NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

The entire government is a leftist disaster. Another prime example of this is the Army forcing Chaplains to marry gay couples.

So we shouldn't force them to marry interracial couples?

Federal law prohibits segregation. No such law covers Homosexual marriage.

[Auralia]

I am just advocating the rights of every person on Earths. Unfortunately, some people who claim to love freedom are in fact destroying it. The verdicts is stupid since it violates human rights.

The verdict isn't stupid, it is just a common definition application of the wording of the law. The court didn't write, pass, or sign the law. If you have an issue with the court decision, blame the legislators who passed it and the Governor who signed it.

Gotta say it again, another "shining" example of the Law of Unintended Consequences...

Actually, I think that the Court didn't apply RFRA correctly in this case. If they had, the photographer would have won.

[Seperates]

So we shouldn't force them to marry interracial couples?

Federal law prohibits segregation. No such law covers Homosexual marriage.

Do you not know what segregation means?

[Ethel mermania]

The verdict isn't stupid, it is just a common definition application of the wording of the law. The court didn't write, pass, or sign the law. If you have an issue with the court decision, blame the legislators who passed it and the Governor who signed it.

Gotta say it again, another "shining" example of the Law of Unintended Consequences...

Actually, I think that the Court didn't apply RFRA correctly in this case. If they had, the photographer would have won.

only religious organizations get religious exemptions, and it was NOT A MARRIAGE, but a commitment cerimony.

[Lunalia]

Federal law prohibits segregation. No such law covers Homosexual marriage.

Do you not know what segregation means?

I'm sorry, I've been comparing the segregation now to the segregation fifty years ago so much I've gotten his mind stuck on "segregation was fifty years ago"

[Mavorpen]

So we shouldn't force them to marry interracial couples?

Federal law prohibits segregation. No such law covers Homosexual marriage.

You've never heard of the 14th Amendment, have you?

[Neo Arcad]

Oh. Well, in that case, what the actual fuck?

You can argue the Bible supports you on almost anything. It's partially why I can't take "cuz teh bible sayz so" as a legitimate reason for discrimination.

[Wikkiwallana]

Or maybe they were the best in the area.

Maybe, maybe not! I think it is crossing the line for the government to tell businesses to do things. Here is my philosophy:
GOVERNMENT CONTROLS
Public Property
Public Institutions
Public Organizations
And Organizations that take Public Funds/Government Funds
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT CONTROL
Private Businesses
People

However, the Government does have the right to enforce the law on all organizations, people, and businesses.
Nowhere does it say in New Mexico law that "photographers are required to photograph lesbian couples."

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.

[Blasveck]

The entire government is a leftist disaster. Another prime example of this is the Army forcing Chaplains to marry gay couples.

Good thing that that's bullshit.

Nobody has been forcing anybody to marry a gay couple.

[Auralia]

Actually, I think that the Court didn't apply RFRA correctly in this case. If they had, the photographer would have won.

only religious organizations get religious exemptions, and it was NOT A MARRIAGE, but a commitment cerimony.

The New Mexico RFRA applies to all persons, not just religious organizations:

A government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless:

A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and

B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html

I don't see how the marriage/commitment ceremony thing has anything to do with it. Forcing someone to photograph a gay commitment ceremony is still a burden on freedom of religion.

[Lunalia]

Maybe, maybe not! I think it is crossing the line for the government to tell businesses to do things. Here is my philosophy:
GOVERNMENT CONTROLS
Public Property
Public Institutions
Public Organizations
And Organizations that take Public Funds/Government Funds
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT CONTROL
Private Businesses
People

However, the Government does have the right to enforce the law on all organizations, people, and businesses.
Nowhere does it say in New Mexico law that "photographers are required to photograph lesbian couples."

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*

[Blasveck]

only religious organizations get religious exemptions, and it was NOT A MARRIAGE, but a commitment cerimony.

The New Mexico RFRA applies to all persons, not just religious organizations:

A government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless:

A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and

B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html

I don't see how the marriage/commitment ceremony thing has anything to do with it. Forcing someone to photograph a gay commitment ceremony is still a burden on freedom of religion.

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

[Wikkiwallana]

Would be people feel the same way about this if a photographer refused to photography heterosexual companies and only photographed gay couples, stating "personal reasons?"

Yes.

[Grand Britannia]

I think it was her right to deny service to the couple.

Plenty of other photographers the couple could have gone to, in the end it was just a loss of business.

[Auralia]

The New Mexico RFRA applies to all persons, not just religious organizations:



I don't see how the marriage/commitment ceremony thing has anything to do with it. Forcing someone to photograph a gay commitment ceremony is still a burden on freedom of religion.

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.

[Lunalia]

I think it was her right to deny service to the couple.

Plenty of other photographers the couple could have gone to, in the end it was just a loss of business.

And was it a business owner's right in the 1960s to deny service to blacks?

[Mavorpen]

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.

And since the law>Catholic Church, who gives a shit?

[Geilinor]

only religious organizations get religious exemptions, and it was NOT A MARRIAGE, but a commitment cerimony.

The New Mexico RFRA applies to all persons, not just religious organizations:

A government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless:

A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and

B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html

I don't see how the marriage/commitment ceremony thing has anything to do with it. Forcing someone to photograph a gay commitment ceremony is still a burden on freedom of religion.

B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Is it not a compelling government interest to prevent discrimination against gay people? The New Mexican Supreme Court has ruled on the side of the couple. This is the least restrictive means of furthering gay rights.

[Auralia]

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

And since the law>Catholic Church, who gives a shit?

Look at the context of this discussion. I'm talking about the RFRA.

[Grand Britannia]

I think it was her right to deny service to the couple.

Plenty of other photographers the couple could have gone to, in the end it was just a loss of business.

And was it a business owner's right in the 1960s to deny service to blacks?

It's their right to deny service to who they want. In the end, they are the ones losing money.

[Blasveck]

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

The Catholic Church forbids me from participating in gay "commitment ceremonies".

Do they have scripture to support that?

Because the Bible doesn't say anything about "participating in gay commitment ceremony" and it being a sin to do so.

[Wikkiwallana]

Probably, yes.

Then, I am satisfied and I am sure that the business owner above (in this post) would be just as upset as the Christian business owners in this thread. This rule has to go. Discriminating against LBGTs by saying they can't use this bathroom, can't use this water fountain, and can't ride the public bus is unacceptable. But private businesses should the right of discrimination. This doesn't mean they can go unpunished though as society will inflict the punishment rather than the government. If a business refuses to serve blacks, people will boycott them and force them to change their policies or go out of business.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people think "government" is this unique entity wholly divorced from society. We have these laws because society demanded that the government implement them.

[Lunalia]

And was it a business owner's right in the 1960s to deny service to blacks?

It's their right to deny service to who they want. In the end, they are the ones losing money.

50 years of post civil Rights Era laws say otherwise.

[Auralia]

The Catholic Church forbids me from participating in gay "commitment ceremonies".

Do they have scripture to support that?

Because the Bible doesn't say anything about "participating in gay commitment ceremony" and it being a sin to do so.

Who are you to dictate the teachings of the Catholic Church?

[Mavorpen]

And since the law>Catholic Church, who gives a shit?

Look at the context of this discussion. I'm talking about the RFRA.

Right...so you want to actually address what I said?