Federal law prohibits segregation. No such law covers Homosexual marriage.
Advertisement
by Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:17 pm
by Auralia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:17 pm
The TransPecos wrote:Scholencia wrote: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...
by Seperates » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:20 pm
by Ethel mermania » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:20 pm
Auralia wrote:The TransPecos wrote:
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.
by Mavorpen » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:21 pm
by Neo Arcad » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:21 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Two shirtless men on a pushback with handlebar moustaches and a kettle conquered India, at 17:04 in the afternoon on a Tuesday. They rolled the bike up the hill and demanded that the natives set about acquiring bureaucratic records.
Des-Bal wrote:Modern politics is a series of assholes and liars trying to be more angry than each other until someone lets a racist epithet slip and they all scatter like roaches.
NSLV wrote:Introducing the new political text from acclaimed author/yak, NEO ARCAD, an exploration of nuclear power in the Middle East and Asia, "Nuclear Penis: He Won't Call You Again".
by Wikkiwallana » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:22 pm
Jack Holland wrote:Mavorpen wrote: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."
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Blasveck » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:23 pm
Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:The entire government is a leftist disaster. Another prime example of this is the Army forcing Chaplains to marry gay couples.
by Auralia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:23 pm
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
by Lunalia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:23 pm
Wikkiwallana wrote:Jack Holland wrote: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.
by Blasveck » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:25 pm
Auralia wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
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.
by Wikkiwallana » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:25 pm
Jack Holland wrote: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?"
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Grand Britannia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:26 pm
by Auralia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Blasveck wrote:Auralia wrote:
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?
by Lunalia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Grand Britannia wrote: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.
by Mavorpen » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:27 pm
by Geilinor » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:27 pm
Auralia wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
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.
by Grand Britannia » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:28 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:28 pm
Jack Holland wrote:Geilinor wrote: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.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Mavorpen » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:29 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, ARIsyan-, Big Eyed Animation, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ha cha cha, Ifreann, Ineva, La Xinga, Lewayin, Majestic-12 [Bot], Rusozak, Shrillland, Soveiniesberg, Stellar Colonies, Vendellamoore, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement