New Mexico Court says Christian Photogrophers MUST Compromise Beliefs

[SubGod22]

Even though the gay couple found another photogropher who'd work their ceremony for cheaper, this couple was sued and the courts have fined them thousands of dollars. This ruling essentially states that gay rights are higher than religious rights in the eyes of the courts. At lesat the NM courts. I love how the Christian photogrophers have to be tolerant to the gay couple but the gay couple doesn't have to be tolerant of the Christain couples beliefs. And it's not like they couldn't find the service they were looking for elsewhere.

[WuDrWu]

I find that ruling a little hard to believe. Am I reading it wrong, or does that ruling essentially nullify every "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign ever made?

I can't believe the courts can tell people whom they must provide services to. That does not make sense to me.

[RoyalShock]

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

Positively disgusting.

[WuDrWu]

There's no way that holds up in the SCOTUS. No way.

[RoyalShock]

I hate to say this, but all the non-discrimination laws from the middle of the last century paved the way for this. The moment private businesses were told who they could not refuse service to, it opened the door for any named group to claim a right to non-discrimination.

They should have let the market sort it out. It would have taken longer, yes, but it would have had the desired outcome, without the unintended consequences.

[WuDrWu]

I've tried to find more information on this....and there is NO WAY this is going to hold up on appeal. I can't believe it's made it this far.

I am trying to find at least 2 places to confirm the following but it would appear that the woman that brought the suit is:

Vanessa Willock

She works (or worked, this case started in 2006 I believe) in the UNM office of Equal Opportunity and served as the chair of the New Mexico Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity committee. I don't believe it's a stretch to think that she was trolling for a turn down.....almost smacks of entrapment. And seeing as how gay marriage wasn't recognized at the time, it might even seem like the pot calling the kettle a gay basher.

Something stinks REALLY bad here.

[RoyalShock]

When I read it my first thought was that the discrimination angle was just a convenient avenue to punish someone who doesn't agree with her (Willock) and get her vengeance for being offended.

[Rlh04d]

I find that ruling a little hard to believe. Am I reading it wrong, or does that ruling essentially nullify every "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign ever made?

I can't believe the courts can tell people whom they must provide services to. That does not make sense to me.

This is going to come off worse than I'm intending it to, probably.

But replace "gay" with "black" here and what do you think the outcome would be?

Can a business refuse service to someone because they're black? Can a photographer refuse to work a wedding between two African Americans because they believe that God created African Americans to be inferior to white people?

The Supreme Court has already ruled in a way that nullifies "we reserve the right ..." signs when they are done in a discriminatory manner. Even if your religion is used to justify that discrimination, as it was often done in racial matters.

You can disagree with whether sexual orientation is comparable to racial makeup, but the courts have clearly already ruled on similar cases to this in regards to racial discrimination, and the courts have on many occasions ruled that discrimination against homosexuals, even on a religious basis, is still very similar to racial discrimination.

[Rlh04d]

When I read it my first thought was that the discrimination angle was just a convenient avenue to punish someone who doesn't agree with her (Willock) and get her vengeance for being offended.

Almost certainly.

Doesn't mean it won't hold up in court, though.

[RoyalShock]

Freedom and liberty are messy. Trying to clean them up cuts both.

[Rlh04d]

Freedom and liberty are messy. Trying to clean them up cuts both.

We did a pretty good job with racial discrimination.

Whether you like it or not, discrimination based on sexual orientation is going to be treated exactly the same as discrimination based on race in this country by law.

[SB Shock]

IMO, the best thing this photographer could have did was use it as a chance to preach a message that God loves them and they can turn from their sin at any time.

[Rlh04d]

IMO, the best thing this photographer could have did was use it as a chance to preach a message that God loves them and they can turn from their sin at any time.

Absolutely.

Using your Christianity to discriminate against someone is completely against the message of Christianity. God judges, and no one else. If homosexuality is against your religion, then God will punish them. Jesus specifically says to not judge others. Going against the Bible to punish someone that's going against the Bible is insane.

But while we're on the subject, if she was to use this as an opportunity to tell them they can turn from their sin at any time, she should also do the same to anyone who charges interest, or has committed adultery, or covets anything, or uses the Lord's name in vain, or disrespects their parents, or works on a Sunday ... etc, etc, etc. Most of those are Commandments, making them FAR more important than gay sex.

We're all sinners. Stop judging others for their sin and ignoring your own. It's not anyone's place to judge in God's name. And stop using the Bible to discriminate against people you're specifically biased against. There are a LOT of people that should be discriminated against if it was merely about living in sin per the Bible -- including every last person here. Love people, live your life as an example, and let God handle the rest.

I'll worry about the sins of gay folks as soon as I've freed myself from sin.

[Kung Wu]

Using your Christianity to discriminate against someone is completely against the message of Christianity. God judges, and no one else. If homosexuality is against your religion, then God will punish them. Jesus specifically says to not judge others. Going against the Bible to punish someone that's going against the Bible is insane.

I think you are altering the debate here substantially. Nobody is "punishing" gays, nor has ever argued for punishing gays. Not condoning a sin and refusing to endorse an intentionally chosen sinful path is not the same thing as punishing a sinner. It's really not even close.

[Rlh04d]

I think you are altering the debate here substantially. Nobody is "punishing" gays, nor has ever argued for punishing gays. Not condoning a sin and refusing to endorse an intentionally chosen sinful path is not the same thing as punishing a sinner. It's really not even close.

The phase I used was "discriminate against," not punish. I only used the word "punish" in regards to God.

And I think you're glossing over what's happening here if you think this is about condoning their lifestyle by doing business with them. I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to discriminate against someone because you disagree with their lifestyle choices, which isn't even getting into whether homosexuality is a choice or not -- which I have a severe problem with the idea of; I don't "choose" to be attracted to women, and I couldn't ever "choose" to be attracted to men.

If you own a business and you serve a guy that's going through a divorce because he cheated on his wife, are you condoning and endorsing his adultery? Are you endorsing the gluttony of an alcoholic by doing business with him? How many of you have packed on some weight? How about the guys that download movies illegally online -- should we refuse to do business them for their lifestyle of rebuking "Thou shalt not steal" ?

How many of us love seeing the photos of gorgeous women that get posted on here regularly -- why is it okay for us to intentionally choose a path of lust and not be discriminated against? There is not ONE of you on this forum that I can't find a reason to discriminate against religiously. So what gives any of us the right to use religion to discriminate against someone else?

I'm sorry, but religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against people for reasons that are NOT religious. The truth is that working on a Sunday goes against the Ten Commandments; having gay sex does not. And yet no one is using their religion as justification to discriminate against people who work on Sundays (or seven days a week in general). If someone wants to use their religion as justification to not deal with someone, then I personally don't have a problem with that -- but it needs to be used across the board. And, quite frankly, as we are ALL sinners, a wedding photographer who refuses to "condone" the lifestyle of sinners will have no work. None.

I want to know why it is so necessary to refuse to "condone" this sin while acceptable to "condone" so many others? It's really, really damn easy to single out the minority group while refusing to look at the bigger picture. And the truth is that it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals as sinners because we out number them. And that's it. It's using religion to bully, and that is not within the teachings of Jesus.