to disputes between religious organizationsand their ministers).
{68}
The exemptions in the NMHRA are ordinary exemptions for religious organizationsand for certain limited employment and real-estate transactions. The exemptions do not prefer secular conduct over religious conduct or evince any hostility toward religion. Wehold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such it does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Ah, but if that was wholly true the "Conscience Clause" that George W. Bush Jr. signed into law during his term as President would not have passed into law.

Protected Classes Defined:

Religion & Creed
“A brief authoritative formula for religious belief”, “a set of fundamental beliefs” and a guiding principle (Webster’s Dictionary). Montana specifies “creed” and “religion” as separate protected classes within the same discrimination statute (State of Montana, State Personnel Division)

 

[kellhus]

Ah, but if that was wholly true the "Conscience Clause" that George W. Bush Jr. signed into law during his term as President would not have passed into law.

Protected Classes Defined:

Religion & Creed
“A brief authoritative formula for religious belief”, “a set of fundamental beliefs” and a guiding principle (Webster’s Dictionary). Montana specifies “creed” and “religion” as separate protected classes within the same discrimination statute (State of Montana, State Personnel Division)

It's nice that you consider that relevant. Clearly, neither set of lawyers on either side, nor the courts thought so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What about the business owner's right to freely exercise her religion?

Her religion dictates the terms of trade?

 

[BlunderAngel]

It's nice that you consider that relevant. Clearly, neither set of lawyers on either side, nor the courts thought so.

The courts never decided a thing in the Oregon Baker's issue.

And it is relevant contrary to what you'd like to promote the contrary. That's why Religion is a protected class under civil rights Federal law.

 

[kellhus]

The courts never decided a thing in the Oregon Baker's issue.

Which wasn't what we were talking about.

And it is relevant contrary to what you'd like to promote the contrary.

That isn't really something either you or I can decide, I'm afraid.

That's why Religion is a protected class under civil rights Federal law.

Yes, Blunder. Just like sexual orientation. You might have noticed that the New Mexico State Supreme Court said that businesses which serve the public may not refuse to serve a protected class. I can't refuse to bake cakes for a Hindu wedding. A photographer cannot refuse to photograph a gay wedding.