Bottle wrote:SaintB wrote: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.