New Mexico Supreme Court effectively ends religious liberty for individuals

We have made progress every time we kick religion to the curb and substantiate our beliefs with facts and evidence.

Why yes we do make progress every time we kick government to the curb and expose it for the fraud it is.

Facts have been presented

Evidence has been submitted.

And the deification of government,and it's false prophets have been exposed for what they are.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


but that would have been a lie. I am not trying to be difficult here but it is a sin to lie. If she went through all this already for a belief then perhaps lies are out of the question for her as well.

some people are just adamant about their beliefs and wont violate them. Those people are usually worth keeping that way.....too few put their money where their mouth is....

I would say that forcing a black person to serve someone who they know is racist is a violation of their civil rights.
I would say that forcing a black owned and run business to serve a racist group is a violation of the civil rights of every black employee and black owner.

At least that is the way it was before this mindset of "target the opposition to your way of thought with legal sanctions " came about.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I am saying that you know in this scenario. Maybe they were on the news or something.

Here is one. A descendant of hitler who is proud of his family history shows up to a jewish deli and asks for a sandwich .....can the jewish owner NOT deny him service if it makes him uncomfortable? should he be able to.

and that is the key point. What do we think is the maxim of our law and its spirit?
Is it malleable to one end and not the other?

In my example....Should the Holocaust survivor or his children be forced to serve someone who is proud of his family history as the offspring of Hitler? Is not the spirit of our law to protect such people from the latter?

Or is it only a tool of convenience to serve the interests of who is in power at any given time?

reply to post by Wertdagf


People of many race and color have been sold as slaves, which has zero to do
with religion. Educate yourself.

White, Black, Roman, Islamic, Asian, the list goes on.
And it still happens today.
en.wikipedia.org...

What we hear about here in the U.S. is this, most familiar.
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I am saying that you know in this scenario. Maybe they were on the news or something.

Here is one. A descendant of hitler who is proud of his family history shows up to a jewish deli and asks for a sandwich .....can the jewish owner NOT deny him service if it makes him uncomfortable? should he be able to.

and that is the key point. What do we think is the maxim of our law and its spirit?
Is it malleable to one end and not the other?

In my example....Should the Holocaust survivor or his children be forced to serve someone who is proud of his family history as the offspring of Hitler? Is not the spirit of our law to protect such people from the latter?

Or is it only a tool of convenience to serve the interests of who is in power at any given time?

edit on 22-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Should he be able to? Absolutely. Is is good business? Who knows.

But at the end of the day, our nation has rowed the boat that got us here.

reply to post by adjensen


A wonderful decision by the court. They have upheld separation of church & state. To conduct a business, one needs to comply with all the laws that pertain to such business(IE. the state). I am opposed to the state having such control over the actions of others to make a living(licenses, trivial regulations, ETC.). I do support this decision because a professional should not be allowed to refuse business solely on the grounds of their own personal beliefs. I don't support quite a few things. It is another matter altogether to deny professional services based on my personal outlook on life. What I believe and what I do to make a living do not go hand in hand and are unrelated.

How bad can this ruling truly be? The first time Elaine Photography takes pictures during a same sex wedding I am sure they will be uncomfortable. The second time less so. After a while it will become routine. For goodness sake! They may even make some friends or have their lives changed for the better.

At the very least they won't be turning down business due to personal beliefs that are better off ignored in the professional world.

reply to post by My_Reality


by that logic all PRIVATE business IS the state.

Separation of church and sate does not apply. In the end a small business, IS the citizenry as well. Should the state even have a say in such matters? Is that power ascribed to them in the contractual agreement that establishes their authority? Can they decide what a business can and cant do that is already operating within the realm of legality?

This small business is not a public service. It is a private venture funded solely by them and not tax monies. Why does the government have a right to say how they can operate?

This is like a night club being sued because they didnt let in a nerdy looking guy that they felt would ruin the desired ambiance for their target customer base. All on the basis that they provide some form of "public service" just because they are in business for a profit.

reply to post by My_Reality

A wonderful decision by the court. They have upheld separation of church & state.

I don't think that you understand what Separation of Church and State means, because this ruling is the exact opposite of that -- it is the State, telling a member of the Church, what they must believe in order to be compliant.

Separation of Church and State would be the State saying that this is a matter of religion, so it has no voice in the matter.

reply to post by adjensen

the State, telling a member of the Church, what they must believe in order to be compliant.

What is the state telling this business owner to believe? All I see here is that the state is telling the business owner that they can't discriminate against a protected class, in this case gay, based on their personal beliefs.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

the State, telling a member of the Church, what they must believe in order to be compliant.

What is the state telling this business owner to believe?

The state is telling this wedding photographer to support gay marriage or to stop being a wedding photographer. For someone who objects to gay marriage, the state is telling them that their belief is of no consequence, they have to believe what the legislature has decreed is the official belief, or they may no longer be a wedding photographer.

Again, I fail to see how any sane person can see this as a good thing.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by My_Reality

 

by that logic all PRIVATE business IS the state.

"You didn't build that business"

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

the State, telling a member of the Church, what they must believe in order to be compliant.

What is the state telling this business owner to believe?

The state is telling this wedding photographer to support gay marriage or to stop being a wedding photographer. For someone who objects to gay marriage, the state is telling them that their belief is of no consequence, they have to believe what the legislature has decreed is the official belief, or they may no longer be a wedding photographer.

Again, I fail to see how any sane person can see this as a good thing.

Preposterous. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with taking pictures. Even if its a gay wedding. I suppose if she provided service at a discount, she could be seen as "supporting" this. Otherwise, doing the gig would just mean that she plied her trade in accordance with the law.

For the record: those who disapprove of this law....there are only two parties that can be blamed for anything. And you keep voting for both of them.

Originally posted by beezzer
No shoes, no shirt, . . . . never mind.

and

So I can hire a muslim chef and force him to make me bacon. . . . . all day long.

Hmm.

That is a really dumb conclusion. You would only be able to require him to make you bacon if he has made bacon for others. If he has refused to cook bacon for anyone, he wouldn't have to cook it for you.

The "no shoes, no shirt, no service" can be enforced if it is applied equally to all, no matter what race, sex, sexual orientation, etc you were. If your business enforces that rule for an Asian but not for a WASP, you have just broken the law.

If the photography business takes pictures of wedding ceremonies, then it has to take pictures of all wedding ceremonies regardless of the personal beliefs of the owner, just as a restaurant has to serve everyone who conforms to a set standard of decorum.

reply to post by tadaman


I see your point. The only reason government got involved here is because sexuality is now classed as a "thing" that can be discriminated against. When being a nerd is subject to government discrimination laws I would not object to them making a ruling. Hell, I might get into some hot clubs someday.

My point with my post was this: The photography company rejected to do business based on the sexual orientation of its customer. Since the government now considers sexuality as equal to race and religion, refusing customers on those grounds is discrimination according to the government. What I think does not matter. Mores the pity.

The last two paragraphs of my post were simply me trying to inject some levity into the situation. My personal opinion, nothing more.

reply to post by adjensen


Perhaps if you had not stopped reading my post minus the first two sentences quoted you would understand my point. The state is given the power to issue licenses, regulate business, ensure orderly commerce and so on. The state is not telling Elaine Photography what to believe. The state is telling them that refusing service based on sexual grounds is discrimination according to state law. They can believe whatever they choose. They cannot run a state licensed business and refuse customers based on sexuality. Tell me, what is the problem with that?

Personally I find the behavior of the photographers thoroughly unprofessional.

P.S. Oh, if you do decide to respond please address my whole post as opposed two sentences while ignoring the rest

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

the State, telling a member of the Church, what they must believe in order to be compliant.

What is the state telling this business owner to believe?

The state is telling this wedding photographer to support gay marriage or to stop being a wedding photographer. For someone who objects to gay marriage, the state is telling them that their belief is of no consequence, they have to believe what the legislature has decreed is the official belief, or they may no longer be a wedding photographer.

Again, I fail to see how any sane person can see this as a good thing.

Preposterous. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with taking pictures.

Of course it does.

If she doesn't support gay marriage, why should she be pressured into documenting it? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other photographers that this couple could have gone to, instead, they filed a complaint against this woman's business, in order to further their cause.

There is an agenda here, BFFT, whether you want to see it or not.

Originally posted by My_Reality
Perhaps if you had not stopped reading my post minus the first two sentences quoted you would understand my point. The state is given the power to issue licenses, regulate business, ensure orderly commerce and so on. The state is not telling Elaine Photography what to believe. The state is telling them that refusing service based on sexual grounds is discrimination according to state law. They can believe whatever they choose. They cannot run a state licensed business and refuse customers based on sexuality. Tell me, what is the problem with that?

Personally I find the behavior of the photographers thoroughly unprofessional.

P.S. Oh, if you do decide to respond please address my whole post as opposed two sentences while ignoring the rest

Okay, your whole post seems to be "the state has the right to tell people what they can and cannot believe, and if there is any dissension, the state has the right to force them out of business."

Do I have that right?

reply to post by adjensen


This ruling is wrong. I am for gays being able to marry. I am also for business owners being able to refuse service to anyone for any or no reason. The lesbian couple should not have been able to sue a private business for refusing business. When it is between two private parties those two parties should be able to use whatever criteria they want to determine if they want to do business together.

And I'll point out that there's no such thing as the "thou shall not do business with homosexuals" verse / commandment. Doesn't exist. Some will point out that the bible bans homosexuality-- but I've seen no passages stating that you have to be a jerk to them, either.

Now, if you were a minister or whatever, and you were being asked to actually marry someone, to actually perform the ceremony, I could see a valid claim that it would violate your religion. But not photographing someone's ceremony, which will happen with or without your particiaption? That seems like you're doing it just because you don't like what they're doing. Don't approve.


And that seems more like petty BS than actual desire to be faithfully observant of your religion.

reply to post by adjensen



I have said it several times. What either side here did was questionable and seem histrionic. She knows the law, and could have just as easily said that she was too busy. One poster said that lying is a sin. I say that reasoning is just downright dumb. And I don't buy it. She declined because of gay marriage to send a message. Likely, to the gay couple, but who knows.

Meanwhile, the gay couple could have easily just moved and found another photographer without much issue. But they decided to file a complaint.

what we end up with are two different viewpoints actually fighting. Instead of just being understanding of the other viewpoint, and then coexisting. I used to weigh 470lbs. I did not fly on some airlines that had publicly stated things that made me feel unwanted with them. I didn't file a complaint. I just figured "screw them, ill go elsewhere". Since i have lost all the weight, i haven't flown (and won't until the TSA is disbanded)....but likely won't use those airlines still.

Yes, there are agendas at play. And it would just be much easier on everyone if they realized that there were people in the world who were different, and of different viewpoints, and went about their business.

But in a nation spoon fed interpersonal drama's on "reality tv", that won't happen. Thus, we have histrionics.