NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, but in this case there is actual evidence of it being religious.

Er..... fifty years ago it was also religious. The Bible promotes segregation. All those verses and lines about only your neighbors (neighbors meaning the members of your fellow white community) matter and they're the only people you should associate with, and all.

I would just love to see these alleged verses.

[The Orson Empire]

A business should not have the right to discriminate against its customers. /thread

Yes it should. This is a capitalist society.

[Geilinor]

Supporting gay rights and minority rights is a compelling government interest, is it not? Religious people are the majority and have their rights.

It depends. In this case, I would argue no, since the gay couple didn't actually suffer any lasting harms. They were easily able to find another photographer.

The photographer didn't suffer any lasting harm either, unless seeing a gay wedding is so traumatic that it can cause lasting harm.

[Katganistan]

i see no reason why anyone (including a commercial interest) should be allowed to discriminate against others and then hide behind religious belief to get away with it. when you cut the rhetoric out of the equation it's basically saying "you should allow people to discriminate against gays/whatever if they don't like them" which is mind blowingly non-existent logic that contradicts having laws against discrimination anyway

the inherent purpose of a private business is to make a profit by selling a service to the public. so obviously, if it wants to have access to us and all of what we provide, it should be obligated to follow our laws and respect our rights.

So places that don't open on Sundays like Chik fil A, or any store run by Orthdox Jews that doesn't open Friday or Saturday -- should they also be hit for discriminating against their customers?


Cos I would like a tasty chicken sammich on Sunday but can't get one.

[Mavorpen]

...What? Where did you pull this straw man from?

What the hell do you think we've been talking about for the past few posts?

Whether religious freedom trumps discrimination. SCOTUS says no.

[The Orson Empire]

i see no reason why anyone (including a commercial interest) should be allowed to discriminate against others and then hide behind religious belief to get away with it. when you cut the rhetoric out of the equation it's basically saying "you should allow people to discriminate against gays/whatever if they don't like them" which is mind blowingly non-existent logic that contradicts having laws against discrimination anyway

the inherent purpose of a private business is to make a profit by selling a service to the public. so obviously, if it wants to have access to us and all of what we provide, it should be obligated to follow our laws and respect our rights.

So places that don't open on Sundays like Chik fil A, or any store run by Orthdox Jews that doesn't open Friday or Saturday -- should they also be hit for discriminating against their customers?


Cos I would like a tasty chicken sammich on Sunday but can't get one.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers.

[Geilinor]

i see no reason why anyone (including a commercial interest) should be allowed to discriminate against others and then hide behind religious belief to get away with it. when you cut the rhetoric out of the equation it's basically saying "you should allow people to discriminate against gays/whatever if they don't like them" which is mind blowingly non-existent logic that contradicts having laws against discrimination anyway

the inherent purpose of a private business is to make a profit by selling a service to the public. so obviously, if it wants to have access to us and all of what we provide, it should be obligated to follow our laws and respect our rights.

So places that don't open on Sundays like Chik fil A, or any store run by Orthdox Jews that doesn't open Friday or Saturday -- should they also be hit for discriminating against their customers?

Places that don't open on certain days are restricting all customers equally. It would be different if said store only restricted black people, women, or LGBT people, for example.

[Wikkiwallana]

Would it have been that hard for the couple to get another photographer? Honestly, why must they ruin her life through a lawsuit?

Because she broke a law.

[Auralia]

It depends. In this case, I would argue no, since the gay couple didn't actually suffer any lasting harms. They were easily able to find another photographer.

The photographer didn't suffer any lasting harm either, unless seeing a gay wedding is so traumatic that it can cause lasting harm.

The RFRA only requires that religious exercise be restricted for it to apply, not that it cause lasting harm.

[Geilinor]

So places that don't open on Sundays like Chik fil A, or any store run by Orthdox Jews that doesn't open Friday or Saturday -- should they also be hit for discriminating against their customers?


Cos I would like a tasty chicken sammich on Sunday but can't get one.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers.

So should we go back to pre-Civil Rights Act segregation?

[The Orson Empire]

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers.

So should we go back to pre-Civil Rights Act segregation?

You have a point, I didn't think about that.

[Geilinor]

The photographer didn't suffer any lasting harm either, unless seeing a gay wedding is so traumatic that it can cause lasting harm.

The RFRA only requires that religious exercise be restricted for it to apply, not that it cause lasting harm.

What if I told you that I believe furthering the couple's rights was a compelling government interest? To rebut that, you'd have to prove that protecting minority rights is not a government interest and that religion is more important.

[Auralia]

What the hell do you think we've been talking about for the past few posts?

Whether religious freedom trumps discrimination. SCOTUS says no.

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

[Lunalia]

Supporting gay rights and minority rights is a compelling government interest, is it not? Religious people are the majority and have their rights.

It depends. In this case, I would argue no, since the gay couple didn't actually suffer any lasting harms. They were easily able to find another photographer.

And when a black couple was barred from entering a whites only restaurant fifty years ago, they were perfectly capable of going somewhere else. That was totally not discrimination.

[Wikkiwallana]

Again, where does the Bible say "Thou shalt not photograph gay weddings"?

Edit:

Christianity is a religion. What on Earth are you apologizing for?

Christians like to call it ''a personal relationship''.

Speaking as a Christian. It's a religion. Just because I feel close to Him does not change the fact that He is a supernatural being whom I worship.

[Blasveck]

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers.

So should we go back to pre-Civil Rights Act segregation?

To be fair, that was also government enforced segregation.

[Mavorpen]

Whether religious freedom trumps discrimination. SCOTUS says no.

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

No. Because that's not my claim.

[Geilinor]

Whether religious freedom trumps discrimination. SCOTUS says no.

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

City of Boerne v. Flores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores
The federal RFRA was ruled unconstitutional and an overreach of government power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Geilinor]

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

No. Because that's not my claim.

Well, guess what. I found an example.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Christians like to call it ''a personal relationship''.

Speaking as a Christian. It's a religion. Just because I feel close to Him does not change the fact that He is a supernatural being whom I worship.

I never said otherwise, it was just a joke.

[Auralia]

The RFRA only requires that religious exercise be restricted for it to apply, not that it cause lasting harm.

What if I told you that I believe furthering the couple's rights was a compelling government interest? To rebut that, you'd have to prove that protecting minority rights is not a government interest and that religion is more important.

Actually, in RFRA cases, the onus is on the government to prove that X is a compelling governmental interest, not the other way round. I think it's difficult to argue that a compelling governmental interest was being furthered in this case.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm guessing there's also no law that says "it is unlawful to fling rabid badgers at pedestrians from third story windows", but that it would still be illegal under existing laws.

*hands you bag of rabid badgers*

This is going to be a fun weekend!

[Auralia]

Do you have any examples of SCOTUS saying that private sector antidiscrimination law trumps RFRA-like legislation?

No. Because that's not my claim.

Well then whatever it is that you are claiming is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Lunalia]

*hands you bag of rabid badgers*

This is going to be a fun weekend!

Yes, and now I must avoid third story windows!

[Wikkiwallana]

How is your freedom to believe in any god you want harmed by this?

The Catholic Church teaches that participation in gay "commitment ceremonies" is wrong.

You may not have noticed, but New Mexico is not located in Vatican City.