State court says gay rights trump religious beliefs

[skidadl]

Ironically I have been chatting it up in a sweet thread on an industry message board today about something simular. The topic basically discusses a crazy, wealthy lady who was completely unreasonable. Her adult son who is mentally retard was jumping up and down on the sofa screaming nooo over and over as loud as he could. The employee of the company was young and couldn't handle the situation well. The discussion was about when is it just not worth it to have certain customers.


Business owners should have the right to walk away anytime they feel like it. Adding another rule or restriction to commerce will not help. Business owners don't have an obligation to make sure that the world is happy based on over persons standards.

A violation of human rights should come into play when that has actually happened. How has the photographer prevented the gay couple from living a happy and productive life? Will they not have pictures taken now? Did all of the cameras in the world disappear? In this case it seems like you have some gay folks that are mad so they're going to force their morals on some poor photographer just because.

 

[Smitty]

Where was the outrage when this bill was passed? Reactive, not proactive as usual.

So you're saying the law should be repealed? I agree.

 

[Carp]

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.

What would your stance be if they refused service based on race?

 

[Carp]

So you're saying the law should be repealed? I agree.

I'm not saying that, but where was your outrage then?

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

Then how did you have conscientious objectors (back when there was a draft)? Drafting people to fight in the military serves a state interest. Why can't child protective services force Jehova's Witnesses to let their kids get blood transfusions (pretty sure they've had a lot of trouble with that)? Either you can force someone to do something that their religion forbids or you can't.

If you can, how can you say you're not interfering with the practice of that religion. At some point, any part of any religious practice could be banned since the compelling government interest test has always been incredibly loosely defined.

 

[skidadl]

Carp, I'm not sure what your position is. You make points with very little opinion or information attached to it.

Do you feel that this situation lends any consideration to a business owner who may be losing his religious freedom? Do you feel that the gays lost anything by not getting their pictures taken?

 

[EZ22]

If we all just treated everyone as equals like we pretend to stand for, then the country would be a better place.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not saying that, but where was your outrage then?

I didn't hear about it.

 

[Carp]

Carp, I'm not sure what your position is. You make points with very little opinion or information attached to it.

Do you feel that this situation lends any consideration to a business owner who may be losing his religious freedom? Do you feel that the gays lost anything by not getting their pictures taken?

I agree with the judge and don't think it is fascist to enforce a state law.

 

[Smitty]

What would your stance be if they refused service based on race?

Same thing, you should be able to serve anyone you want and refuse to serve anyone you want.

If that is repugnant to society, society will not frequent that establishment and it will fail naturally. You think someone could possibly run a successful business in NYC these days not serving black people?

If they could survive in deep south Alabama, then that's what the people of Alabama want. There's not just one hotel, one photographer, one restaurant, etc, and no one has the right to receive those services.

 

[skidadl]

If we all just treated everyone as equals like we pretend to stand for, then the country would be a better place.

I certainly agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

This is concerning law though. We live in a free society where each one of us can interpret what we feel like.

 

[Smitty]

I agree with the judge and don't think it is fascist to enforce a state law.

Retracted... it's merely the law that is fascist.

 

[Carp]

I certainly agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

This is concerning law though. We live in a free society where each one of us can interpret what we feel like.

Nothing to interpret...it clearly states you cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

[skidadl]

I'm just complaining in general and stating my opinion/personal experience about the matter. I've been corrected by Geng on the law and have read the several posts here adressing all of that. No further education on the law is needed.

 

[Bluestar71]

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.

It doesn't matter. It applies to the states as well and the courts have found exactly that. Under the 1st Amendment no government body - federal, state, or local - can abridge the freedom of religion. At least they're not supposed to.

Now whether that's what NM's supreme court is doing in this ruling is a question the federal courts will ultimately determine.

 

[Bluestar71]

I agree with the judge and don't think it is fascist to enforce a state law.

So the deep south can go back to Jim Crow and it's cool with you?

 

[Carp]

So the deep south can go back to Jim Crow and it's cool with you?

Yeah, that is exactly what I said you idiot.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It doesn't matter. It applies to the states as well and the courts have found exactly that. Under the 1st Amendment no government body - federal, state, or local - can abridge the freedom of religion. At least they're not supposed to.

I said that later in the same post that it applies to the states (through the 14th amendment), and yeah, actually they can abridge freedom of religion, for the reasons that I stated.

 

[Bluestar71]

Yeah, that is exactly what I said you idiot.

Hey, that's the logical conclusion if we're going to let states bypass the bill of rights and enact laws based on their own local sensibilities of what basic protections are or are not.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Hey, that's the logical conclusion if we're going to let states bypass the bill of rights and enact laws based on their own local sensibilities of what basic protections are or are not.

It's actually the exact opposite of what you are saying. This type of thing has been upheld by the courts precisely to strike down Jim Crow laws.