NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Geilinor]

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

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

Read my post rebutting your statement on the RFRA. You seem to be implying that religious rights are a compelling government interest, greater than LGBT rights. Religious people in America have all their rights. LGBT people don't.

[Auralia]

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

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

The RFRA prohibits government from burdening freedom of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. I don't see how this case meets those criteria.

[Blasveck]

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?

Who is the Church to distort the meaning of scripture?

Nowhere does the Bible say that participating in a gay commitment ceremony is wrong/sin.

[Wikkiwallana]

Then support your argument. If not with a SCOTUS ruling, then at least with logic and evidence! Don't just come in here and say "Oh, this law is clearly unconstitutional and wrong, despite many Supreme Court rulings (from both liberal and conservative Courts, several of them unanimous) saying it's OK."

Credibility - thus far, you haven't established yours.

Constitution of New Mexico, Article 2, Section 4: "All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and
happiness.

People have the right to govern their own businesses.

Constitution of New Mexico, Article 2, Section 3: "The people of the state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state.

which means, the government should tell you to take pictures of a lesbian couple if they ask.

Constitution of New Mexico, Article 2, Section 11"Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship.....nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."

People shall not be forced against their religious convictions, according to what is reasonable. For example, if you claim your religion requires you to murder people, that is not considered reasonable.

Way to ignore the underlined.

[Lunalia]

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

Who is the Church to distort the meaning of scripture?

Nowhere does the Bible say that participating in a gay commitment ceremony is wrong/sin.

In their defense it DOES say that it is wrong for men to be in a homosexual relationship. Be fair. But you are right in that it doesn't say anywhere that people can't participate in a gay commitment ceremony.

It also doesn't say women can't be in a homosexual relationship.

[Mavorpen]

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

The RFRA prohibits government from burdening freedom of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. I don't see how this case meets those criteria.

You don't see how following the law is a compelling government interest?

Wow...

[Auralia]

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

Who is the Church to distort the meaning of scripture?

Nowhere does the Bible say that participating in a gay commitment ceremony is wrong/sin.

I'm not interested in arguing this, and it really doesn't matter. Roman Catholicism is a legitimate, good-faith religious belief for the purposes of the statute.

[Blasveck]

Who is the Church to distort the meaning of scripture?

Nowhere does the Bible say that participating in a gay commitment ceremony is wrong/sin.

I'm not interested in arguing this, and it really doesn't matter. Roman Catholicism is a legitimate, good-faith religious belief for the purposes of the statute.

It's kinda does matter if the reasoning is religiously based.

But whatever, I guess.

[Auralia]

The RFRA prohibits government from burdening freedom of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. I don't see how this case meets those criteria.

You don't see how following the law is a compelling government interest?

Wow...

Um, the whole purpose of the statute is to invalidate laws that overly burden freedom of religion. Many states (and the federal government) enacted RFRAs after the Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny no longer applied in religious freedom cases.

You know, you really shouldn't be so rude and sarcastic if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It makes you look bad.

[Auralia]

I'm not interested in arguing this, and it really doesn't matter. Roman Catholicism is a legitimate, good-faith religious belief for the purposes of the statute.

It's kinda does matter if the reasoning is religiously based.

But whatever, I guess.

No, it doesn't. It's not my job to justify my religious beliefs to you. I sincerely believe that participation in a gay commitment ceremony goes against my religious beliefs. That is all that matters for the purposes of the statute.

[Mavorpen]

Um, the whole purpose of the statute is to invalidate laws that overly burden freedom of religion. Many states (and the federal government) enacted RFRAs after the Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny no longer applied in religious freedom cases.

Right, so what does this have to do with the topic?

Also, you do know it was held unconstitutional when applied to states, right?

[Seitonjin]

A business should not discriminate but it doesn't mean they have to not discriminate. Of course it would be better if they didn't discriminate at all.

That being said... I'm on the fence.

[Auralia]

Um, the whole purpose of the statute is to invalidate laws that overly burden freedom of religion. Many states (and the federal government) enacted RFRAs after the Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny no longer applied in religious freedom cases.

Right, so what does this have to do with the topic?

Also, you do know it was held unconstitutional when applied to states, right?

I touched upon that in the OP and in this post.

The federal RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states. New Mexico enacted its own RFRA around 2000.

[Mavorpen]

Right, so what does this have to do with the topic?

Also, you do know it was held unconstitutional when applied to states, right?

I touched upon that in the OP and in this post.

So...nothing? Let me know when the New Mexico Human Rights Act is deemed invalid because of this. Until then, this has nothing to do with the topic.

[Auralia]

I touched upon that in the OP and in this post.

So...nothing? Let me know when the New Mexico Human Rights Act is deemed invalid because of this. Until then, this has nothing to do with the topic.

What do you mean, nothing? I argued that the Court applied the RFRA incorrectly, since the government is clearly involved in the case. You disagree?

[Mavorpen]

What do you mean, nothing? I argued that the Court applied the RFRA incorrectly, since the government is clearly involved in the case. You disagree?

Yes. As does the Supreme Court.

[Auralia]

What do you mean, nothing? I argued that the Court applied the RFRA incorrectly, since the government is clearly involved in the case. You disagree?

Yes. As does the Supreme Court.

I assume you're referring to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. Yes, obviously they disagree, but I disagree with their reasoning. They claim that the RFRA doesn't apply because the government isn't a party to the case. But the RFRA doesn't require that the government be a party to the case; it only requires that government restrict the free exercise of religion, which is clearly the case here.

[Blasveck]

It's kinda does matter if the reasoning is religiously based.

But whatever, I guess.

No, it doesn't. It's not my job to justify my religious beliefs to you. I sincerely believe that participation in a gay commitment ceremony goes against my religious beliefs. That is all that matters for the purposes of the statute.

It is your job to justify it when the denomination of your choice directly misinterprets scripture.

But I really don't want to continue this discussion.

[Mavorpen]

I assume you're referring to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

No. The SCOTUS.

[Geilinor]

You don't see how following the law is a compelling government interest?

Wow...

Um, the whole purpose of the statute is to invalidate laws that overly burden freedom of religion. Many states (and the federal government) enacted RFRAs after the Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny no longer applied in religious freedom cases.

You know, you really shouldn't be so rude and sarcastic if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It makes you look bad.

Supporting gay rights and minority rights is a compelling government interest, is it not? Religious people are the majority and have their rights.

[Auralia]

I assume you're referring to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

No. The SCOTUS.

When did the Supreme Court rule that RFRA-like legislation doesn't apply to discrimination cases?

[Wikkiwallana]

Supporting them with taxes is a pointless waste of money since you yourself admitted these businesses would go under either way.

I admitted the businesses wouldn't do it, unless they were really stupid. And even if there was legislation making them serve everybody, you'd have to support them with taxes. And even if they weren't serving everybody, they'd be paying taxes towards that.

If something is priced at $1 and you put a $1 bill on the counter, the item is yours. If a customer can meet the price you set, it is theirs.

Whether you want to sell or not? Huh.

You consented to the sale the moment you put it out with price tag.

[Auralia]

Um, the whole purpose of the statute is to invalidate laws that overly burden freedom of religion. Many states (and the federal government) enacted RFRAs after the Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny no longer applied in religious freedom cases.

You know, you really shouldn't be so rude and sarcastic if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It makes you look bad.

Supporting gay rights and minority rights is a compelling government interest, is it not? Religious people are the majority and have their rights.

It depends. In this case, I would argue no, since the gay couple didn't actually suffer any lasting harms. They were easily able to find another photographer.

[Mavorpen]

No. The SCOTUS.

When did the Supreme Court rule that RFRA-like legislation doesn't apply to discrimination cases?

...What? Where did you pull this straw man from?

[Auralia]

When did the Supreme Court rule that RFRA-like legislation doesn't apply to discrimination cases?

...What? Where did you pull this straw man from?

What the hell do you think we've been talking about for the past few posts?