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

[MachZer0]

No it's not.

Your saying so doesn't seem to convince me

 

[Ssup]

You'd have to change the word "and" to exclude the association

No you wouldn't.

 

[Ssup]

Your saying so doesn't seem to convince me

I was correcting you, not convincing you.

 

[MachZer0]

I was correcting you, not convincing you.

You failed, just like you failed in trying to say that "and" doesn't create an association

 

[Bedford]

You'd have to change the word "and" to exclude the association

It is the semantic game!

 

[MachZer0]

It is the semantic game!

Indeed to claim that saying "McCarthy and the HUAC" does not associate the two requires one to play semantics with the word "and".

 

[Bedford]

Indeed to claim that saying "McCarthy and the HUAC" does not associate the two requires one to play semantics with the word "and".

They may be associated, however you tried to make the association that the poster said McCarthy was a member of HUAC , which was never mentioned except by you.

You were incorrect and now you have moved the goalposts and went with a different angle.

 

[MachZer0]

They may be associated, however you tried to make the association that the poster said McCarthy was a member of HUAC , which was never mentioned except by you.

You were incorrect and now you have moved the goalposts and went with a different angle.

Sorry, but McCarthy was not a member of the HUAC, so I was indeed correct.

 

[Ssup]

You failed, just like you failed in trying to say that "and" doesn't create an association

I corrected you just fine. That you're not convinced is not my problem. Nor is your incorrect use of the word "and."

 

[Bedford]

Sorry, but McCarthy was not a member of the HUAC, so I was indeed correct.

I should have known better than respond to you.

 

[dies-l]

Discrimination is not protected by religious beliefs.

Actually, in many contexts, it is. Would you argue, for example, that an evangelical pastor who sometimes performs weddings for non-church members is breaking the law if he refuses to perform weddings for same sex couples? Would you go the next step and say that if he does limit his weddings to church members that he is discriminating against non-members on account of their religion?

I have long argued that the religious exercise should be a valid defense to a claim of discrimination if non-discrimination would involve material participation in an act that the business owner finds immoral. Thus, in the SSM context, an officiant should not be forced to preside over a wedding that he or she does not condone, while a baker should not be able to cite religious beliefs as a defense to discrimination. I think that this standard best comports with the First Amendment.

In this case of the photographer, a different First Amendment argument comes into play. It is not the photographer religious liberties that are important, but her free speech rights that are implicated because of the nature of photography as a form of artistic expression.

But, I also believe that from a public policy standpoint, non-discrimination laws should never have been expanded to the extent that they have been in many states and municipalities to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation. It is a largely unnecessary overreach of governmental authority.

I would also argue that there is difference between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against homosexual conduct. Discrimination against gay people would be something along the lines of saying, "I will not take pictures of you, because you're gay." What we see here is a photographer saying something akin to, "I will not take pictures of your wedding, because I find this activity to be immoral." This is a far cry from the segregation era discrimination in which people were excluded from partaking of basic goods and services solely on account of an irrelevant and immutable physical characteristic.

 

[MachZer0]

I corrected you just fine. That you're not convinced is not my problem. Nor is your incorrect use of the word "and."

Attempted failed correction duly noted

 

[MachZer0]

I should have known better than respond to you.

People generally come to realize that if they agree with me, we can all be right

 

[super animator]

People generally come to realize that if they agree with me, we can all be right

Give one example of that actually happen.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Please point out the part in the Bible where it says that Christians must refuse to offer a service they provide because the person requesting the service is gay?

I read this question in a thread in Liberal Christians forum and it was a perfect reply to such questions. Though the poster was flamed for it by those who are Christian and tolerant of sin in the world but are not tolerant or liberal toward Christians who uphold God's law. Funny how that works out.

So, per their question and worded accordingly in reply here; point out the scriptures that legitimize homosexuality.

Which wasn't what we were talking about.

Sure it was. It was a matter of a Christians right to their religious beliefs and whether or not they can be forced to revoke those under threat so that their civil liberties are rescinded by those who were just afforded civil liberties that empower them to take the offensive in seeking to have them rescinded.

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.

Sure you can. It happens all the time. You just can not say you are refusing to provide a service because they are Hindu!

Sure. You can lie about the reason you are declining service. Pretty hard to stop that from happening.

It would not be a lie at all.
Saying, I'm sorry there isn't any room in the schedule to bake that wedding cake for that date.
Or, After looking at the photo schedule there isn't any opening where I would be able to schedule your wedding.

It is a matter of what is said and what is not said that makes it the truth and within the parameters of insuring one's civil rights are protected from those who would like to assault them.
For the Christian who does not want to photograph a gay wedding it is absolutely true when they say there is no room in their schedule to pencil in that event.
Same for the Christian baker.

 

[MachZer0]

Give one example of that actually happen.

Sure:

I should have known better than respond to you.

 

[Ssup]

Actually, in many contexts, it is. Would you argue, for example, that an evangelical pastor who sometimes performs weddings for non-church members is breaking the law if he refuses to perform weddings for same sex couples? Would you go the next step and say that if he does limit his weddings to church members that he is discriminating against non-members on account of their religion?

I have long argued that the religious exercise should be a valid defense to a claim of discrimination if non-discrimination would involve material participation in an act that the business owner finds immoral. Thus, in the SSM context, an officiant should not be forced to preside over a wedding that he or she does not condone, while a baker should not be able to cite religious beliefs as a defense to discrimination. I think that this standard best comports with the First Amendment.

In the first case potentially. It would really depend on the circumstances. In the second case, not a problem.

In this case of the photographer, a different First Amendment argument comes into play. It is not the photographer religious liberties that are important, but her free speech rights that are implicated because of the nature of photography as a form of artistic expression.

But, I also believe that from a public policy standpoint, non-discrimination laws should never have been expanded to the extent that they have been in many states and municipalities to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation. It is a largely unnecessary overreach of governmental authority.

I would also argue that there is difference between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against homosexual conduct. Discrimination against gay people would be something along the lines of saying, "I will not take pictures of you, because you're gay." What we see here is a photographer saying something akin to, "I will not take pictures of your wedding, because I find this activity to be immoral." This is a far cry from the segregation era discrimination in which people were excluded from partaking of basic goods and services solely on account of an irrelevant and immutable physical characteristic.

But she's not selling her artistic expressions, she's selling her technical services.

 

[Ssup]

Attempted failed correction duly noted

People generally come to realize that if they agree with me, we can all be right

Sure:

Continued semantic game playing duly noted.

 

[MachZer0]

In the first case potentially. It would really depend on the circumstances. In the second case, not a problem.


But she's not selling her artistic expressions, she's selling her technical services.

She's selling her artistic services

 

[MachZer0]

Continued semantic game playing duly noted.

You asked for it. You got it. Sorry to burst any bubbles