State court says gay rights trump religious beliefs

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
‘The price of citizenship’: State court says gay rights trump religious beliefs

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a photographer’s refusal to service a gay wedding on religious grounds violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), a state law that “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation.”

Photographers Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,” Justice Richard C. Bosson noted in his concurring opinion. But despite potential personal objections to gay marriage, the owners of Elane Photography “must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” This, Bosson says, is “the price of citizenship.”

In the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different,” he writes. “A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

The state court’s ruling upheld a lower court’s decision that the company’s refusal to photograph a lesbian wedding was an act of unlawful discrimination. The photographers in this case were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. ”This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free,” the group’s senior counsel said.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Alarming.

Hopefully appealed as far as it needs to go before being overturned, and hopefully the fascist judge and asshole fags get what they deserve for discriminating against a business owner who has the god given right to do what they want with their own property.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
That is one of the worst violations of freedom that a court has forced on someone.


I don't agree with the photographer . I would never refuse service to a gay person or a person of a certain religion. To me that is morally wrong but it in no way should be forced upon someone by law.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I've only skimmed the article but given that religious freedom is a first amendment federal right and gay rights is not in the constitution at all, I imagine that at the very least this reasoning/dicta would get discredited if not overturned depending on what the actual holding is.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Alarming.

Hopefully appealed as far as it needs to go before being overturned, and hopefully the fascist judge and asshole fags get what they deserve for discriminating against a business owner who has the god given right to do what they want with their own property.
By law it violated human rights, but since they are fags you choose to overlook that.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
By law it violated human rights, but since they are fags you choose to overlook that.
It is a violation of human rights to serve someone? That doesn't make legal sense nor does it make any comment sense.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Actually now that I actually read the article (duh on me), the opinion cited in the article is from the concurrence which would not have binding weight anyway, so never mind.

I am torn on the ruling. On one hand, I'd hate for the government to tell me with whom I must do business. But on the other hand, this exactly what they did with racial integration so it's hard to say it's wrong.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
It is a violation of human rights to serve someone? That doesn't make legal sense nor does it make any comment sense.
What? He wants the judgement thrown out.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
By law it violated human rights, but since they are fags you choose to overlook that.
That's true, and this isn't exactly new ground, other then adding homosexuality as a protected class. Businesses open to the public are already not allowed to discriminate based on things like race and national origin.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
By law it violated human rights, but since they are fags you choose to overlook that.
If any state law can overturn the first amendment, that's pretty alarming for people who want to see their constitutional rights upheld.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
What? He wants the judgement thrown out.
Sorry, that sentence should have a NOT in it.


As a business owner I have pour every waking hour of several years of my life into my dream. It had come at a great cost to me and my family. I'd like to have the freedom to do business with anyone that I please to for whatever reason I chose.

Suppose I am in a crazy lady's house and decide to pack up and leave because she making life suck for me. What if she turns out to be gay and next thing I know I'm in court. Does that sound like freedom to you? What if my religious beliefs do not allow me to serve a gay customer? Should I be in court over that? I mean, those aren't my beliefs but why can't they be in this country if I chose? What if we go into a house and it is so disgusting that I want to throw up and the lady is so fat that she can't bath. She has maggots growing in her fat rolls and I want to split? Take me to court over that?
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
These aren't crazy people...they are gay, so hard to comment on a terrible comparison.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
If any state law can overturn the first amendment, that's pretty alarming for people who want to see their constitutional rights upheld.
State laws obviously cannot overturn the first amendment. This particular law does no such thing.

First of all, the first amendment says that congress (meaning the federal government) shall make no law abridging freedom of religion. This is a state law, not federal.

Second, while the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to state action, the courts have long said that laws that affect religious beliefs are constitutional so long as they serve a compelling state interest and treat all religions the same.

Equal rights has long been established as a compelling state interest.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Where was the outrage when this bill was passed? Reactive, not proactive as usual.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
These aren't crazy people...they are gay, so hard to comment on a terrible comparison.
I guess you aren't interested in looking at the possible presendence that this could set up. You are leaving it up to a judge to determine if a person is crazy, gay or crazy and gay.

Or how about this: I own my business and I'll do with it what ever I want because it's mine. Isnt that what freedom is?
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Sorry, that sentence should have a NOT in it.


As a business owner I have pour every waking hour of several years of my life into my dream. It had come at a great cost to me and my family. I'd like to have the freedom to do business with anyone that I please to for whatever reason I chose.

Suppose I am in a crazy lady's house and decide to pack up and leave because she making life suck for me. What if she turns out to be gay and next thing I know I'm in court. Does that sound like freedom to you? What if my religious beliefs do not allow me to serve a gay customer? Should I be in court over that? I mean, those aren't my beliefs but why can't they be in this country if I chose? What if we go into a house and it is so disgusting that I want to throw up and the lady is so fat that she can't bath. She has maggots growing in her fat rolls and I want to split? Take me to court over that?
You are misunderstanding the law. You can refuse service to ANYONE except if it is because of racial/national origin/gender reasons and in some cases you can even do it on those grounds depending on the circumstances.

In your scenario the crazy lady would have to prove you refused service specifically because she was gay. Then you could counter by showing you did it for any other non-discriminatory reason.

And that's only if you are in a jurisdiction that has a law against discrimating due to sexual orientation. Most don't. That's the only thing really new here.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Human rights means I can walk in a place and demand service or I will take you to court. What person in their right mind feels that their human rights were violated because someone wouldn't take their picture?

That truly is gay of all gays b
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
You are misunderstanding the law. You can refuse service to ANYONE except if it is because of racial/national origin/gender reasons and in some cases you can even do it on those grounds depending on the circumstances.

In your scenario the crazy lady would have to prove you refused service specifically because she was gay. Then you could counter by showing you did it for any other non-discriminatory reason.

And that's only if you are in a jurisdiction that has a law against discrimating due to sexual orientation. Most don't. That's the only thing really new here.
Fair enough. The sad thing is that I would have to counter anything in the first place. That is very costly for someone who simply doesn't want to take gay pictures.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
I guess you aren't interested in looking at the possible presendence that this could set up. You are leaving it up to a judge to determine if a person is crazy, gay or crazy and gay.

Or how about this: I own my business and I'll do with it what ever I want because it's mine. Isnt that what freedom is?
Do whatever you want. The law states what it states...to call a judge a fascist because they enforced a state law is ridiculous.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
That's true, and this isn't exactly new ground, other then adding homosexuality as a protected class. Businesses open to the public are already not allowed to discriminate based on things like race and national origin.
They should be. I shouldn't have to serve anyone I don't want to.

If that is repugnant to society, society will not frequent that establishment and it will fail naturally.

Forcing people to have the same morals as you is fascism and forcing someone to conduct themselves in a certain way or face loss of their property is slavery.
 
Top Bottom