NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Farnhamia]

If the slippery slope leads to a place where everyone, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, all people have equal rights and no one is discriminated against because of who they are, get out of my way, I'm comin' through!

ok but where does this slope come to a stop? I mean we've had threads in which close incestuopus marriage has been defended on the grounds of "Well consenting adults can do whatever man". There does at some point need to be a sharded universal morality here otherwise it's going to be a matter of including more and more groups under protected categories adn go to absurd lengths to protect adn accomodate them.

It's like how manning wants a sex change (just to keep this post at least tangetially relevant) in prison. Screw that He broke the law as a He and should suffer the punishment as a He. He can call himself She all He wants but I don't feel any great sympathy for someone convicted and court martialled by a jury of his peers. Hey after he's served his sentence fine but until then no sex change adn no respect for his gender choice. (and I say this because i'm predicting courts are going to side with manning when/if he sues for a govt funded sex change as they've already made it clear in the civilian justice system that we have to pay for it for prisoners.)

The key words there being "consenting" and "adults." What do you care if Bob down the street, age 25, is in a relationship with his sister Joan, age 27? Also, incestuous adult couples are not historically discriminated against. Homosexuals, people of different ethnic backgrounds, various shades of Christians, Jew, Muslims, those are the people who are protected. And Manning's case is irrelevant.

[Mavorpen]

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

but she can deny service for religious reason any other time and discriminate however she likes as long as it is not in one of these predefined classes.

Of which you and every other American is a part of.

[Farnhamia]

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

but she can deny service for religious reason any other time and discriminate however she likes as long as it is not in one of these predefined classes.

These predefined classes, to which she herself belongs. Funny, that. She wants the extra privilege of using her religion as an excuse to break the law but would, I imagine, be quite happy to use that law to defend herself from discrimination.

[Galloism]

but she can deny service for religious reason any other time and discriminate however she likes as long as it is not in one of these predefined classes.

Of which you and every other American is a part of.

Bingo.

[Llamalandia]

but she can deny service for religious reason any other time and discriminate however she likes as long as it is not in one of these predefined classes.

These predefined classes, to which she herself belongs. Funny, that. She wants the extra privilege of using her religion as an excuse to break the law but would, I imagine, be quite happy to use that law to defend herself from discrimination.

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise. There is no part of the constitution that extents special protections to gay people there is a part of the constitution which does extent special protection to religous conviction and it's called the first amendment.

[HappyShark]

These predefined classes, to which she herself belongs. Funny, that. She wants the extra privilege of using her religion as an excuse to break the law but would, I imagine, be quite happy to use that law to defend herself from discrimination.

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise. There is no part of the constitution that extents special protections to gay people there is a part of the constitution which does extent special protection to religous conviction and it's called the first amendment.

Thank You

[Mavorpen]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise.

Stop lying. The right to use your religion to discriminate is not in the Constitution.

[Mavorpen]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise. There is no part of the constitution that extents special protections to gay people there is a part of the constitution which does extent special protection to religous conviction and it's called the first amendment.

Thank You

For what? Being completely and utterly wrong?

[Farnhamia]

These predefined classes, to which she herself belongs. Funny, that. She wants the extra privilege of using her religion as an excuse to break the law but would, I imagine, be quite happy to use that law to defend herself from discrimination.

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise. There is no part of the constitution that extents special protections to gay people there is a part of the constitution which does extent special protection to religous conviction and it's called the first amendment.

The First Amendment says that Congress can't establish a religion or prevent anyone from belonging to whatever religion they choose. It does not grant religious people the privilege of discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs. All it does is prevent those beliefs from being made illegal. That is not the case here.

[Llamalandia]

ok but where does this slope come to a stop? I mean we've had threads in which close incestuopus marriage has been defended on the grounds of "Well consenting adults can do whatever man". There does at some point need to be a sharded universal morality here otherwise it's going to be a matter of including more and more groups under protected categories adn go to absurd lengths to protect adn accomodate them.

It's like how manning wants a sex change (just to keep this post at least tangetially relevant) in prison. Screw that He broke the law as a He and should suffer the punishment as a He. He can call himself She all He wants but I don't feel any great sympathy for someone convicted and court martialled by a jury of his peers. Hey after he's served his sentence fine but until then no sex change adn no respect for his gender choice. (and I say this because i'm predicting courts are going to side with manning when/if he sues for a govt funded sex change as they've already made it clear in the civilian justice system that we have to pay for it for prisoners.)

The key words there being "consenting" and "adults." What do you care if Bob down the street, age 25, is in a relationship with his sister Joan, age 27? Also, incestuous adult couples are not historically discriminated against. Homosexuals, people of different ethnic backgrounds, various shades of Christians, Jew, Muslims, those are the people who are protected. And Manning's case is irrelevant.

You brought up the slippery slope that was my only point in throwing manning in there. As to consenting adults adn incest, yeah it's fundamentally morally reprehensible and Ikinda thought that's something it hsouldn't have to explain, i mean incest taboos exist for good reasons after all. I wasn't arguing that they were protected yet. But that they may well be after all we were talking about the slippery slope here were we not? It's like just ten 20 years ago people might have been okay with homosexuality but would have laughed off gay marriages rights, and now we have people openly discussing the notion of allowing closely (like closer than second cousins) marry as a matter of right. Is it really that hard to imagine that in another 20 years will be discussing the case of the photographer who refused to take photos of bro/sis on their shared wedding day?

[Free Missouri]

so she can say no to anyone except those who hold a "protected" status... yep above and beyond what the general public has, so definitely a privilege.

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

So If I went to a gay bar with a "GOD HATES FAGS T-Shirt from the WBC (which I would never do because I believe that we are called to love everyone regardless of race,gender,sexuality,blah blah blah blah, even as a conservative christian) and was denied the right to buy a beer, you would totally and completely support my right to sue over that beer

[HappyShark]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise.

Stop lying. The right to use your religion to discriminate is not in the Constitution.

Hmmm I wonder why the Amish are exempt from Obamacare...

We have the right to our religious convictions and in the expression of them, in as much as they do not physically harm another person.

[Galloism]

I think I just pointed out that a heterosexual denied service based on his/her orientation could also sue.

Which makes 100% of America a protected class. Yummy equality.

So If I went to a gay bar with a "GOD HATES FAGS T-Shirt from the WBC (which I would never do because I believe that we are called to love everyone regardless of race,gender,sexuality,blah blah blah blah, even as a conservative christian) and was denied the right to buy a beer, you would totally and completely support my right to sue over that beer

No, deliberately inciting hatred and being offensive is not a right.

However, if you walked into a gay bar wearing ordinary clothing in New Mexico and were denied service because you were straight, you would have the right to sue under the laws of New Mexico, yes.

[Llamalandia]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise.

Stop lying. The right to use your religion to discriminate is not in the Constitution.

that case was five four not exactly a ringing endorsement of your position, besides the supreme court is not infallible. That said I was not intentionally deceiving anyone and now that you've broguht this case to my attention I'll take a look at it.

[Mavorpen]

Hmmm I wonder why the Amish are exempt from Obamacare...

What does this have to do with discrimination?

How about you actually address my post instead of trying to throw a Red Herring/straw man and hope it sticks?

[Mavorpen]

Stop lying. The right to use your religion to discriminate is not in the Constitution.

that case was five four not exactly a ringing endorsement of your position

Yes it is. Unless, you aren't aware that five is a larger number than four.

[HappyShark]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise. There is no part of the constitution that extents special protections to gay people there is a part of the constitution which does extent special protection to religous conviction and it's called the first amendment.

The First Amendment says that Congress can't establish a religion or prevent anyone from belonging to whatever religion they choose. It does not grant religious people the privilege of discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs. All it does is prevent those beliefs from being made illegal. That is not the case here.

Well her religious belief of participating in a gay marriage being a sin and essentially being forbidden by her church just became illegal. In other words burn in eternal hell or participate in this gay wedding.

Fuck you and your religion, you will participate in this gay wedding.

[Llamalandia]

It's not a privilege but a right (enshrined in the constitution) she is seeking to exercise.

Stop lying. The right to use your religion to discriminate is not in the Constitution.

Ok so having briefly read over this case were talking aples adn oragnes here. This was a club seeking official school recognition (ie govt sanction to operate) that woudl be the govt via the school making an establishment of belief. Here were talking only of private conduct wholly divorced from any government imprimator.

[Mavorpen]

Fuck you and your religion, you will participate in this gay wedding.

Except, no one was forced to participate in anything. You'd know that if you read the court's opinion.

[Llamalandia]

that case was five four not exactly a ringing endorsement of your position

Yes it is. Unless, you aren't aware that five is a larger number than four.

Yeah and your not aware that 9 is much much much greater than 0, hence the this not being a ringing endorement but rather a more tepid meh "it was close decision".

[Galloism]

The First Amendment says that Congress can't establish a religion or prevent anyone from belonging to whatever religion they choose. It does not grant religious people the privilege of discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs. All it does is prevent those beliefs from being made illegal. That is not the case here.

Well her religious belief of participating in a gay marriage being a sin and essentially being forbidden by her church just became illegal. In other words burn in eternal hell or participate in this gay wedding.

Fuck you and your religion, you will participate in this gay wedding.

No one is forcing her to photograph weddings or commitment ceremonies.

If she gave up that part of her business, for both gay and straight couples, there's no discrimination and no religious conflict.

[Llamalandia]

Fuck you and your religion, you will participate in this gay wedding.

Except, no one was forced to participate in anything. You'd know that if you read the court's opinion.

Well given that the alternative was to be essentially fined out of business for failing to comply, i would say that yeah that's pretty darn close to "being forced to participate".

[Mavorpen]

This was a club seeking official school recognition (ie govt sanction to operate) that woudl be the govt via the school making an establishment of belief.

Uh, no it wouldn't. Religious clubs are allowed in public universities.

[HappyShark]

So If I went to a gay bar with a "GOD HATES FAGS T-Shirt from the WBC (which I would never do because I believe that we are called to love everyone regardless of race,gender,sexuality,blah blah blah blah, even as a conservative christian) and was denied the right to buy a beer, you would totally and completely support my right to sue over that beer

No, deliberately inciting hatred and being offensive is not a right.

However, if you walked into a gay bar wearing ordinary clothing in New Mexico and were denied service because you were straight, you would have the right to sue under the laws of New Mexico, yes.

i walked in not knowing it was a gay bar, they beat me up threw me on the curb, and told me to never come back. hmmm they attacked me because of my religious beliefs? is this not protected in the constitution also under anti-discrimination?

[Mavorpen]

Yeah and your not aware that 9 is much much much greater than 0

So you admit five is greater than four and thus the source backs me up. Good job.