It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Mexico Supreme Court effectively ends religious liberty for individuals

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Wow this is a difficult topic.

Mostly, I think, because it's one of those "carefully separate out the issues" sort of things.

You could hate on [check one] all day as an individual.

But do it as the official representative of a business that works with the public, as part of the business's activities or denial of activities, and that's kind of a different thing.

I think the problem here is that these people were not "employees of a corporation," they were probably either sole proprietors or in any case a very tiny, personal business. In this case it is a "blend" of individuals and business, of boss and employee, and that's what muddies it a lot. But in the end, if they have a tax ID number, and if they have certain advantages of being an official business rather than individuals, then they are forced to play in the big boy world of "official business."

One of the rules in that world is that you can't tell people "we don't serve your kind here" or even, since it was clearly pointed out that they did NOT refuse the customers but merely the specific *ceremony,* that "we don't serve your kind of event."

I think if you planned it well you could make a case for only doing a certain kind of wedding, maybe two, like a high specialization in, oh I dunno, Mormon weddings for example, and you could set up a variety of props designed to assist with this. Then you could specifically market and offer "photography services for Mormon weddings" and nobody would have any right to sue you for refusing to do weddings in Jewish temples, or of gays (who are not going to be married in any official Mormon church. Ever. Even if hell DID freeze over), because after all, you clearly set out your business charter and scope publicly right up front; so you have no obligation to do something else, e.g. if I offer to paint signs, I am not obliged to paint someone's car.

But if you say you do "weddings" and someone comes to you with a "wedding" and you say "my business won't serve your kind of wedding" then sadly, I think the law is probably right on this one.

NOT because it erodes individual liberty, but because this actually doesn't have anything to do with individual liberty, it has to do with "business discrimination" which is a completely separate thing.

They muddied those together because they were not professional enough to separate their personal life and their business life. As individuals, as EMPLOYEES, I think they have the right to say they won't photograph it -- and if they worked for anyone else, lose their jobs, or perhaps their boss understands and hires someone else to do that work. But as business managers, if they were unable to separate their personal religion from their business, the appropriate and professional thing to do would be to subcontract out to another photographer who would do the work, so the business was not guilty of discrimination but the individual was not forced to participate in something against their own religion.

The lesson going forward for this is simply that businesses should pay more attention to the "scope of services" they are publicly advertising. Gay marriage did not previously exist, so nobody built planning for that contingency into their business marketing, but now I guess they will. It might take some creative consideration but there is probably a way that many businesses could scope their "advertised focus" in such a manner as to exclude certain kinds of events or groups of people without appearing to be overtly prejudiced. I don't believe anybody should be prejudiced against but I also don't believe anybody who owns a business should be forced to do a kind of business they don't want to do. So it is up to them to design their company appropriately.

I might add that the litigious nature of the people suing these photographers is somewhat vile. I feel like it was a deliberate attempt to create precedent and I agree that others will probably use it to attempt to force other businesses and perhaps eventually even churches in this area. I find that disturbing since it is clearly using the laws meant to protect people as a manipulative tool meant to reduce freedom on one side more than it truly expands it on the other.

But it's not the first time businesses have been sued in unfair ways. Like the men who apply at "Hooters" then sue because they don't get hired as they aren't pretty girls with big, ah, chests.


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




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Of course not. The state does have the right to rule against business that violate anti-discrimination laws. Business is regulated and granted the ability to function by the state through licensing. The state now considers sexuality a subject open to discrimination. The photography company violated the discrimination laws because of their documented reason for refusing service. Also, the state is not forcing them out of business. The state is simply preventing them from conducting commerce with discrimination. In their professional lives they cannot let their personal morals, ideals, and beliefs interfere with their work. I ask again. Why is this a bad thing?

I think you may be confusing what I think with what the law is. I don't like the fact that the state has such broad powers over business. Even so it is the law. Did you comprehend the links you posted in your OP? The quoted section regarding one of the judges legal opinion is quite logical, well articulated, and fair. That particular judge explains my view on this case far more eloquently than I.

Why do you persist in this 100% black & white argument? This case is clearly not black and white and even the presiding judges realize this fact. It is complicated to ensure equal "equality" and fair "representation" in a highly multicultural society. Everyone must make sacrifices to ensure stability and general peace.

reply to post by RedCairo
 


You have articulated the situation well. Far better than I have been able to. Your post is right on the money on many aspects of this case. I only disagree with you in one area. The "litigious nature" you referred to. Sadly, in American society, lawsuits and litigation are the only remaining legal action for the majority of the people. Sure, there are a few other avenues such as mediation or conflict resolution but, those activities require the consent of all parties to proceed(at least without a court order). So, I don't blame the couple for using the only legal avenue open to them. What else were they supposed to do?



I liked that post until the "multicultural" word.

Darn, there is no barfing emoticon.

Btw these people are all from the same culture...


Not my words friend. I borrowed it from one of the opinions of the judge. I do see your point though. Unfortunately multicultural is the word of the day in modern american culture. Every dang culture has to have its own unique name and heritage. When in fact if we are "American" we have an "American" culture. But hey, who am I to prevent others from identifying how they wish?


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

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

edit on 22-8-2013 by My_Reality because: added a paragraph

edit on 22-8-2013 by My_Reality because: ERROR!



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I liked that post until the "multicultural" word.

Darn, there is no barfing emoticon.

Btw these people are all from the same culture...



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


DAMN IT. If anything feeds the fear of marriage equality, it's judges like this. I keep hearing "But if marrage equalitah passes, mah church'll be made to marry them homersexules" and I'm all like "naah, man. It has nothing to do with your church!"

Now they have something to point to and say "See?! It's happening!"

Lame.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


well said.

I can accept that point of view as valid and consider it balanced enough to endorse it.

If anything I think this business should have gotten off with a warning and been allowed a specific time to restructure their business to cater exclusively to their target customer. Like you said, gay marriage is a new concept and an adjusting period should be allotted to businesses so as to stay within the boundaries of legality while at the same time giving them the freedom of discretion to adjust operations accordingly.

Also more of an effort should go to define what is legal and what is not according to state law and that information should be disseminated to the public.

One thing we should point out though is that gay marriage is not yet legal in the state where this happened as someone mentioned earlier. I feel that has some bearing here. How can a business plan for possible contingencies when the very act of gay marriage is yet to be endorsed by the state? How is the state not responsible for informing the public that there will be a grey area where services must be provided for an act that even the state refuses to license? The state refuses to officially endorse (license) gay marriage but demands that the citizenry endorse it by providing services for it.


Its a convoluted subject indeed.....


edit on 23-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
This goes to show that the whole concept of "protected classes" is just a tool used by people who want to destroy our country and constitution. It's quite hypocritical to say all people are equal and yet, our government chooses select groups of people to protect because, as proponents of protected classes believe, they are inferior and need the protection of the "state" to make it through life. They would never admit such a thing, however that is exactly what their policies are saying. As a matter of fact these "protected classes" have more rights than the average citizen! If society was truly progressing we wouldn't even bother to classify people based on certain superficial criteria. Martin Luther King was so right when he said that he hopes one day people will be judged based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. And yes I know race was not the conflict in this story however the same concept still holds. We are all people and life isn't fair, get over it.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 
Isn't this what "states' rights" is all about?

You have the ability to weigh the benefits of a residing in a given state against "the cost of doing business" there.
Move to a state that doesn't have such a commission, or such ridiculous standards.

That's why businesses, employees and frustrated residents are moving from such places as California, NY and IL to places that value personal responsibility over government intrusion and control.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Ouch.

Growing pains hurt, don't they my fellow humans?

It's taken us how long to include sexual orientation into our anti-discrimination laws? And we think we are such an advanced, high minded species.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Say someone wanted to have a KKK rally.

And they hired a black photographer to document it. (wallet-sized, family photos)

And the black photographer didn't want to do it.
edit on 22-8-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


No problem, unless "KKK member" is a "protected class" in your state.

This all turns on what NM has added to the mix of "protected" groups and qualities. Groups with enough lobbying clout could really make NM an interestng place!



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
What i find odd is that they simply could have said, nah no thanks,
i don't want the job and not commented as to why, thus ignoring all
this hoopla and the trouble with it.

The issue is not that they can no longer turn clients down, it is that
they cannot judge clients solely on their gender, race, religion.
They basically want the right to discriminate because they are religious.

If this right were granted then whats to stop any business from
following suit and not serving say Christians because they are not
Muslim, or not serving African Americans because they are not
white, the problem is that condoning this type of segregation leads
down a path we have already been down more than once and
anyone who is bright enough to see that we are still dealing with
the problems created by such a stance would not want society
go back down that road again.

What, do we really need gay and straight bathrooms, hotels, catering
shops, photography etc. etc. etc. the answer is no, discriminating
because of someones sexual orientation or skin color or religion is
not acceptable.

Religion is not a supreme law that supersedes the real law, i am about
tired of people seeing it that way, even in the book itself it says to submit
yourself to the law of the land, that's who god put there, that's who he wants
you to follow, if you do not you're disobeying god, that's what the book says.
If they would only read their book maybe they would realize that not only
does the law of the land not support their stance but neither does the
book they so claim to be devoted to.
edit on 23-8-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Its a better world. The world was bizarre before with the religious people justifing owning slaves and marrying children. It wasn't too long ago gay people were being beaten and murdered in America.

Making a stand against religious idiocy is a good thing in any form. We have made progress every time we kick religion to the curb and substantiate our beliefs with facts and evidence.



Sorry to disappoint but, I'm gay and I believe in God.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
geeeeeez, when are ppl gonna learn the word "confidential" ?? and leave it at that.
your religious beliefs, your schedule, your reasons should remain confidential to all inquiring minds, including potential customers.

as much as i disagree with this court's decision, it could well have been averted, had the photographer simply refused and stopped there.

i'm sorry, i won't be able to accomodate your request, end of story.
the rest is confidential, period.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Darn, there is no barfing emoticon.
sure there is

just type the word barf inside these : : minus the spaces.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 

i cannot believe your post is not starred because you hit the nail on the head


The photography company violated the discrimination laws because of their documented reason for refusing service.

no one is saying they cannot refuse service, just that they cannot refuse for the REASON provided.
as stated earlier, ppl really need to learn to use the word "confidential" again.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by RedCairo
 

If anything I think this business should have gotten off with a warning and been allowed a specific time to restructure their business to cater exclusively to their target customer. Like you said, gay marriage is a new concept and an adjusting period should be allotted to businesses so as to stay within the boundaries of legality while at the same time giving them the freedom of discretion to adjust operations accordingly.

Also more of an effort should go to define what is legal and what is not according to state law and that information should be disseminated to the public.

Agreed. It was really overstepping the bounds, as if they were being used to make a public example of.


One thing we should point out though is that gay marriage is not yet legal in the state where this happened as someone mentioned earlier. I feel that has some bearing here. How can a business plan for possible contingencies when the very act of gay marriage is yet to be endorsed by the state? How is the state not responsible for informing the public that there will be a grey area where services must be provided for an act that even the state refuses to license? The state refuses to officially endorse (license) gay marriage but demands that the citizenry endorse it by providing services for it.


I did not know that. You know, that actually changes my feelings on it quite a lot.

If even the state doesn't consider it a legitimate marriage, why should anybody else? And if it's not a legitimate marriage and they provide marriage services, then why should they offer the service to them?

Thanks I think I just switched to the other side LOL.

They should not have shared their reasoning is my conclusion. Well they won't make that mistake again.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


The "litigious nature" you referred to. Sadly, in American society, lawsuits and litigation are the only remaining legal action for the majority of the people. Sure, there are a few other avenues such as mediation or conflict resolution but, those activities require the consent of all parties to proceed(at least without a court order). So, I don't blame the couple for using the only legal avenue open to them. What else were they supposed to do?

Out of context for a moment, I agree completely with all that.

My point in dissing it in this instance is that the individuals in question, in my personal opinion, were not injured; they were in a city stuffed full of people offering this kind of service and I do not believe it caused undue hardship for them to say, "That business has a specialty not aligned with our own specialty" so to speak and simply look elsewhere.

I once took my car in for repair. The mechanic told me that my kind of car and problem was a pain in the ass he didn't feel like dealing with right now and I should take it to the guy a few blocks away who would. I did not sue him for discrimination against people with car-styles like mine. I went to the other guy. I do not consider myself a victim of the situation.

I think this is a situation where the plaintiffs either

a) have such a victim mentality that they were injustly overwrought because someone disagreed with them, even though why you would ever want someone with opposing opinions to be part of your wedding is beyond me!, or

b) have such a messianic save-our-people let's-establish-precedent fervor that this was never about the situation but about the doorway of opportunity the situation provided.

There is no law against manipulating laws designed to make our world a better place into being laws designed to forcibly coerce people who are not oneself of course, happens all the time, and some groups are unusually good at exploiting this.

In this case the point would be only that it forced the individuals at the photography studio to a vastly greater hardship than they ever could have imposed upon the plaintiffs! -- all in the name of making a precedent point for a different reason for a different group to be used in different instances. In other words the case existed merely for "political leverage and future precedent" -- not for fair consideration of an "injured" party.

The effort may be useful in a larger context, but would be injust to the individuals in question.

I would like to see a lot more expanded fairness and understanding and equality in our culture. But the day gays start behaving like [islam or scientology, for example, two groups famous for exploitively manipulating American legal precedent] is the day that gay prejudice in our culture gets worse, not better, alas.

And even worse, gets more SUBTLE. Overt prejudice is so, so much easier to recognize and fight. Subtle prejudice people have learned to hide, to fear retribution for, is insidious and deadly in a way that 'we don't serve your kind here' never dreamed of being.

I feel like this legal process wasn't injured victims doing the only defense they could; but self-described pseudo-victims acting as bullies, creating more prejudice against their very people, and driving even more of that prejudice into subtle hiding.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
it's because she denied them based on their sexuality, that is discrimination, if you offer a service to everyone but a certain person based on sexuality race religion etc it is discrimination, obviously that state had laws that didn't allow discrimination, as a business owner she had to know those laws

the same thing we discussed in the cake topic



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


NUFF SAID:‘ In Life, You’ve Got to Stand for Something’: Vet Refuses to Show ‘The Butler’ at His Movie Theater because of 'commie' Jane Fonda's role in the film.....its his right. A movie house is a BUSINESS btw, and the owner 'reserves the right' to turn away a movie and/or a customer.

As for the ruling against the shop owners refusal......its her right - lower court judges are VERY often corrupt, wrong, biased, or politically motivated. District court or the SC will eventually decide in favor of the store owner.

One poster wondered how and why the gay couple had the wherewithal (money) to tough out a court battle......c'mooooooon puleeese - is the poster really THAT naive?


Kentucky for more than three decades is refusing to run “The Butler” due to the anti-Vietnam War stance of one of its lead actresses.-butler-at-his-movie-theate.

Ike Boutwell, who opened MoviePalace and Showtime Cinemas in Elizabethtown in the 1980s, told the News-Enterprise that in all these years he has not, to his knowledge, let one movie with Jane Fonda play in his theater./



edit on 23-8-2013 by YodHeVauHe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Your analysis is careful and well thought-out, imho.

I just believe it misses the larger picture.

The globalist oligarchy has been using


well . . .

--blacks against whites
--women against men
--Hispanics against blacks and whites
--Native Americans against blacks and whites
--gays against straights
--rich against poor
--Communists and liberals against conservatives and patriots
--gun allergic against gun owners
--shallow, "hip," "cool," phony "stars" against average citizens
--educated against uneducated
--Communists and liberals against members of the military
--etc.
.
for decades
.
IN ORDER TO SHRED the "old" values, the foundation of our society
.
IN ORDER TO SHRED the family.
.
IN ORDER TO SHRED Christian influences in the culture, family, society.
.
IN ORDER TO SHRED the very Republic--its existence, viability, survival as a historic, functional entity.
.
IN ORDER TO SHRED any and all loyalty to morality and foundational moral values as well as the authorities that went with them--the only things giving satanic globalist authorities any opposition of any substance whatsoever.
.
IN ORDER TO bring the Republic to ashes
.
IN ORDER TO allow the overt establishment of the one world global tyrannical government and one world tyrannical religion compelling literal worship of a literal satan.
.
Well, THAT'S what this court case and similar cases have always been about. And that's what the ruling is working toward, contributing toward.

THAT'S the bottom line.

well . . . The rest is noise on the circuit
.

I don't think the particular litigants need to have consciously had such goals in mind in order to be complicit toward that result. After decades of propagandizing, mass brain-washing etc., They brought the fodder.


We were warned 2,000 years ago that this era would be very like the days of Noah. This is merely one fulfillment of that prophecy.

The well placed compliant, complicit, globalist judges do the rest quite sufficiently.

edit on 23/8/2013 by BO XIAN because: fixing the troublesome tags



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Colored text is impossible read...............



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join