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

[MachZer0]

Ganesh, for example

"Ganesh Puja (Prayer to Lord Ganesh)
All auspicious ceremonies begin with a prayer to Lord Ganesh requesting him to remove any obstacles which may arise during the ceremony. "

So did this particular photographer photograph ganesh weddings?

 

[morningstar2651]

Which god would non-christians be celebrating in a wedding ceremony?

Depends on the religion, but non-Christians generally don't worship Christ.

 

[morningstar2651]

So did this particular photographer photograph ganesh weddings?

You still haven't answered my question - is it okay to photograph a non-Christian wedding?

 

[MachZer0]

You still haven't answered my question - is it okay to photograph a non-Christian wedding?

It would be up to the photographer. There is nothing inherently sinful about a non-christian wedding

 

[MachZer0]

Depends on the religion, but non-Christians generally don't worship Christ.

And a non-christian wedding doesn't necessarily worship a different god

 

[Joykins]

It would be up to the photographer. There is nothing inherently sinful about a non-christian wedding

What if it's a 2nd wedding? What if it's a 2nd wedding with no divorce in between?

 

[MachZer0]

What if it's a 2nd wedding? What if it's a 2nd wedding with no divorce in between?

Did this photographer do such weddings? Remember, the lesbian in this situation made it clear what type of ceremony this was going to be.

 

[BlunderAngel]

What if it's a 2nd wedding? What if it's a 2nd wedding with no divorce in between?

How absurd. That would be bigamy and against the law. And it wouldn't be a wedding because the State licensed official in charge of issuing a marriage license would not when researching the applicants name in the data base of applicants would reveal there was no divorce decree. Therefore, there would be no wedding.

How desperate are people here to stretch out this conversation to irrelevancies beyond reason?
What's next? "What if the guy wants to marry a Martian? Would the Christian photographer acquiesce then, or what?"

 

[Bedford]

How absurd. That would be bigamy and against the law. And it wouldn't be a wedding because the State licensed official in charge of issuing a marriage license would not when researching the applicants name in the data base of applicants would reveal there was no divorce decree. Therefore, there would be no wedding.

How desperate are people here to stretch out this conversation to irrelevancies beyond reason?
What's next? "What if the guy wants to marry a Martian? Would the Christian photographer acquiesce then, or what?"

It is almost as absurd as saying the photographer is participating in the celebration.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

How absurd. That would be bigamy and against the law. And it wouldn't be a wedding because the State licensed official in charge of issuing a marriage license would not when researching the applicants name in the data base of applicants would reveal there was no divorce decree. Therefore, there would be no wedding.

How desperate are people here to stretch out this conversation to irrelevancies beyond reason?
What's next? "What if the guy wants to marry a Martian? Would the Christian photographer acquiesce then, or what?"

Technically, they could still be getting "married" in the sense that they are having a wedding ceremony - much as the lesbian couple in the case being discussed, since NM does not (as of yet) recognize same-sex marriages legally.
So it is actually a reasonable question to ask - as odd as that seems.

 

[BlunderAngel]

It is almost as absurd as saying the photographer is participating in the celebration.

I've heard of that sarcastic rebuttal. But usually it's because comprehension of 'participate', is not understood.

When it is, it all goes away.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Technically, they could still be getting "married" in the sense that they are having a wedding ceremony - much as the lesbian couple in the case being discussed, since NM does not (as of yet) recognize same-sex marriages legally.
So it is actually a reasonable question to ask - as odd as that seems.

No. Technically, a wedding ceremony without the legal paperwork and the State official presiding would simply be play acting a wedding ceremony.
That's not what we're talking about.
Especially with regard to a "wedding photographer". Who would then have no lawful responsibility, nor would they be subject to legal prosecution, for refusing to participate in a false ceremony that is not lawfully permitted in their State.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

No. Technically, a wedding ceremony without the legal paperwork and the State official presiding would simply be play acting a wedding ceremony.
That's not what we're talking about.

As I pointed out, since SSM is not recognized in NM (where all this took place), we ARE discussing just that. Nothing but "play acting" the ceremony.

The photographer said "no" based on religious preference. But the court held the photographer cannot deny them service based on this, since they are classed as a public business/service, thereby held to anti-discrimination laws.

This is the same, essentially: what if the couple was involved in a 2nd wedding, without a divorce between?


I also point out that NM anti-discrimination law includes a clause that says you cannot discriminate based on marital status...

 

[Bedford]

I've heard of that sarcastic rebuttal. But usually it's because comprehension of 'participate', is not understood.

When it is, it all goes away.

Oh, it is understood alright. What is not understood here is that New Mexico has spoken and the hating photographer lost. Maybe they can get an appeal?

 

[Joykins]

How absurd. That would be bigamy and against the law. And it wouldn't be a wedding because the State licensed official in charge of issuing a marriage license would not when researching the applicants name in the data base of applicants would reveal there was no divorce decree. Therefore, there would be no wedding.

How desperate are people here to stretch out this conversation to irrelevancies beyond reason?
What's next? "What if the guy wants to marry a Martian? Would the Christian photographer acquiesce then, or what?"

Yeah, and there are no groups of people in the US who do such things? Oh, wait...

Civil or religious commitment ceremonies in states that do not recognize them are similarly off the books.

Catholics do not recognize the validity of 2nd marriages with civil divorce in between but no annulment from the Church. Can a Catholic photographer take picture of such a wedding in clear conscience?

And if you'd like to discuss human-Martian weddings, we can do that. Are these Martians human or humanoid, or totally alien?

 

[BlunderAngel]

Oh, it is understood alright. What is not understood here is that New Mexico has spoken and the hating photographer lost. Maybe they can get an appeal?

It's not hate it's religion and moral conviction. And the photographer didn't lose. As many of us have discussed, the photographer can legally refuse to photograph gay weddings all they want and there is nothing that those who hold contempt for the religious and their religious convictions can do about it.

 

[MachZer0]

Oh, it is understood alright. What is not understood here is that New Mexico has spoken and the hating photographer lost. Maybe they can get an appeal?

The hate appears aimed at the photographer who merely disapproved

 

[BlunderAngel]

As I pointed out, since SSM is not recognized in NM (where all this took place), we ARE discussing just that. Nothing but "play acting" the ceremony.

The photographer said "no" based on religious preference. But the court held the photographer cannot deny them service based on this, since they are classed as a public business/service, thereby held to anti-discrimination laws.

This is the same, essentially: what if the couple was involved in a 2nd wedding, without a divorce between?

There is no such thing as a lawful wedding when there is no divorce prior to what would be a 2nd marriage of one or both parties. There is no State in the nation that legally permits bigamy.
New Mexico is a rare State that has no laws that either specifically prohibit or permit gay marriage.

If this photographer was asked to photograph a gay wedding , they can refuse to do so based on their religious convictions by making the true statement that there is no room in their schedule to photograph the ceremony. And there is nothing that can be done about that.

A wedding photographer, licensed as what some call a public accommodation and that exclusively photographs weddings can refuse to photograph what is not a lawful wedding by definition. Because their license denotes they accommodate lawful wedding ceremonies only.

I also point out that NM anti-discrimination law includes a clause that says you cannot discriminate based on marital status...

Show me the law that you're referring to where it says a wedding photographer is compelled to photograph an illegal bigamist wedding.
There is no law that can force a photographer, or anyone else that could be retained, to accommodate an unlawful ceremony. Not one.
And a couple, be they straight or gay, who would seek to take legal recourse against someone who did refuse is just asking for not only a counter suit but a State charge when they seek to bring a charge against that public accommodation that refused their request. Because bigamy is illegal.
If one partner in the proposed ceremony is still married while seeking to enter into a lawful marriage, they're breaking the law. They'll be prosecuted. Not the public accommodation that refused their request to participate in a bigamous ceremony.
And since there is no law that permits gay weddings in New Mexico, an exclusive service for wedding photography only can refuse to photograph a gay wedding when there is no law that says gay weddings are lawful in New Mexico.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The hate appears aimed at the photographer who merely disapproved

I'm not seeing any of that taking place here . People are just expressing their disapproval of the photographer acting in a discriminatory manner against gay people. It doesn't make sense to act as if the perpetrator of the discrimination was the victim. Pretending that the judges were the bad gays for infringing on the bigots "right" to treat people like dirt and discriminate. This reminds me of the people claiming that the civil rights advocates speaking out against the KKK or racism are the real haters because racists merely disapprove of interracial marriage they don't actually hate the people they call "race traitors" or "abominations". Those speaking out against racism are haters in their mind for some reason.

BTW, the photographer went well beyond mere disapproval. He actually discriminated against the customer. Had he disapproved but still obeyed the non discrimination law no one would be talking about it.

 

[NotreDame]

.


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

Actually, she is selling her artistic expression. After all, it is the artistic expression of professional photographers which is what is being sold and people expect. Otherwise, some layperson with an i-Phone camera could take pictures of the wedding.

Professional photographers are chosen for their expertise in artistic expression as it pertains to A.) lighting B.) Setting C.) Shading D.) Any props used E.) Location F.) Time of day, etcetera, and all of them constitute as artistic expression when used in photography.

What your position fails to ignore is "her technical services" constitutes as her artistic expression. The "technical services" of a painter constitutes as the painter's artistic expression and similarly, the same is true of a photographer.