NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[HappyShark]

Sharky, you've at least been reasonable and polite in your argument but the fact remains that the photographer tried to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against a gay couple in a state that has laws clearly saying that the behavior is unlawful regardless of reasoning. They didn't refuse service because they were overbooked or some other reason that could be legitimate, instead they flat out told them it was because they were a homosexual couple. Its just like refusing to serve someone because they are black or Cherokee or from Kansas City Missouri. Had it been in reverse and a gay photographer refused to serve the customer because they were a Christian the result of the trial would have been much the same where the gay man would have to pay a penalty and that is as it should be. There can be no tolerance for that type of discrimination.

If Happy Shark, or anybody else, wants to return us to the Jim Crow model, they're welcome to try to convince us. They don't seem interested in trying.

We've tried the system they're proposing. It sucked and we didn't like it. Why should we go backward?

What I said is in no way related to the Jim Crow model, which is wrong and should not even be contemplated.

I am honestly not looking at this from a legal standpoint beyond voicing an opinion of why I believe it was wrong. Laws are made to be broken, and they are broken by everybody, every single day of their lives. LOL, we are breaking the law right now with the avatars and fake name accounts we use, but this is just a technicality.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6- ... ng-it.html

And we think we are free

What I wrote was more on a personal level, seriously not meant to be some overarching megalomaniac suppression of gay rights as some would love to misrepresent it as. It is in in relation to the transaction which took place between a small business owned by one person and a gay couple. For all intents and purposes it is a professional hobby in the sense that it provides enough income for this one person to survive from day to day pursuing what they love to do as a professional artist. A gay couple approached her and based on the legal brief she was willing to take their pictures but not in the context of a same sex wedding. She was polite and she was honest about her views. There was a moral conflict between these views. A moral conflict remains a moral conflict regardless of what laws are passed and these are varied across a very wide spectrum. There is no way of knowing when a personal morality we hold becomes illegal or to tell what forces would propel such a decision forward. Yes some say it is a slippery slope argument, but one firmly rooted in historical fact. To ignore the past is to foolishly repeat lesson already learned, some much more harsh then others. The stance was in full context of the situation taking all of its factors into consideration not just is it legal or not, which technically was an unknown until the NM supreme court decided. Attorney on both sides of the issue were pretty much in agreement this could have gone either way. So, the photographer's decision was not some blatant disregard for the law, but a decision she honestly thought was within her rights to make. She was not alone in this thinking either attorneys who are strong supporters of same sex marriage also chimed in saying there was a conflict:

Code: Select all

Indeed, the court of appeals’ reasoning would produce startling results. Consider, for instance, a freelance writer who writes press releases for various groups, including religious groups, but refuses to write a press release for a religious organization or event with which he disagrees. Under the court of appeals’ theory, such a refusal would violate the law, being a form of discrimination based on religion, much as Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph an event with which she disagreed was treated as a violation of the law. Yet a writer must have the First Amendment right to choose which speech he creates, notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. And the same principle, as we argue below, applies to photographers as well.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file ... -brief.pdf

I kind of interpret this as if I have a monetized blog or run a publicly accessible magazine which allows members of the public to create content or accepts advertising dollars to promote products and ideas I cannot discriminate on what this content will contain. This includes someone promoting anti-gay messages thru an LGBT website or magazine, as an expression of their religious beliefs. How do you decline the WBC from placing full page ads in an LGBT magazine? Are you saying this will go over well and be widely acceptable with the LGBT community?

---------------------

These are not light weights either just chiming in, these are are attorneys who have won prestigious awards for their work in promoting LGBT awareness and rights.

Code: Select all

2005 – Volume 5 (2006)

Same-sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes, by Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, published in 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 1155 (2005)

Professor Eugene Volokh, in his article from the Hofstra Law Review, examines the plausibility of slippery slope arguments in the same-sex marriage debate. Opponents of same-sex marriage often make slippery slope arguments; for example, they argue that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to legal recognition of polygamy. These claims are usually asserted without empirical support. Professor Volokh concludes that the potential slippery slope harms of recognizing same-sex marriage, “while plausible and potentially significant, are not very likely.” Professor Volokh’s detailed analysis of slippery slope arguments provides new clarity to the same-sex marriage debate.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/d ... t-volumes/

---------------------

In showing the above it is clear this was not some clear cut case of flagrant discrimination in opposition to some well know law.

A legal decision was made in this case on this we cannot argue. What we can argue however is at what cost to our freedoms as a whole. Equality is good, but there are unintended consequences if it goes too far, as in the case of affirmative action when a bright student is refused a scholarship or a position in college due to quotas. it is what it is I suppose we will just have to wait for history to play itself out, to determine the true wisdom of such a decision.

[Shofercia]

ok thank you for your 2 cents, have a wonderful evening or morning

OK, I call troll on this one.

Trolling doesn't require intelligence. Would you care to try arguing instead?

[The Vermin Confederation of Mossflower]

*Awards HappyShark a medal for winning the thread*

[Mavorpen]

*Awards HappyShark a medal for winning the thread*

Wow. And here I was thinking you would actually contribute something interesting.

[The Vermin Confederation of Mossflower]

*Awards HappyShark a medal for winning the thread*

Wow. And here I was thinking you would actually contribute something interesting.

Nah.

Political bickering on NS and on the internet in general is really, really boring.
Especially over pointless stuff like this.

I prefer watching Star Wars.

[HappyShark]

*Awards HappyShark a medal for winning the thread*

oh if only it were cookies I could get rid of the evidence Thanx, but truly it is not a winnable subject matter.

I will add it to my sig line though because it awesome either way

[Dyakovo]

Wow. And here I was thinking you would actually contribute something interesting.

Nah.

Political bickering on NS and on the internet in general is really, really boring.
Especially over pointless stuff like this.

I prefer watching Star Wars.

No-one is forcing you to post.

[Mavorpen]

*Awards HappyShark a medal for winning the thread*

oh if only it were cookies I could get rid of the evidence Thanx, but truly it is not a winnable subject matter.

Of course it's a winnable subject matter. You lost the moment you started copy and pasting the same argument over and over.

[HappyShark]

oh if only it were cookies I could get rid of the evidence Thanx, but truly it is not a winnable subject matter.

Of course it's a winnable subject matter. You lost the moment you started copy and pasting the same argument over and over.

My position was not going to change, just because someone else said "It's the law" and "discrimination is wrong" which literally was about as in depth as most got in their argument, or had to resort to because they had no other legitimate reason to back their claims at a philosophical level. Some did provide some good food for thought, and i am sure they appreciated my points as much as I appreciated theirs.

You are welcome to take what I wrote as a whole and within context and tear it apart, I do enjoy a challenging debate. BTW I do not expect to change your mind anytime soon, hopefully your approach in such a discussion is similar.

[Mavorpen]

My position was not going to change, just because someone else said "It's the law" and "discrimination is wrong"

Ah, that's the problem. You quite literally ignored everyone else's posts when they were too complex.

[HappyShark]

My position was not going to change, just because someone else said "It's the law" and "discrimination is wrong"

Ah, that's the problem. You quite literally ignored everyone else's posts when they were too complex.

Care to point me to a post i ignored.

[Mavorpen]

Ah, that's the problem. You quite literally ignored everyone else's posts when they were too complex.

Care to point me to a post i ignored.

Evidently the majority of them, since a shit ton more was said than, "it's the law" and "discrimination is wrong." People presented complex arguments. You chose to reply by copy and pasting the same lazy arguments over and over and pretend as though your failure to understand the law and the case itself is "philosophical."

[HappyShark]

Care to point me to a post i ignored.

Evidently the majority of them, since a shit ton more was said than, "it's the law" and "discrimination is wrong." People presented complex arguments. You chose to reply by copy and pasting the same lazy arguments over and over and pretend as though your failure to understand the law and the case itself is "philosophical."

Once again because it's the law ?

[Dyakovo]

Evidently the majority of them, since a shit ton more was said than, "it's the law" and "discrimination is wrong." People presented complex arguments. You chose to reply by copy and pasting the same lazy arguments over and over and pretend as though your failure to understand the law and the case itself is "philosophical."

Once again because it's the law ?

Re-read what he actually said. All the words are important.

[Mavorpen]

Evidently the majority of them, since a shit ton more was said than, "it's the law" and "discrimination is wrong." People presented complex arguments. You chose to reply by copy and pasting the same lazy arguments over and over and pretend as though your failure to understand the law and the case itself is "philosophical."

Once again because it's the law ?

No.

In order to effectively argue against something, you need to understand it. Just as not a single damn person would take yous seriously in a scientific discussion if you claimed the earth was 6,000 years old, you shouldn't expect anyone to take yous seriously when you don't understand the relevant law or the case. You don't understand nor do you seem to care about the reasoning why the case/law is the way it is.

[Zottistan]

Evidently the majority of them, since a shit ton more was said than, "it's the law" and "discrimination is wrong." People presented complex arguments. You chose to reply by copy and pasting the same lazy arguments over and over and pretend as though your failure to understand the law and the case itself is "philosophical."

Once again because it's the law ?

The law gives you your rights. It does not give you a right to discriminate if you run a public business.

So yes, the law is relevant to whether or not you have a right to discriminate.

[HappyShark]

Once again because it's the law ?

Re-read what he actually said. All the words are important.

And the crux of the argument made was that my disagreement with the law must be due to my failure in understanding it... which is clearly a fallacy.

[HappyShark]

Once again because it's the law ?

The law gives you your rights. It does not give you a right to discriminate if you run a public business.

So yes, the law is relevant to whether or not you have a right to discriminate.

This is what i mean by no argument supporting why you feel the law is correct and discrimination is wrong in all instances beyond stating that it is the law and it is just wrong.

[Mavorpen]

Re-read what he actually said. All the words are important.

And the crux of the argument made was that my disagreement with the law must be due to my failure in understanding it... which is clearly a fallacy.

Congratulations on not actually comprehending what I posted.

[Dyakovo]

The law gives you your rights. It does not give you a right to discriminate if you run a public business.

So yes, the law is relevant to whether or not you have a right to discriminate.

This is what i mean by no argument supporting why you feel the law is correct and discrimination is wrong in all instances beyond stating that it is the law and it is just wrong.

No-one is saying discrimination is wrong in all instances. Nor is anyone saying it is wrong just because the law says it is wrong.

[Mavorpen]

The law gives you your rights. It does not give you a right to discriminate if you run a public business.

So yes, the law is relevant to whether or not you have a right to discriminate.

This is what i mean by no argument supporting why you feel the law is correct and discrimination is wrong in all instances beyond stating that it is the law and it is just wrong.

And yet again, you fail to understand what people are actually typing.

I'll give you a hint: he's not saying the law is right because it's the law. He's saying the law is relevant, despite your sad attempt to pretend it isn't.

[West Faristan2]

OK, I call troll on this one.

Trolling doesn't require intelligence. Would you care to try arguing instead?

Do you have a point other than constantly stalking me?

[HappyShark]

Once again because it's the law ?

No.

In order to effectively argue against something, you need to understand it. Just as not a single damn person would take yous seriously in a scientific discussion if you claimed the earth was 6,000 years old, you shouldn't expect anyone to take yous seriously when you don't understand the relevant law or the case. You don't understand nor do you seem to care about the reasoning why the case/law is the way it is.

In the post before the award was given, which you have yet to address clearly and concisely I show this was not a clear cut case of a known law being flagrantly ignored.

[Zottistan]

The law gives you your rights. It does not give you a right to discriminate if you run a public business.

So yes, the law is relevant to whether or not you have a right to discriminate.

This is what i mean by no argument supporting why you feel the law is correct and discrimination is wrong in all instances beyond stating that it is the law and it is just wrong.

I never said the law was correct or discrimination was wrong. I just said that if you discriminated in a public business, you'd be breaking the law and would be punished for it.

If you want an argument as to why the law is right, it's because segregation like that grows, and a country will do better united than segregated.

[Mavorpen]

In the post before the award was given,

Which addresses my post how?