Jun 5, 2012
Print This Post
The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the state’s Civil Rights Commission that a Christian photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s discrimination law.
JOIN TODD IN THE CULTURE WAR FOXHOLE! CLICK HERE TO JOIN HIS FACEBOOK PAGE!
“Elane Photography may not discriminate in its commercial activities against protected classes as the basis for expressing its religious freedom,” Judge Tim Garcia wrote in a 45-page ruling.
The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock tried to hire Elane Photography for a “same-gender ceremony.” New Mexico law does not recognize either marriage or civil unions between persons of the same sex.
Elane Hugenin declined to accept the job and explained to Willock that because of their Christian beliefs the studio only handled “traditional weddings.”
In 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination. The studio is owned by a young Christian husband and wife who based their refusal on their religious beliefs.
The Court of Appeals determined that a photo studio is considered a public accommodation – much like a restaurant or a store. As such, the photo studio may not refuse services based on sexual orientation or gender identity – even if doing so would violate the religious principles of the owners.
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these government interests,” Garcia wrote..
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group, represented the photography studio. They plan to appeal the ruling.
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement. “Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
But the court ruled that once a business offers a service publicly, they must do so “without impermissible exception.”
Elane Photography posed a hypothetical situation to support its argument – imaging what would happen if an African-American photographer refused to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally because the photographer “wanted to refrain from using her photography to communicate a message that she finds deeply offensive.”
However, Judge Garcia said the argument fails as a matter of law.
“The Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class,” he wrote. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
The court ruled that the Christian photography company must pay fines totaling nearly $7,000.
You can read the entire court decision by clicking here.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
The US has already become a THEOCRACY of ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE! Fake Atheists along with their Muslim Brothers and other Satan worshippers are hard at it!
How does an atheist worship Satan if an atheist doesn't even believe Satan exists? So ignorant… Go back to your spouse/sibling.
aaron if you wanted to kiss ignorance square on the lips all you have to do is lean in real close to the mirror. Just because a person doesnt BELIEVE in satan doesnt mean he or she is not doing evil things…my goodness you are dense.
aaron if you wanted to kiss ignorance square on the lips all you have to do is lean in real close to the mirror. Just because a person doesnt BELIEVE in satan doesnt mean he or she is not doing evil things…my goodness you are dense.
So it's OK for a State government to violate it's own ruling or the absence of such in that they don't recognize gay marriage or civil unions, but the sanctimonious clowns can tell citizens how to run their privately owned business, in violation of the free exercise of their beliefs. Muslim cab drivers can refuse hires for possession of dogs or booze, but the photography have no such protections when it comes to who, when, where, or why.
Just so you know, the Judges at nuremberg made it legal for 6 million Jews to be murdered LEGALLY!
This August the process of 'Normalizing' Pedophilia will begin, next Charlie Manson will be mayor of Berkley, it just goes on and on!
Remember Cromwell and Henry VIII vs. Sir Thomas More?
In both cases, the religious objection wasn't about a person or class. It was about an *action* (promoting nontraditional marriage using their personal reputation). Both courts (New Mexico and England long ago) guessed about the defendants' actual concerns, presumed malicious bias, then penalized the defendants for their presumed guilt.
Only people and conscience should be protected. Specific actions cannot be upheld by imposing them on others without violating those most basic of all personal rights.
That's what happens when you have protective rights.
This is absurd. The New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge is telling this business that they have to recognize and honor something that the State of New Mexico doesn't recognize!
Could someone remind me of why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah?
Allan Sandusky Because the only good man (Lot) was an incestuous pedophile who fucked his daughters while drunk? If God thinks that's a good man, then he should get his priorities in order.
There was more sin than homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorah (according to the Bible).
Aaron Gales, if you can voice your opinion in an intelligent manner, then you are welcome to post but considering your rudeness and crass manners, you will be deleted until you can do so. Have a nice day
deleted? how so? I posted intellectually. your manners are rude. how was i in any way rude?
David Sisk How would you "delete me"? I was in no way rude, unless you support Lot's pedophilic and incestuous tendencies.
I don't like seeing the f bomb on my page
You're okay with endorsing pedophilia and incest, but when it comes to the simple word "fuck" it's all over? A word is a word; it's only offensive when you make it so.
This isn't "your page" this is a public page
I'm viewing this at http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.html
Intellectually…. really, most intellectuals can discuss a topic without using crass, rude language so do not go labeling yourself as an intellectual. No I do not approve of such behavior, However, Lot was, like the rest of us are, a sinner, no one on this earth is perfect.
David Sisk You would dismiss an argument because of one word? Wow. You mistake absence of intellect with an argument that you don't like. Lot might have not been perfect, but being an incestuous pedophile is worse than "not perfect." An incestuous pedophile was the only good man in a whole city? There were no greater people than an incestuous pedophile? Why did God even save HIM? He should have burned along with the rest of the city (if the city ever burned at all).
I did not use any "crass or rude language." You will still somehow find a way to consider my comment rude merely because you disagree with it.
David Sisk Most intellectuals aren't bothered by ONE word. Small minds are bothered by small things (like a word).
I never claimed to be an intellectual, you did, and I stand by what I said. Even the dictionary classifies the word as vulgar (def of vulgar is "characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste") and I don't like that kind of stuff on my wall. But since you brought it up, what does the Bible say about Lot and his incestuous pedophilia tendencies. Pedophilia – the sexual desire of an adult towards a child. Is that how the bible describes Lot, a dirty old man who lusted after his daughters. Nope, go back and read it again. His daughters got him drunk and had intercourse with him to preserve the family blood line and he was unaware of when they came into his bed or when they left.
David Sisk He was horrible at raising his children then. Similar to a "horrible parent" raising a child to "choose to be gay"? Hypocrisy.
David Sisk He was horrible at raising his children then. Similar to a "horrible parent" raising a child to "choose to be gay"? Hypocrisy.
David Sisk "This is absurd. The New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge is telling this business that they have to recognize and honor something that the State of New Mexico doesn't recognize!"
The Court never told the business they have to honor a ceremony. They essentially told the business that if they didn't want to service the couple, then they should find a reason other than "they're gays." How would you feel if EVERY business denied you service because you're from the South?
David Sisk "This is absurd. The New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge is telling this business that they have to recognize and honor something that the State of New Mexico doesn't recognize!"
The Court never told the business they have to honor a ceremony. They essentially told the business that if they didn't want to service the couple, then they should find a reason other than "they're gays." How would you feel if EVERY business denied you service because you're from the South?
Aaron, parents do the best they can with their children. But in the end those kids have free will to do the things they want. Two children raised in the same home, same environment, same everything except not the same kids. One goes and has a successful life and career, the other ends up in prison. That's not the parents fault.
The State of New Mexico ordering this Christian couple to pay fines based on their exercising of their religious beliefs is WRONG. Stating that this gay couples rights outweigh the business owners religious beliefs WRONG. Come up with a better hypothetical argument that that. Only one photography business was being sued, not every business. I'm sure if the gay couple looked around a bit they could find a photographer that would be happy to photograph their event for them, but they saw this as a way to push their agenda and get their 15 min of fame.
And since I have to go to work in a few hours, this will be my last post tonight
David Sisk Here's an example that you might be able to understand:
A married black man and white woman enter a restaurant. The restaurant manager says "sorry, we don't serve race traitors around here." The manager kicks them out the restaurant. The couple walks around for a while trying to find somewhere else to eat, hoping that the discrimination is just an isolated case. Three other restaurants deny them service.
Legal or illegal?
Again, how would YOU feel if this happened to YOU? Being denied service because of who you are.
David Sisk Here's an example that you might be able to understand:
A married black man and white woman enter a restaurant. The restaurant manager says "sorry, we don't serve race traitors around here." The manager kicks them out the restaurant. The couple walks around for a while trying to find somewhere else to eat, hoping that the discrimination is just an isolated case. Three other restaurants deny them service.
Legal or illegal?
Again, how would YOU feel if this happened to YOU? Being denied service because of who you are.
I support this bushiness in their refusal based on their religious belief and Aaron the scenario you are describing has nothing to do with what this judge has ruled on .Before you go and use the old well the bible say marry unto your own kind argument let me just say that the scripture that what God forbids in His Word is NOT the marrying of people of different skin colors or other characteristics, but marriage where one person worships God and the other person either does not and/or actively believes and worships a FALSE god.
Aaron, you need to explain your scenario more clearly, Is the restaurant manager talking to the person who is the same race as he is, refusing to serve him/her as a race traitor for marrying outside their race. That doesn't mean they are racist, could just be misguided belief of what Elbie was describing above. What I can't understand is why would someone would want to do business with someone who was so fundamentally against what you believe. This is as stupid as the muslems suing Catholic Universities claiming that the crosses they have in every classroom around the campus violates their civil rights as a muslem. My first and only question is if you are that strong in your beliefs (as a muslem) WHY , WHY would you go to a CATHOLIC SCHOOL, except for the purpose of pushing and furthering your own agenda. No where in the story does it say she wouldn't photograph them because they were gay, she wouldn't photograph their "ceremony" as it violates her beliefs as a couple joined together is a MAN & WOMAN as directed in the Bible. I am a craftsman and I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone I don't want to do business with. I have turned down request for orders because I didn't agree with the designs they wanted, the intended purpose of the items etc. That is MY right, forcing someone to do something they are fundamentally opposed to is akin to slavery. Science (which you liberals love to quote) has not proven that homosexuality is genetic, America is still by majority a Christian country. The majority of those people believe same sex relation are wrong (as the bible teaches) so you tell me where do the rights of this christian photographer start. How many footprints will be trampled across her/family/business before her rights start start to be recognized?
Your a non-religious liberal and I am a Conservative Christian 2nd Amendment supporting Proud American. We will never agree, so I am done here. Have a nice day!
Elbie Forehand So cross-faith marriage is wrong?
If you are talking about say a muslin and a christian yes it is because they worship 2 different Gods . Paul commanded Christians not to marry someone who is not because it could take them away from worshiping God. God told ancient Israel and God tells Christians today through Paul to “Come out from them and be separate [and] touch no unclean thing.” Paul used the same verses in 2 Corinthians 6:17 which are found in Isaiah 52:11 and Ezekiel 20:34,41. Again, this has no connection with race at all, just as it didn’t in the Old Testament Scriptures. God’s message is always about grace, not about race, but He does not want a Christian to marry a non-Christian. These Old and New Testament Scriptures are not talking about interracial marriage as some have believed and others have falsely taught. Neither are those about Israel intermarrying with other nations. God knew that idolatry would happen if pagans and His people intermarried.
Elbie Forehand MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DUMBASS. You know NOTHING about Islam. They BOTH worship the Abrahamic GOD.
Elbie Forehand MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DUMBASS. You know NOTHING about Islam. They BOTH worship the Abrahamic GOD.
I beg to differ the Muslims worship a god who says kill unbelievers the God of Israel does not command that you kill those that do not believe as you do. Why must you resort to name calling that just seems so childish to me .If you wish to have a civil debate I am more than willing to do so .
I beg to differ the Muslims worship a god who says kill unbelievers the God of Israel does not command that you kill those that do not believe as you do. Why must you resort to name calling that just seems so childish to me .If you wish to have a civil debate I am more than willing to do so .
Elbie Forehand A civil debate requires a basic understanding of theology. The "kill unbelievers" comes from the Old Testament. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all follow the Old Testament. The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Muslims actually follow the Bible and Christians ignore the "kill anyone who tries to convert you."
The three Abrahamic religions worship the same Abrahamic god. Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a messenger of God. Please learn something about other religions before criticizing them. You base your understanding of Islam on the actions of Muslims, yet you tell everyone not to judge your religion by the actions of your people, just by the words in your book. You denounce the KKK as un-Christian, yet you think Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim.
Elbie Forehand A civil debate requires a basic understanding of theology. The "kill unbelievers" comes from the Old Testament. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all follow the Old Testament. The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Muslims actually follow the Bible and Christians ignore the "kill anyone who tries to convert you."
The three Abrahamic religions worship the same Abrahamic god. Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a messenger of God. Please learn something about other religions before criticizing them. You base your understanding of Islam on the actions of Muslims, yet you tell everyone not to judge your religion by the actions of your people, just by the words in your book. You denounce the KKK as un-Christian, yet you think Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim.
Trust me I have more than a basic understanding of theology I know when the Israelite under I believe Joshua was commanded by God to kill every living thing when they took a city (which right of hand I do not remember the name) if that is what you are talking about ? If you have other instances please tell me .I base my understanding of Islam on not just the people but also what I have read in the Koran and in there it says Quran (2:191-193) – "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Quran (5:33) – "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Are only a few of many. To the best of knowledge OBL was Islamist . I have never said that you should not judge as you term it my religion by the actions of as you said your people.You are trying to put words in my mouth .
Elbie Forehand The Old Testament also says to kill anyone who tries to convert you, to kill anyone that doesn't believe as you do, to kill anyone who persecutes you. Anyone who rebels against Allah/God shall be killed on the spot.
Please show the scripture verses Aaron as I have to back up your claims .Are you familiar with the new covenant that Christ brought us ?
Elbie Forehand And are you familiar with the new covenant that have been brought to us by the Shi'a and Sunni messengers? You quote the Koran out of context. If I told you Leviticus 25:44-46, you would claim that I'm ignorantly quoting the Old Testament out of context.
You're nothing but the Christian equivalent of bin Laden. You judge Muslims unfairly and try to defend your Christians with a double standard. You don't know anything about Islam. You'd be surprised to know that Muslims accept the teachings of Jesus as the truth of your god also. I feel sorry that your racist upbringing brought some sort of hatred toward people who are different than you. I don't hate you, but I'm annoyed by your lack of understanding. "Muslims and Christians worship 2 different gods." Allah and God are the same thing. They're the same words in English/Arabic. That just goes to show how stupid you are about the two religions. You have been truly brainwashed into thinking that the two religions have different goals. Good night.
Well Aaron I have not gotten that far in my research of Islam but by all means enlighten me and as far as Leviticus 25:44-46 what does that have to do with what we are talking about ? You once more resort to name calling for some reason . Now for me being a racist I can't see it because not only did I marry a Hispanic woman and have a child with her I also have many black friends right along with a few friends who are converts from Islam who are from Saudi Arabia .These are the ones who I am learning about Islam from by the way .Then there is my childs God Parents who are from Japan ,Oh then there is my friends who are Filipino. So I seriously doubt that I am racist . Just because Allah translates to god in English does not mean they are the same .
Elbie, dealing with an intellectual who spouts vulgarities and resorts to name calling. When I called him on his improper depiction of Lot he never admitted he was wrong but changed the subject. KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. – Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. – Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. – 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. – Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. – 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. – 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. – 4:89
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. – 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme – 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. – 8:65
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. – 9:5
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. – 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. – 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. – 9:73
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers….
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. – 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. – 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. – 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. – 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book (reference to the Jews) and the pagans (the rest of us infidels) shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. – 98:51
And if you really do some studying of you will find that every term the Bible uses to describe satan is the same terms used in the koran to describe allah. Every term used in the Bible to describe the anti-Christ is the same terms used in the koran to describe the mahdi. So no, the Christian God and muslem allah are NOT the same.
I know David I just like debating and I have found that when some people can not back up their claims with facts or logical reasoning they resort to just what he did resort to name calling and leaving the debate .
Now that I did not know david about the Satan learn something new every day.
It's sad that both of you blindly follow the same dogmatic teaching as the Muslims you criticize. The existence of Allah/God has not been proven using the logical, scientific method. Why, then, should our government force something that has not been supported using the scientific method on its People?
Elbie Forehand Here are some verses that command YOU to kill certain people…
Deuteronomy 17:12 – KILL people who don't listen to priests
Exodus 22:17 – KILL witches
Leviticus 20:13 – KILL gay men
Leviticus 20:27 – KILL fortunetellers by stoning
Exodus 21:15 – KILL children who hit their parents
Leviticus 20:9 – KILL children who curse their parents
Leviticus 20:10 – KILL adulterers
Leviticus 21:9 – HONOR KILLING : the daughter of a priest who sleeps with a man
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 KILL NONBELIEVERS (just like you criticize the Koran for doing)
Zechariah 13:3 – KILL false prophets
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 – KILL an ENTIRE TOWN if ONE person worships another god
Shall I go on? Would you kill your child if a voice inside your head (i.e. god) told you to? Just like Abraham tried to…
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/484373_10150869784961275_435647949_n.jpg
Aaron these are true but are against the law and the bible says that we are to obey the law of the land Romans 13:1-7 .We are now under the new covenant which changes things also .
we will just have to agree to disagree and go our own separate ways. peace.
All pigs are equal, but some pigs, protected classes, are more equal than others. I guess this Orwell quote overrides the First Amendment to the Constitution. Seems like the tyranny of the judiciary is already here.
We are doomed.
Well, the judiciary does not make laws, they only rule on cases brought before them and apply the laws that the legislatures impose. That is a common misperception when we don't like laws, we tend to blame the judges that uphold them rather than the people we elected that wrote them. But as far as this case goes, it would seem that the arguement of public accomodation is what is at issue, not the religious freedom. After all, there are many examples I can think of where a business owner's personal religious beliefs are not sufficient for them to legally discriminate. For example, hotel managers cannot refuse to rent rooms to couples that aren't married. Doctors cannot refuse to treat drug addicts when they overdose in emergency rooms, etc.
Joan sayers a judge does not have the constitutional right to force a religious party from refusing to do business that would otherwise compromise their beliefs. Forcing a christian couple or punishing them over this is like forcing a muslim to buy pork if they were being sold bacon by a jewish vendor.
Denial of service over something superficial like being unmarried is one thing, forcing this couple to go against their moral grounds is nothing less than judicial tyranny.
It is against federal law to kill bald eagles, but the administration has allowed the killing of eagles by native Americans because of their religious beliefs. Talk about hypocrites!
Restaurants and other private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. This is so wrong and over the top. You should not be forced to provide services for anything to anyone.
This was their agenda from the beginning, impose their thinking on the church, why else would they insist on making Marriage legal for gays when a civil union is all they need, it's about imposing their narrow minded thinking on the church. Where is the ACLU? screaming for his CONSTITUTIONAL rights? oh that's right they are in cahoots with obamoa against that old piece of paper written by old guys.
This cant be said enough times;.
the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I believe this ruling has violated the Constitution!
The ACLU consistently criticizes Obama. "All they need is civil unions." Civil unions = less rights and privileges and benefits than a married couple.
All those southern blacks needed were separate drinking fountains and doors, right?
Separate but equal makes you a bigot. We'll all be better off when your generation dies off and we try to forget our "separate but equal" past.
Show me where the rights of a civil union are any different than a marriage? if it were what do you think Athiests ++ would be saying? do some research. ??seperate but equal?? what the hell is that? who said that? only you so far…
Aaron Gales
All those southern blacks needed were separate drinking fountains and doors, right?
this is just a stupid comment
That's what you're implying. You think that gays should be separate but equal. I suppose that blacks should be separate but equal just as well according to your logic?
Aaron Gales
you obviously dont understand this issue, it is about the gay community forcing RELIGIOUS organizations to marry them, so by your logic you would force muslims to marry gays as well, do you think for yourself or just parrot idiots?
I implied no such thing, your narrow mindedness is what directed you to THINK I was. calling people names is no way to argue an issue, go back to your room.
Ron Maier We force religious institutions to marry interracial couples. I suppose you think that's wrong.
why would it be wrong kid, I was married overseas so your comment is IGNORANT and for your attempt to imply I am something I am not shows how little knowledge or ability to think for yourself you have, go do some research and come back with some FACTS showing that companies etc… anyone, treats a domestic partner(civil union), differently than a married couple married in a church, when it comes to benefits or anything? Not 1 incident but systematic.
why would it be wrong kid, I was married overseas so your comment is IGNORANT and for your attempt to imply I am something I am not shows how little knowledge or ability to think for yourself you have, go do some research and come back with some FACTS showing that companies etc… anyone, treats a domestic partner(civil union), differently than a married couple married in a church, when it comes to benefits or anything? Not 1 incident but systematic.
Add the following sign to the establishment – "By law we are required to accommodate gay and lesbian marriages. Be aware, due to our First Amendment right of speech, we WILL try to save your soul and tell you what the Bible says about what you are doing. We will preach the gospel to your guests. That is OUR right."
Bigoted, racist, hate-filled, intolerant monsters
Most of the hate I see these days comes from the left. They have a right to their religious views and have a right not to be forced by the government or anyone else to do anything that against their religion.
Marriage is now and always has been about the children.
This nation benefits from new citizens, soldiers and tax payers.
Libidinous behavior is only ever an expense on the government's ledgers.
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
IT says nothing about sexual orientation in the text of the act. Go here: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=97&page=transcript.
and you can read the document. The Photography studio did not provide lodging or food or an exhibition of entertainment and therefore should not be bound by this act.
You are right that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not include sexual orientation in its protected classes. Appeals courts have repeatedly affirmed that sexual orientation is not covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, if state law (not federal) enumerates protections for sexual orientation the same way the Civil Rights Act does for race, sex, national origin, etc…
Public accomodations are generally understood by the courts to include most businesses not owned by a religious organization (so Deseret Industries would be an exception).
You are right that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not include sexual orientation in its protected classes. Appeals courts have repeatedly affirmed that sexual orientation is not covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, if state law (not federal) enumerates protections for sexual orientation the same way the Civil Rights Act does for race, sex, national origin, etc…
Public accomodations are generally understood by the courts to include most businesses not owned by a religious organization (so Deseret Industries would be an exception).
Since NM doesn't acknowledge gay marriage, I don't think that state law will be any help here. Still, I'm not so sure this ISN'T a religious discrimination issue. The photogs told the couple that they were Christian and used that as a basis for their refusal. I'm not so sure that the issues of religion and sexual orientation can be separated at all. Although they didn't deny them service based on their affiliation with a particular faith or denomination, I don't think it matters. If they refused an atheist, it would be considered religious discrimination even though atheism is not a "religion."
Gay marriage has nothing to do with the matter. Nothing. It is entirely about what groups New Mexico state law defines as protected classes for the purposes of protection in employment and access to public accomodations. If New Mexico state law says you can't discriminate against left handed people, then left handed people get treated the same way other groups enumerated by the Civil Rights Act are protected. It is an expansion of federal protections at a state level.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with the matter. Nothing. It is entirely about what groups New Mexico state law defines as protected classes for the purposes of protection in employment and access to public accomodations. If New Mexico state law says you can't discriminate against left handed people, then left handed people get treated the same way other groups enumerated by the Civil Rights Act are protected. It is an expansion of federal protections at a state level.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with the matter. Nothing. It is entirely about what groups New Mexico state law defines as protected classes for the purposes of protection in employment and access to public accomodations. If New Mexico state law says you can't discriminate against left handed people, then left handed people get treated the same way other groups enumerated by the Civil Rights Act are protected. It is an expansion of federal protections at a state level.
homosexuality is not nor has evern been convered in the civil rights act of 64. Furthermore comparing left handed people to homosexuals makes the same red herring argument that attempts to tether genetically bonafide race to artificial sexual identity. Sorry, no sale.
homosexuality is not nor has evern been convered in the civil rights act of 64. Furthermore comparing left handed people to homosexuals makes the same red herring argument that attempts to tether genetically bonafide race to artificial sexual identity. Sorry, no sale.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 3:22
Thank GOD we don't follow EVERYTHING that's in the Bible. If people could do anything and defend it using their religion and the beliefs put forth in the Bible, who knows where the above mentioned Bible quote would lead the African American race!
lol the word "slave" is mentioned in the Bible only ONCE, and ONLY as a means of discouragement. Stick to coloring books, the Bible seems beyond your pedestrian deducement skills.
"Protected Class" and that right there is why some people oppose gay marriage, because they are protected, yet heterosexuals are not protected. Double standard much, though I find myself saddened that the courts actually rulled that a PRIVATE BUSSINESS can't say no to a gay couple's request. I'm sorry, but under the constitution, a private business can deny service to ANYONE they want for any reason.
You don't like it? Shop elsewhere, there 'are' gay photographers out there, hire them. You don't like the way a business treats you? Shop elsewhere, and let others know what the business is like. IE: We live in a capitalistic*sp* society, where a business can sink or swim based almost entirely on public opinion (almost, as this government has already showed us, they'll abuse tax payer dollers to bail out companies – such as GM).
So again, until gays realize that the reason why they are opposed so much, by both the religious and non-religious, has a lot of to their with their special rights (IE: Protected Calss) they will keep getting opposed.
Heck, I have no problems with gay marriage, my issue is with their special rights. They want equal rights? Then they need to be removed from the protected class list, OR, put hecterosexuals in that list as well. (Heck, put whites to, given how blacks are also on that list).
I wonder if this photography studio has refused to shoot engagement and wedding pictures of hetero-sexual couples who have engaged in premarital sex.
Man it must be so inconvenient for people's standards and principles to get in the way of what other people want to do. This is bizzarro world stuff going on nowadays. I WILL NOT SHY AWAY OR CHANGE MY BELIEFS TO SUIT YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA. AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, WE WILL SERVE THE LORD…
Gays do not have the right to destroy the U.S. Constitution. End Gay fascism now!
Gays do not have the right to destroy the U.S. Constitution. End Gay fascism now!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does NOT say anything about sexual orientation. It says sex. Sex means male or female. Please get your facts straight before you post. How many uninformed people wrote that without actually looking up what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said? The blind are leading the blind apparently.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
lol matthew shepard wasnt even murdered for being homo, he was murdered because he was bragging to the wrong people about how much money he had. And btw, that act is NOT constitutional because it makes certain types of crimes more severe simply because of the orientation of the person. It would get struck down if ever heard in SCOTUS.
For a court to say that that sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious rights is ludicrous. No such right exists in Federal law against this and it is not in the US Constitution. Apparently the ruling is according to New Mexico law but New Mexico Law cannot trump the US Constitution which guarantees that "no law shall be passed that infringes on the "free exercise" of religion.
To say that those unfortunate people who are afflicted with same gender sexual attraction are a protected class is the height of stupidity and ignorance. As someone who worked in psychiatry for 20 years as a RN, it is clear that sexual "orientation" disorders are the result in the breakdown of a child's psycho-sexual development no matter what others claim. Psychologists and psychiatrists were not very successful at at helping people with this dysfunction. Since many of them view their job is to relieve suffering and they were largely unsuccessful on an individual basis they decided to do a sociological/cultural fix. They convinced large segments of the population that Sexual gender dysfunctions were not dysfunctions but are variations of the norm.
This approach of convincing people that sexual and gender dysfunctions are good and normal has caused untold suffering for our country as a whole. It has contributed to the breakdown of the family which is the leading cause of poverty. Since it has contributed to a huge increase in homes without a father it has increased not only poverty and crime but also caused more children to be afflicted with various sexual and gender identity issues.
But in this case in particular, the state of New Mexico has no right to ignore the right to the free exercise of Religion that is granted in the US Constitution to all people in order to enforce a state law that is clearly unconstitutional.
Ok….let's take your idea to its logical conclusion. Let's say you're right and same-gender attraction is an affliction (NOT what I believe, but speaking hypothetically). SO WHAT? You just admitted there has been little clinical success with treating it, so what would you have society do? Would you treat them any differently than anyone else with a disorder? Would you refuse to photograph a wedding because someone is bipolar or because they had multiple sclerosis? What about something that perhaps has some moral implications like Tourette's and they spouted obscenities every 30 seconds? You can't force someone to be treated and you don't know how to "treat" it anyway, so what's your point? Would you have them be ostracized and isolated when you just agreed that most practitioners believe it is their duty to relieve suffering? I'll grant you that illness isn't a protected class, but if you
are using it as grounds to justify your moral righteousness, then explain to me how alienating a sick person makes you "Christian of the Year."
Jennifer, my point is that some religions believe that same gender sexual relations is a grave sin. It denies their free exercise of their religion to force them to hire or rent to someone who has same gender sexual issues. I am not speaking on an emotional basis but am speaking about what is the law. A state such as New Mexico cannot pass laws that deny a persons Constitutional rights. Whether you or I agree with the law or not; the law and enforcement of the law and especially the Constitution is the only thing that protects us from Government oppression. If the either a state government or the Federal Government are allowed to violate the constitution, even if we think it is for a good cause, then in the future, because of that precedent, they can violate the Constitution to deny you and I of rights that we hold dear. I was taught in grade school that either groups or the government try to take away our rights by first taking the rights away from someone or some group that most people find reprehensible. Then if they succeed at that they move up the ladder and take away the rights of the next most objectionable group. Finally, when they try to take away those rights from us, there is no one to help us as ever one has has their rights taken away. I may have said that in a clumsy manner but I think you understand what I mean. I applaud you for your compassion but we must always be on guard against unintended consequences and the slippery slope.
Ok. Point about slippery slope is noted, but I'd like you to answer one question. Until the last century, interracial marriage was considered an abomination. All sorts of religious reasons were given for why god didn't intend for the races to intermingle. How is this any different? You have a right not to marry a black person, but you no longer have a right to refuse to rent to an interracial couple. In this case, no one is telling these photographers they have to enter into a same-sex marriage or have sex with someone of the same gender. Following your slippery slope argument, it seems to me that you've started down another one….like not providing EMT services to a gay person, or not allowing gay people to join a private gym…..or the million other examples I could set up? Where would THAT end, and what's to stop mothers,heterosexual couples who engage in premarital sex, or
I hit send accidentally…..I meat to say what's to stop anyone from witholding services to single moms or people who engage in premarital sex.
I would sue on the Constitutionality of the protected class clause.
This law removes the rights of all citizens to their freedom of speech.
The so-called Civil Rights legislation is Unconstitutional.
It's only going to get worse. It is already illegal to speak out against homosexuality from a religious Biblical view in Canada and the UK It is considered a 'hate crime'.
That's because it's the UK and Canada. Hate speech is illegal there. Hate speech is specifically legal in the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over that hate speech is protected.
Since when does reminding people that according to the Bible in many scriptures that homosexuality is a SIN as so is being a gossip, drunkard or glutton? Please point out how that is hate speech. Let me guess, this is how the Bible will eventually become illegal because it clearly states certian choices people make in their life is a sin???
Tracy Duncan Watt i never called it hate speech. you did. you said in canada and uk it's a hate crime. this is the united states. we're more tolerant. we allow speech (even if it might be considered hate speech according to you). that is why the united states is so much better with civil rights. don't compare the ignorant policies in canada/uk to the policies in the united states. here, as long as speech doesn't incite violence, it's allowed. don't try to apply your stupid canadaian/british laws to laws in the united states. that's what i'm saying.
i never called biblical talk hate speech (see Westboro Baptist Church). i just said that even if it were hate speech, it still wouldn't be illegal.
tolerant? TOLERANT? Aaron you call punishing Christians for exercising their first amendment religious rights "tolerant?!" Get a clue! Your posts always drip with so much ignorance its hard to know where to start…first off if you did ANY research youd know the WBC is run by democrats AND they never get picketed by GLAAD..i wonder why? Because they are very likely a saul alinsky type anti christian front designed to make Christians look bad. Secondly what about the "occupy" nuts all over the country? They have been allowed to defecate and yell and even attack people and property while the city they find themselves festering exercises massive amount of pc restraint! DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!!!
tolerant? TOLERANT? Aaron you call punishing Christians for exercising their first amendment religious rights "tolerant?!" Get a clue! Your posts always drip with so much ignorance its hard to know where to start…first off if you did ANY research youd know the WBC is run by democrats AND they never get picketed by GLAAD..i wonder why? Because they are very likely a saul alinsky type anti christian front designed to make Christians look bad. Secondly what about the "occupy" nuts all over the country? They have been allowed to defecate and yell and even attack people and property while the city they find themselves festering exercises massive amount of pc restraint! DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!!!
You know… I'm all for folks marrying whoever they want (so long as they aren't marrying someone against their will or who is underage; but there comes a point where a person has to have the right to refuse their services as a business (last I checked this was still a legal practice to a certain degree). Now naturally, in refusing your services as a business, you need to be a little more tactful in denying a potential customer than saying something along the lines of, "I think what you're doing is an abomination!" Try being a civil human being and just say, "I'm so sorry, we just realized we had a booking that same day and cannot cover your wedding. We do, however, have a few other outstanding photographers we can refer you to." Why is that so hard? Civility, y'all, civility.
The military has already told the chaplains that they have to marry same-sex couples. And, this is just another step toward telling my pastor that he must marry gay couples because he has a license from the state to marry people. We need to take this country back from the liberals if we want to keep our beliefs.
Clearly most of you didn't take the time or effort to actually read the Memorandum Opinion. If you had, people wouldn't be asking 'Where in the Constitution is this?' Under New Mexico law, sexual orientation is a protected class. Sorry. This isn't a Constitutional challenge. It's a State Court's decision based on State law. Period. And the author of this 'Opinion Piece' surely knows better. This is not 'Gay rights Trump Religious Rights'. That tag line is clearly intended only for shock value, as there is not a word of truth in it. I would have to call Mr. Starnes a liar. The photographer in question is, was and remains free to choose to worship in any manner she so chooses, regardless of Mr. Starnes unfortunate wording. No right to religion has been called into question here. This is just another example of how blatantly some in the 'media' will lie in order to further their agenda. In this case, to create an enemy where none exists, and to rally the uneducated masses into a blind rage of fear. And, judging by the ignorant comments attached to this sorry piece of 'journalism', I'd say Mr. Starnes got the result he hoped for. Mr. Starnes, you protest too much. Homophobe much?
The photographer should have said that he only photographs weddings where one man marries one woman. There would be no discrimination because the photographer would not care about the sexual orientation of the bride and groom.
The 14th Amendment everyone: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If state law has added sexual orientation to the traditionally protected classes enumerated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then sexual orientation will be treated in state courts the same way race, sex, national origin, etc… are treated. A private business owner cannot refuse service to someone for being black, female, Muslim, Mormon, or being gay under state law.
The Supreme Court has upheld laws which add protections onto the baseline list laid out in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Given the state law, and case law, the New Mexico court of Appeals couldn't rule any other way. If you think this is wrong, unfair, etc… then the voters of New Mexico have the option of amending their state constitution to limit protected classes to only those specifically enumerated in the Civil Rights act. Or, their state legislators can amend current state law to remove sexual orientation from the state's civil right's commision's list of protected classes.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with the law.
Oh, and the state makes people do things all the time that goes against their religion. You can't burn witches. Muslim women can't wear the full face veil on their driver's licenses. Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses have to pay taxes, despite the fact that much of the money goes to the military. Stoning atheists to death is illegal. A Jewish store owner can't refuse to sell goods to a Muslim.
bullshit
So apparently the court has then decided that homosexuality is better than ones religious beliefs and is now limiting a persons right to exercise their freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment. The court has succeeded in becoming a sponsor of sin and promoting that sin in violation of one's conscience.
Loving v. Virginia promotes sin. Blacks and whites getting married is a biblical sin. Get over it. You mistake freedom of religion with freedom to do whatever the hell you want.
Your profile says "I believe in limited government"
Unless, of course, it has to do with something you don't agree with, like equal rights for sexual minorities, or women's rights
The scripture does not condemn marriage between blacks and whites. You are ignorant both of scripture and government. You want to promote sin and immorality and you want govt. to sponsor it. I don't and never will. You are the one that needs to get over it.
Even if government DID allow same-sex marriage, that would still not be actively promoting any sort of behavior.
I guess if the govt. allowed murder they would not be sanctioning it then either?
Alan Harris They would not be PROMOTING the act. They would be allowing it, but they wouldn't tell everyone "hey! go kill everyone!"
Most states allow people to have sex with animals. Does that mean those States are actively telling everyone "Go rape every animal you can find!" NO.
By allowing same-sex marriage, the government would NOT be saying "everyone go marry people of the same sex!" There's a difference between allowing something and actively promoting it.
contrary once again your extreme ignorance shows because it is illegal almost everywhere to have sex with animals.
Alan Harris It actually isn't. Check your facts.
Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming
And what about the other states? Illegal in way more than half of the states and in many countries.
Alan Harris In the United States, it is more frequent to see States that allow bestiality than same-sex marriage.
Alan Harris It then follows, that, according to the United States, having sex with a non-human animal is more moral than having sex with a person of the same gender.
Sex with animals should be illegal everywhere and so should same sex marriage. Both are immoral and unnatural.
Alan Harris What does "unnatural" mean? Expert naturalists would disagree with what you think is "unnatural." Naturalists know what is natural and unnatural.
The bible says that using your left hand is 'unnatural' and those who do so should be stoned to death…
I would be surprised if you could produce that scripture. Pretty huge difference being left handed and practicing an immoral, unclean, and unnatural act like homosexuality too.
God save and God forgive America
Anyone see the connection; God gave a rainbow after the flood. And all God's children should go into their prayer "closet" and ask for healing for the USA.
"Matthew Stump, Jason Hegel, Michael "fatty" Priebe and David Michael Carrillo, among many many others are as*holes" – Jesus Christ.
Another liberal judge following the path obama has chosen for this country, and that is , stamping out christian religion. I guess all democrats are anti- christian, as they are following the potus like sheep.
Another liberal judge following the path obama has chosen for this country, and that is , stamping out christian religion. I guess all democrats are anti- christian, as they are following the potus like sheep.
Many judges who make these decisions are conservative. You're confusing "liberal" with "anyone who doesn't agree with my fucked up thinking"
A Christian business, just as any other business, can retain the right to refuse service to anyone without giving a reason. If the photographers don't want to take pictures for a gay couple, just say "we can't handle that event" and that is all the explanation anyone deserves. The mistake comes when you start offering reasons and give someone ammunition to complain against you. The couple had a moral objection to taking pictures for that event and had an obligation to themselves and their beliefs to stand by their convictions. I'm sure there are plenty of photographers who would have (or did) take the job, what was the purpose in dragging one business owner through the courts? It seems to me that this gay couple's goal was to bring attention to themselves – mission accomplished I guess, but to what end?
Completely unnecessary. I hope the photographers appeal and win. As a gay man, this is insulting, unnecessary, and harmful to gay citizens everywhere.
What law was passed or case handed down that declared a business could no longer "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It wasn't that long ago that I saw that sign posted in many businesses, particularly restaurants. Obviously I missed something. (I wonder if the photographer had not given a reason, would they be in this mess?)
Wow…..
Wow…..
If there is any "class" that needs protecting it is the much derided white heterosexual Christian male.
They are a protected class. Don't falsely assume that protected classes only protect minorities. A protected class protects discrimination based on that criterion.
Discrimination because the person is white (race) is illegal (race is a protected class).
Discrimination because the person is heterosexual (sexual orientation) is illegal (sexual orientation is a protected class; Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
Discrimination because the person is Christian (religion) is illegal (religion is a protected class).
Discrimination because the person is male (gender) is illegal (gender is a protected class).
So yes, a white heterosexual Christian male is protected. Note that protected classes only protect members of that class when their discrimination is based SOLELY on the class. It's okay to deny service to a gay man or a straight man as long as the reason isn't their sexuality. It's okay to deny service to a black man or a white man as long as the reason isn't race.
If there is any "class" that needs protecting it is the much derided white heterosexual Christian male.
Wow.everyone its entitled to their opinion a long as it is the same as the left. Boo that judge.
Wow.everyone its entitled to their opinion a long as it is the same as the left. Boo that judge.
This is GREAT news! Taking pictures, or being a professional photographer, is NOT a religious ritual and the basic professional service of a photographer is not constrained by any religious doctrine. The photographer was wrong to pull a "religious objection" stunt and now the photographer has to pay. Bravo! For a photographer to reject same-sex clients makes as much sense as a religious shopkeeper refusing to let gay customers shop in his store. Makes no sense to pull "religious objection" in this case.
Ya know, the guy could have just said he was overbooked. But no, he made a "Christian" issue out of it, and now he looks like a fool. A very, very PUBLIC fool. GOOD! Let him wallow in his public humiliation.
Exactly. And reading through the comments of others down below, it seems a LOT of people truly do not understand that just because they believe there is some mysterious thing wrong with being gay it does not give them the right to refuse service IF THEY HAVE OPENED the door as a publicly available service. The run a "business" not a "ministry", so they have to abide by the laws of the BUSINESS world. If a particular couple came into their studio and starting making out, then the business owners WOULD have a legitimate BUSINESS reason to throw them out and deny them service (and rightly so). But to deny the service they already offer to everyone else, just because it was a gay wedding, is morally corrupt and wrong. Shame on the Christians who think their religious beliefs should control others.
Ray, the particular Christians referenced in the article were NOT trying to "control" the gay couple. The article makes no mention of the photographers trying to put a stop to their ceremony just because they didn't agree with it. They simply didn't want to take part in it based on their beliefs. Gays need to understand that a lot of people might not agree with their lifestyle. I'm a straight Christian who attends church…if someone doesn't like MY lifestyle, they don't need to join me. I wouldn't be offended.
DeAnza… doesn't matter. They were unlawfully discriminating against the couple because of their sexual orientation, EVEN though there was likely not going to be any sexual activity at the ceremony, and certainly none they would ask an outsider to photograph. The photographers were not (and never are) "participating" in any ceremony. They are outsiders, paid to capture the event on film, the same as any other journalist; it's not about the photographer and nobody cares what the photographer thinks or believes. As far as the ceremony is concerned, a photographer is NOT REALLY THERE except to take pictures and stay out of the way. What the couple asked for was professional photography of a ceremony that meant something to them. It's not up to the photographer to approve the ceremony, participate in the ceremony, or engage in any other way EXCEPT to observe and photograph. Just like news reporters and photographers aren't part of the story, a wedding photographer is outside of the story, just taking pictures. What Christians don't understand is that their religion ONLY pertains to their PERSONAL life. If Christians open a business, they have to follow the rules of business. Their personal religion does not matter in running a business. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, so they have to pay the price.
DeAnza… doesn't matter. They were unlawfully discriminating against the couple because of their sexual orientation, EVEN though there was likely not going to be any sexual activity at the ceremony, and certainly none they would ask an outsider to photograph. The photographers were not (and never are) "participating" in any ceremony. They are outsiders, paid to capture the event on film, the same as any other journalist; it's not about the photographer and nobody cares what the photographer thinks or believes. As far as the ceremony is concerned, a photographer is NOT REALLY THERE except to take pictures and stay out of the way. What the couple asked for was professional photography of a ceremony that meant something to them. It's not up to the photographer to approve the ceremony, participate in the ceremony, or engage in any other way EXCEPT to observe and photograph. Just like news reporters and photographers aren't part of the story, a wedding photographer is outside of the story, just taking pictures. What Christians don't understand is that their religion ONLY pertains to their PERSONAL life. If Christians open a business, they have to follow the rules of business. Their personal religion does not matter in running a business. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, so they have to pay the price.
Ray Knitterman Whiting You have to remember a lot of bigots think that gay weddings are full of group sex and exotic acts. They think that even photographers would get pulled into having sex somehow. We'll all be better off when homophobes realize that there's nothing hypersexual about homosexuality.
you're right about that. I've known many gay and lesbian couples, and between working, laundry, cleaning the yard, making groceries, paying the bills, tending to the children … their relationships were about as boring and dull as my parent's marriage, usually too tired to think about intimacy.
if you talk to some people on this page, they'd suggest that instead of yardwork, cleaning, cooking, working, all homosexuals do is have crazy sex parties. debating these ignorant people would just give them status. it would make their arguments valid enough to contest. their ignorant arguments shouldn't even deserve a response.
Ray whiting u and aaron don't seem to understand that no judge has the right to force anyone to violate their religious principles because of a little something known as the first amendment. Your farcical views are easily dismissed with the citing of boy scouts of america vs dale 2000 in which SCOTUS found that the BSA a private organization had the right to reject homo scoutmasters through first amendment religious protections.
You and dale are commies who want to trash the constitution and replace it with the touchy feely coloring book of the moral anarchy left where only the govt has the right to decide what is right and wrong.
Seriously? If someone's religious principles prohibit them from following the rules of business in the business arena, they need to find a different business. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate, and that's what these people want to do. The BSA are a PRIVATE organization, able to set their own rules of membership. A professional photographer hanging his shingle out in the public square is providing a service to the general public and CANNOT reject an entire class of people, any more than a store or restaurant can put up a sign that says No Gays or No Blacks or No Jews. Certainly the BSA is morally wrong to reject gays and atheists, but it's their organization and nobody is forced to join their little club. It's an entirely different thing. Rejecting discrimination in business is NOT trashing the Constitution; we are demanding the constitution be properly applied to all people
Ray whiting: you're just splitting hairs. How exactly is the Bsa different from a self employed couple running a business with religious principles in mind? or are you intending to imply that a self employed couple work for the government whether they realize it or not?
Sorry but your OPINION doesn't hold up to constitutional standard. The first amendment trumphs any so called bs anti free speech hate crime law that you commies on the left can dream up.
Secondly where do you justify making the comparison of race to sexuality? going by your logic should a day care manager hire someone with a history of pedophilia because they are a "class" of people like jews blacks etc?
Maybe you can answer what none of your buddies couldnt: what is the name and number of the dna strand that makes homosexuality genetic?
Also are you aware that legitimate discrimination is legal in the US? You don't have the right to go into the womens bathrooms and vice versa…why don't you sue the govt for that "discrimination" then?
Fact: homosexuals are people suffering from a mental disorder that makes them go against nature and all common sense. They had no more legal protections under the law than institutionalized schizophrenics or pyromaniacs. Its the reason why the police followed public saety guidelines in regards to them and why stds exploded once their affliction was removed from the DSM for purely political purposes.
If mental disorders are constitutionally protected then mental institutions would be illegal. Homos enjoy the same rights as we all do by virtue of them being American…being homo does NOT entitle them to unconstitutional perks much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
Author Daniel Ramos — Sorry, but there is a HUGE different between the BSA, which is a PRIVATE Organization, with membership rules. A BUSINESS follows BUSINESS rules, not rules set up for private clubs and membership-type organizations. A self-employed couple MUST operate under the exact same non-discrimination business practices as Chase, IBM, and Me, when providing a product or service to the general public. Many of my customers are religious, or support the wrong political party, but I have no legitimate reason to deny them service. A photographer has no legitimate business reason to deny a potential client based only on sexual orientation.
The rest of your post is blind rhetoric and irrelevant to this discussion AND amply refuted elsewhere. Stay focused, man — the photographer screwed himself by pretending he had some phony religious rights issue, and he was hauled up for it. Bravo to the court for an excellent decision. Religion belongs at home, not at work. Very simple.
This is GREAT news! Taking pictures, or being a professional photographer, is NOT a religious ritual and the basic professional service of a photographer is not constrained by any religious doctrine. The photographer was wrong to pull a "religious objection" stunt and now the photographer has to pay. Bravo! For a photographer to reject same-sex clients makes as much sense as a religious shopkeeper refusing to let gay customers shop in his store. Makes no sense to pull "religious objection" in this case.
Those opposed to gay couples right to marry need to understand that many of the judges ruling on these issues are not liberals. Many are conservative judges. So before you start spouting off about "activist liberal judges", do your research and you will find many were appointed by Reagan & Bush. The fact that even conservative judges are ruling in favor of gay couples right to marry should tell you something about gay marriage equality being a civil rights issue under the law. I think it is very possible that the SCOTUS would rule 6 to 3 in favor of permitting gay couples to marry in America. This would be a resounding decision with only Scalia, Alito & Thomas being the nays.
They are NOT conservative simply because they are appointed by republicans. Ever heard of the term "rino?" Your logic is flawed.
Those opposed to gay couples right to marry need to understand that many of the judges ruling on these issues are not liberals. Many are conservative judges. So before you start spouting off about "activist liberal judges", do your research and you will find many were appointed by Reagan & Bush. The fact that even conservative judges are ruling in favor of gay couples right to marry should tell you something about gay marriage equality being a civil rights issue under the law. I think it is very possible that the SCOTUS would rule 6 to 3 in favor of permitting gay couples to marry in America. This would be a resounding decision with only Scalia, Alito & Thomas being the nays.
I love these kinds of rulings. Why? It forces people to make a decision to honor God or not. To stand up for HIM or compromise. You see God will have the last say in the area of judgments and He has already made it clear about the lifestyle of gays. He condemns it. As for me I will not be hiring openingly gays or giving them credence in any area, employment, rentals, etc. I care less what the Goverment dictates. As for me and my house we will serve God and HIS righteousness not man's. It has never been about civil rights that's where so many get lost. They want acceptance by force, which only those who compromise will give them as a result of threats. Who's next? Transgenders, marriage to animals or SELF.
"Slaves, obey your master" (1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5)
You are right…Christianity has NEVER been about civil rights.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I love these kinds of rulings. Why? It forces people to make a decision to honor God or not. To stand up for HIM or compromise. You see God will have the last say in the area of judgments and He has already made it clear about the lifestyle of gays. He condemns it. As for me I will not be hiring openingly gays or giving them credence in any area, employment, rentals, etc. I care less what the Goverment dictates. As for me and my house we will serve God and HIS righteousness not man's. It has never been about civil rights that's where so many get lost. They want acceptance by force, which only those who compromise will give them as a result of threats. Who's next? Transgenders, marriage to animals or SELF.
What rulings like this will result in is people of faith simply closing up shop instead of being forced by the state to participate in something they consider sinful. We're already seeing something similar with Catholic institutions dropping insurance plans rather than be forced to provide coverage for contraception.
What this could also result in is people of faith being effectively ostracized from society as more doors are closed to them because of a conflict with their faith.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say this was by design.
Don't they see they are "forcing their beliefs" or non belief on others?
oh, I forgot, they are so certain they are right… interesting, it's just like the behavior they claim to hate.
Yep…just another example of one way intolerance
Yep…just another example of one way intolerance
Just like liberals forced everyone to give up slavery, allow women to vote and permit interracial marriage. Poor, poor Christians……*sniff*
Sorry Jennifer, but slavery was a Democrat-supported institution. It was Republicans who ended slavery based on religious beliefs.
Thanks for playing, though.
Democrats of then are the republicans of now though …
Mike Guilmette I used the term "liberal" in it's generic meaning; not as a term synonymous with a particular party, but you already know that, so why play games?. Seriously, are you REALLY going to peddle that tired old argument about how the Republicans are the party of civil rights? I'm sure the majority of Kool-Aid-drinking readers on any Fox News thread will gladly pick up what you're throwing down, but the (maybe 5) educated readers on this blog understand the difference between ideology and party. The Republicans did end slavery and it's true that but the Republicans of the mid-1800s and today's GOP have virtually nothing in common with regard to civil rights. From the early 20th century and particularly following passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Dems and Repubs polarized, with most of the civil right supporters migrating to the Democratic Party and most of the white supremacists, segregationists and other opposers of equality migrating to the GOP. Strom Thurmond is just one example of a party-jumper. But why am I even bothering? You already know this, you're just trotting out one of your debunked talking points because that's all you've got – hot air and no facts.
Very troubling to comprehend a ruling such as this. I agree with matthew stumps comment.
No government can force an individual to perform an act or service that contradicts their religious beliefs – PERIOD!!!
Oh, I forgot….I'm living in the USA
If they had just refused service, it more than likely would have been fine, unfortunately they specified a reason for refusing service. Take note folks, if your going to refuse service to someone, you can no longer tell them WHY, just tell them that you cannot assist them.