NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[HappyShark]

Consider this I was challenged that since Christians want their beliefs upheld then Muslims should be allowed to have their Sharia law, with the stoning of women and all.

----- first off I am not the religious type so for me it is a much more pragmatic issue of not only feasibility and path of least resistance but one where common ground can justifiably be reached. I try to be reasonable, but as you may have just noticed i can also be quite unreasonable.

You ask what is my position on harm and beliefs:

--------

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

Discrimination causes harm. So I am still right.

Subjective, as to when it is applicable per the law. I am quite sure many can claim emotional harm across a wide spectrum of issues, they may even be able to prove this emotional harm led to mental anguish and mental harm. It is is not however applied equally. I do at time qualify with physical harm but this limits the scope severely, and seems unfair to those who truly suffer at the hands of verbal abuse.

[Dyakovo]

Whether he was born that way or not is immaterial. Read the fucking law. It states explicitly what things you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of.

such intolerance tsk tsk tsk

Do you even know what the fucking discussion is about?

[Grave_n_idle]

Businesses won't always cater to everyone. Businesses that sell toys cater to children, but does that make them discriminatory towards adults? No.

It would make them discriminatory if they refused to sell their products to you because you were an adult.

[HappyShark]

such intolerance tsk tsk tsk

Do you even know what the fucking discussion is about?

such animosity, dear me what should i do.

[Dyakovo]

Do you even know what the fucking discussion is about?

such animosity, dear me what should i do.

Answer the fucking question. What is the topic of this thread?

[HappyShark]

such animosity, dear me what should i do.

Answer the fucking question. What is the topic of this thread?

don't you know, well i'm sure if you look you can figure it out.

[Grave_n_idle]

Answer the fucking question. What is the topic of this thread?

don't you know, well i'm sure if you look you can figure it out.

Does this serve any other purpose than trying to antagonise another poster?

It looks like you wandered off topic, and are refusing to be coaxed back on.

[HappyShark]

don't you know, well i'm sure if you look you can figure it out.

Does this serve any other purpose than trying to antagonise another poster?

It looks like you wandered off topic, and are refusing to be coaxed back on.

I was having a discussion in regards to the ethics of forcing someone to do something against their will. I apologize if this discussion in regards to ethics is off topic, but it seemed relevant to the question being asked in the poll.

[Dakini]

Does this serve any other purpose than trying to antagonise another poster?

It looks like you wandered off topic, and are refusing to be coaxed back on.

I was having a discussion in regards to the ethics of forcing someone to do something against their will. I apologize if this discussion in regards to ethics is off topic, but it seemed relevant to the question being asked in the poll.

Nobody was being forced to do anything here.

Unless you count the fact that the couple was forced to go find a photographer who wasn't a bigot who insults them when they try to hire the photographer.

[HappyShark]

I was having a discussion in regards to the ethics of forcing someone to do something against their will. I apologize if this discussion in regards to ethics is off topic, but it seemed relevant to the question being asked in the poll.

Nobody was being forced to do anything here.

Unless you count the fact that the couple was forced to go find a photographer who wasn't a bigot who insults them when they try to hire the photographer.

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

[Dyakovo]

Nobody was being forced to do anything here.

Unless you count the fact that the couple was forced to go find a photographer who wasn't a bigot who insults them when they try to hire the photographer.

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

No-one has the right to discriminate.

2006 New Mexico Statutes - Section 28-1-7 — Unlawful discriminatory practice.
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
A. an employer, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or other statutory prohibition, to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote or to discriminate in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment against any person otherwise qualified because of race, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation; provided, however, that 29 U.S.C. Section 631(c)(1) and (2) shall apply to discrimination based on age; or, if the employer has fifteen or more employees, to discriminate against an employee based upon the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity;
B. a labor organization to exclude a person or to expel or otherwise discriminate against any of its members or against any employer or employee because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition;
C. any employer, labor organization or joint apprenticeship committee to refuse to admit or employ any person in any program established to provide an apprenticeship or other training or retraining because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation;
D. any person, employer, employment agency or labor organization to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, to use any form of application for employment or membership or to make any inquiry regarding prospective membership or employment that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;
E. an employment agency to refuse to list and properly classify for employment or refer a person for employment in a known available job, for which the person is otherwise qualified, because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification, or to comply with a request from an employer for referral of applicants for employment if the request indicates either directly or indirectly that the employer discriminates in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
G. any person to:
(1) refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
(2) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental, assignment, lease or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or in the provision of facilities or services in connection therewith because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; or
(3) print, circulate, display or mail or cause to be printed, circulated, displayed or mailed any statement, advertisement, publication or sign or use any form of application for the purchase, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or to make any record or inquiry regarding the prospective purchase, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property that expresses any preference, limitation or discrimination as to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
H. any person to whom application is made either for financial assistance for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any housing accommodation or real property or for any type of consumer credit, including financial assistance for the acquisition of any consumer good as defined by Section 55-9-102 NMSA 1978, to:
(1) consider the race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap of any individual in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying or renewing or in the fixing of the rates, terms, conditions or provisions of any financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection with the request for financial assistance; or
(2) use any form of application for financial assistance or to make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for financial assistance that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap;
I. any person or employer to:
(1) aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any unlawful discriminatory practice or to attempt to do so;
(2) engage in any form of threats, reprisal or discrimination against any person who has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice or has filed a complaint, testified or participated in any proceeding under the Human Rights Act [ 28-1-1 NMSA 1978]; or
(3) willfully obstruct or prevent any person from complying with the provisions of the Human Rights Act or to resist, prevent, impede or interfere with the commission or any of its members, staff or representatives in the performance of their duties under the Human Rights Act; or
J. any employer to refuse or fail to accommodate a person's physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless such accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. New Mexico may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

[HappyShark]

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

No-one has the right to discriminate.

2006 New Mexico Statutes - Section 28-1-7 — Unlawful discriminatory practice.
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
A. an employer, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or other statutory prohibition, to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote or to discriminate in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment against any person otherwise qualified because of race, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation; provided, however, that 29 U.S.C. Section 631(c)(1) and (2) shall apply to discrimination based on age; or, if the employer has fifteen or more employees, to discriminate against an employee based upon the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity;
B. a labor organization to exclude a person or to expel or otherwise discriminate against any of its members or against any employer or employee because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition;
C. any employer, labor organization or joint apprenticeship committee to refuse to admit or employ any person in any program established to provide an apprenticeship or other training or retraining because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation;
D. any person, employer, employment agency or labor organization to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, to use any form of application for employment or membership or to make any inquiry regarding prospective membership or employment that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, or, if the employer has fifty or more employees, spousal affiliation, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;
E. an employment agency to refuse to list and properly classify for employment or refer a person for employment in a known available job, for which the person is otherwise qualified, because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification, or to comply with a request from an employer for referral of applicants for employment if the request indicates either directly or indirectly that the employer discriminates in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification;
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
G. any person to:
(1) refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
(2) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental, assignment, lease or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or in the provision of facilities or services in connection therewith because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; or
(3) print, circulate, display or mail or cause to be printed, circulated, displayed or mailed any statement, advertisement, publication or sign or use any form of application for the purchase, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or to make any record or inquiry regarding the prospective purchase, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property that expresses any preference, limitation or discrimination as to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
H. any person to whom application is made either for financial assistance for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any housing accommodation or real property or for any type of consumer credit, including financial assistance for the acquisition of any consumer good as defined by Section 55-9-102 NMSA 1978, to:
(1) consider the race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap of any individual in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying or renewing or in the fixing of the rates, terms, conditions or provisions of any financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection with the request for financial assistance; or
(2) use any form of application for financial assistance or to make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for financial assistance that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap;
I. any person or employer to:
(1) aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any unlawful discriminatory practice or to attempt to do so;
(2) engage in any form of threats, reprisal or discrimination against any person who has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice or has filed a complaint, testified or participated in any proceeding under the Human Rights Act [ 28-1-1 NMSA 1978]; or
(3) willfully obstruct or prevent any person from complying with the provisions of the Human Rights Act or to resist, prevent, impede or interfere with the commission or any of its members, staff or representatives in the performance of their duties under the Human Rights Act; or
J. any employer to refuse or fail to accommodate a person's physical or mental handicap or serious medical condition, unless such accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. New Mexico may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

The poll asks:
Was it right for the NM Supreme Court to force Ms. Huguenin to photograph a gay wedding ceremony?

Per law, I cannot disagree, but on a philosophical and per my own morals and ethics I retain the right to claim the decisions made in this case is wrong. I have provided my reasons, and you are free to challenge them as you see fit.

I do not think the poll is asking if the decision is legal, unless I am reading it wrong, which is possible i have been known to do this on occasion. My own interpretation of the question is if we think the legal decision made was right or wrong. Please fell free to correct me if I am wrong

[Dyakovo]

No-one has the right to discriminate.

The poll asks

The poll is not the thread topic.

[HappyShark]

The poll asks

The poll is not the thread topic.

From the opening post:

As a Catholic, I find this turn of events rather appalling. I would hate to be in a position where I have to choose between compromising my moral and religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine. Any law that would put me in that position is a bad law.

But even from a secular perspective, I have a couple of problems with this case. Shouldn't the First Amendment prohibit this, since it was essentially compelled speech? Shouldn't the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which forbids the government from substantially burdening freedom of religion unless it is the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest) prohibit this, since Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer?

After all, the purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have access to essential services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm. As I just said, Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer, so why did she and her partner feel it necessary to go after Ms. Huguenin?

So, NSG, what do you think?

EDIT: Here's the sequence of events that lead to the human rights complaint:

I believe he is asking for our opinions in regards to the decision made by the NM supreme court. Specifically:

So, NSG, what do you think?

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Again i have provided my opinion and my reasoning behind this opinion, you are welcome to challenge my thoughts on the matter in anyway you see fit.

[Dyakovo]

The poll is not the thread topic.

From the opening post:

As a Catholic, I find this turn of events rather appalling. I would hate to be in a position where I have to choose between compromising my moral and religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine. Any law that would put me in that position is a bad law.

But even from a secular perspective, I have a couple of problems with this case. Shouldn't the First Amendment prohibit this, since it was essentially compelled speech? Shouldn't the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which forbids the government from substantially burdening freedom of religion unless it is the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest) prohibit this, since Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer?

After all, the purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have access to essential services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm. As I just said, Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer, so why did she and her partner feel it necessary to go after Ms. Huguenin?

So, NSG, what do you think?

EDIT: Here's the sequence of events that lead to the human rights complaint:

I believe he is asking for our opinions in regards to the decision made by the NM supreme court. Specifically:

So, NSG, what do you think?

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Again i have provided my opinion and my reasoning behind this opinion, you are welcome to challenge my thoughts on the matter in anyway you see fit.

Again, the poll is not the topic of the thread. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

[HappyShark]

From the opening post:



I believe he is asking for our opinions in regards to the decision made by the NM supreme court. Specifically:



Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Again i have provided my opinion and my reasoning behind this opinion, you are welcome to challenge my thoughts on the matter in anyway you see fit.

Again, the poll is not the topic of the thread. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

Please explain to me how the opening post which i quoted not the topic of the thread? We seem to be deviating again...

[Gauthier]

It's amazing how an internet poll has the power to overturn state law.

[Dyakovo]

Again, the poll is not the topic of the thread. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

Please explain to me how the opening post which i quoted not the topic of the thread? We seem to be deviating again...

The OP misrepresented what actually happened. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

[HappyShark]

Please explain to me how the opening post which i quoted not the topic of the thread? We seem to be deviating again...

The OP misrepresented what actually happened. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

Granted, but the spirit of the law would have compelled Ms. Huguenin to take those photographs against her will ... i.e. forced her to.

[Gauthier]

The OP misrepresented what actually happened. The NMSC did not force Ms. Huguenin to take any photographs.

Granted, but the spirit of the law would have compelled Ms. Huguenin to take those photographs against her will ... i.e. forced her too.

Because "you can't discriminate against gays" is the same as chaining her to the studio and taping her eyes open so she has to photograph the lesbian couple having sex.

[HappyShark]

Granted, but the spirit of the law would have compelled Ms. Huguenin to take those photographs against her will ... i.e. forced her too.

Because "you can't discriminate against gays" is the same as chaining her to the studio and taping her eyes open so she has to photograph the lesbian couple having sex.

Here is my stance on the issue: feel free to challenge it as you see fit.

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

[Gauthier]

Because "you can't discriminate against gays" is the same as chaining her to the studio and taping her eyes open so she has to photograph the lesbian couple having sex.

Here is my stance on the issue: feel free to challenge it as you see fit.

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

But of course removal of the lesbian couples' ability to pursue happiness means jack shit because they're fags amirite?

[HappyShark]

Here is my stance on the issue: feel free to challenge it as you see fit.

In the same way you like having the ability to make your own choices, it needs to be extended to others around you. You do not have to agree with those choices, but leeway should be provided.

What should not be allowed is the removal of peoples ability to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, whether we agree with it or not. Likewise we should not be forced to participate if we disagree with those choices.

In as much as their beliefs do not harm another person their beliefs morals and ethics should be protected, and cherished. it is what this country was founded on. Religion or not the morals ethics and beliefs of any man woman or child should not be forfeit to civil law.

The above does not give you a right to judge another person, it is their life to pursue as they see fit. You do not have to agree with their choices and you may even hate the choices they make, but you do not get to judge and condemn them for it either.

You have a choice to not associate with what you are morally opposed to. Which brings us back to why forcing others to associate against their moral convictions is wrong. Removing your choice not to associate is completely wrong, because it removes your ability to disengage from what you feel is wrong.

But of course removal of the lesbian couples' ability to pursue happiness means jack shit because they're fags amirite?

Did someone stop them from getting married or acquiring a photographer? If so this person should be in jail. They may not have acquired the initial photographer they were hoping for, but how did this stop their pursuit of happiness? I have had to go to secondary sources many times in my life should i begin to claim those who said no are denying me my pursuit of happiness and therefore violating my constitutional rights. Or is it only applicable because they are gay?

[Gauthier]

But of course removal of the lesbian couples' ability to pursue happiness means jack shit because they're fags amirite?

Did someone stop them from getting married or acquiring a photographer? If so this person should be in jail. They may not have acquired the initial photographer they were hoping for, but how did this stop their pursuit of happiness? I have had to go to secondary sources many times in my life should i begin to claim those who said no are denying me my pursuit of happiness and therefore violating my constitutional rights. Or is it only applicable because they are gay?

Any of those anecdotal times you were specifically turned away because of your race, beliefs or orientation? If not, then the attempt at false equivalency fails.

[HappyShark]

Did someone stop them from getting married or acquiring a photographer? If so this person should be in jail. They may not have acquired the initial photographer they were hoping for, but how did this stop their pursuit of happiness? I have had to go to secondary sources many times in my life should i begin to claim those who said no are denying me my pursuit of happiness and therefore violating my constitutional rights. Or is it only applicable because they are gay?

Any of those anecdotal times you were specifically turned away because of your race, beliefs or orientation? If not, then the attempt at false equivalency fails.

So you agree this particular privilege only applies if you are gay.