New Mexico Court says Christian Photogrophers MUST Compromise Beliefs

[pinstripers]

I wanna be able to serve anyone I want, and to refuse to serve anyone I want.

[Rlh04d]

I wanna be able to serve anyone I want, and to refuse to serve anyone I want.

Including African Americans?

Women?

Jews? People from Oklahoma? Liberals, conservatives?

Where does it stop?

Somehow I think if this was a matter of companies owned by liberals refusing to do business with conservatives, your opinions on this issue would be drastically different.

[pinstripers]

You do not own a business.

[Rlh04d]

You do not own a business.

I don't.

And exactly how is that relevant to what I asked?

I'm assuming you own a business. Do you think you should have the right to refuse service to people based on the color of their skin, their gender, their political beliefs, their nationality, what team they cheer for, etc., etc., etc.? If you do, I pity you, and would never do business with you regardless.

[pinstripers]

You believe the state should have the right to tell a business who he can or cannot serve. Why would anyone own a business that they were not allowed to run? No, I'm not talking about any specific group, only for the freedom to be able to decide. You want to make my decision for me? I don't pity you at all. Not one bit.

[Rlh04d]

You believe the state should have the right to tell a business who he can or cannot serve. Why would anyone own a business that they were not allowed to run? No, I'm not talking about any specific group, only for the freedom to be able to decide. You want to make my decision for me? I don't pity you at all. Not one bit.

Absolutely I do believe the state should have that right. Because if the state DIDN'T have that right, African Americans would still be riding at the back of buses, using their own bathrooms and water fountains, segregated to their schools, and generally treated like stray dogs in human bodies. Because the free market does NOT fix everything. What this country did to African Americans was NOT right, and if you believe that you should have the right to go back to doing it to them if you wish, just because you own a business -- that's just sad.

And more importantly, the Supreme Court of the United States believes the state has that right. You do NOT have the right to discriminate just because you own a business. And that has been a fact for decades, and if you own a business currently, I don't know why you would ask the question of "Why would anyone own a business that they were not allowed to run?" -- because I'm pretty sure that you didn't start owning that business until after Civil Rights legislation made it clear that you don't have the right to run your business in a discriminatory manner.

If you can't make your decisions in a manner which respects the foundational tenet of this country that "all men are created equal," then you don't deserve the right to make them. Owning a business doesn't give you the right to violate Constitutional principles.

[RoyalShock]

The issue isn't doing business with gays, it's being part of the celebration of marriage, a sacred Christian institution, that's being perverted by homosexuals. Those photographers may, rightly, believe their participation is a sin. The 1st Amendment should protect them from the government or anyone else forcing them into sinful actions.

[ShockTalk]

Including African Americans?

Women?

Jews? People from Oklahoma? Liberals, conservatives?

Where does it stop?

Somehow I think if this was a matter of companies owned by liberals refusing to do business with conservatives, your opinions on this issue would be drastically different.

Just a question: From a level of governmental control, why does a consumer have the right to discriminate based on owners of businesses who are of your above list yet business owners do not have those same rights? Consumers can put a business owner out of business for any dam* reason they want by boycotting.

[Rlh04d]

The issue isn't doing business with gays, it's being part of the celebration of marriage, a sacred Christian institution, that's being perverted by homosexuals. Those photographers may, rightly, believe their participation is a sin. The 1st Amendment should protect them from the government or anyone else forcing them into sinful actions.

Marriage existed before Christ, or even before the founding of Judaism, so I don't see how it can be declared exclusively "a sacred Christian institution." I don't recall anything about Jesus inventing marriage. If it's not done in a Christian church, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Millions of people get married every day without any involvement in the church. People get married by justices of the peace. Atheists get married. Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Christian churches allow adulterers, liars, cheaters, people who work on the Sabbath, gluttons, etc. to marry in their churches. Again, there doesn't appear to be a problem with any of them "perverting a sacred Christian institution." What makes this one group necessary to single out?

Wouldn't the divorce of a couple married in a Christian church be a far greater perversion of a sacred Christian institution than a couple gay guys getting married at a Justice of the Peace? Seems to me the Bible is pretty clearly against divorce -- yet how many of you have been divorced after specifically being joined in a Christian ceremony? Going by the percentages, I'd guess a lot of you. THAT is a perversion of a Christian institution, because the church was involved.

It's entirely within the rights of the church to choose to not allow homosexuals to marry within their church. When the church isn't involved, it isn't a religious matter. There is nothing inherently religious about marriage. In the case of homosexuals, it's a day of celebration and a legal agreement.

[Rlh04d]

Just a question: From a level of governmental control, why does a consumer have the right to discriminate based on owners of businesses who are of your above list yet business owners do not have those same rights? Consumers can put a business owner out of business for any dam* reason they want by boycotting.

How many times is the right of the business owner mentioned in the Constitution?

How many times is the right of the individual mentioned?

That's probably why there is a difference.

However, I don't agree that consumers should boycott based on those reasons. But how would you ever enforce that legally? I think a business owner should be allowed to sue an organization that organizes a boycott against them based on those things. But of course then you also get into, such as in the Chick Fil-A case, when money being spent at the company is being used to donate to causes someone doesn't agree with, I can also see why choosing to not spend your money in a way that will ultimately be used against you should be legal. So ... I don't know? ;)

[pinstripers]

I own my own business. I am an individual. I do not have to deal with the public, nor do I want to. My main issue would be (in theory) would be dealing with azzholes.

[ShockTalk]

How many times is the right of the business owner mentioned in the Constitution?

How many times is the right of the individual mentioned?

That's probably why there is a difference.

However, I don't agree that consumers should boycott based on those reasons. But how would you ever enforce that legally? I think a business owner should be allowed to sue an organization that organizes a boycott against them based on those things. But of course then you also get into, such as in the Chick Fil-A case, when money being spent at the company is being used to donate to causes someone doesn't agree with, I can also see why choosing to not spend your money in a way that will ultimately be used against you should be legal. So ... I don't know? ;)

I own my own business. I am an individual. I do not have to deal with the public, nor do I want to. My main issue would be (in theory) would be dealing with azzholes.

Is not an owner of a business an individual? Should he/she not be protected with the same rights as a consumer? So that is not the difference.

However, you did hit on one reason: "But how would you ever enforce that legally?" An individual consumer can go out and "bully" a small business owner by targeting them, forcing them to do business with them or have the owner face legal consequences, even though the "consumer" may have had no real interest in dealing with the business except to make a statement.

Where's the individual business owner's right to do the same? He/she is an individual. A consumer does not have to do business with someone just because they're not gay. Yet, an individual business owner can have their religious principles trampled on by that same consumer. Perhaps the photographer does a lot of business with churches and Christian schools and could lose that business if they didn't make it clear that they were being forced to take the pictures by the government. As we know, fair is not always fair.

Personally, I have gay friends. However, each of us are respectful of the other. Without asking, they seem to know what might make me squeamish. Yes, I would personally find it difficult to photograph what they would consider not offensive. They would not put me in that position unless they asked me first. If I said I'd rather not, that would be the end of it. People can have differing viewpoints/beliefs and still be respectful, even friends.

By the way, and just for the record, racial prejudice is stupid in my book.

[Kung Wu]

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

The last sentence of the portion I quoted definitely uses the word "punish".

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" ?

Apples and oranges. In every one of your examples the patron did not come to you for positive affirmation of, to solicit, or flaunt their sin.

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?
...
And, quite frankly, as we are ALL sinners, a wedding photographer who refuses to "condone" the lifestyle of sinners will have no work. None.

What single poster on here ever said they were sinless? Not one. But we don't walk into establishments flaunting our sin and expecting or demanding service from a proprietor that knowingly rejects that activity. Even if the patron doesn't consider their behavior to be sinful, they still shouldn't have the expectation of walking into an establishment and expecting service from one who does. A non-religious example: If I walk into your establishment that clearly says "no firearms allowed", I shouldn't have an expectation that I am going to get service when I plunk my Smith and Wesson revolver down on the counter. Like it or not, it's your business, and if you are an anti-gun zealot I shouldn't have the expectation that you must serve me when I break your rule.

[SubGod22]

New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution.

[Rlh04d]

The last sentence of the portion I quoted definitely uses the word "punish".

Damn, you're right.

Apples and oranges. In every one of your examples the patron did not come to you for positive affirmation of, to solicit, or flaunt their sin.

That's one way of looking at it. Or simply that they wanted to hire a professional to provide a professional service. If you're a wedding photographer, your job is to photograph weddings. If homosexuals can legally marry, discriminating against that is different. You're not giving positive affirmation to someone by doing business with them, and there is no reason to think someone is "flaunting" anything by asking for the ability to do something that anyone else can do.

What single poster on here ever said they were sinless? Not one. But we don't walk into establishments flaunting our sin and expecting or demanding service from a proprietor that knowingly rejects that activity. Even if the patron doesn't consider their behavior to be sinful, they still shouldn't have the expectation of walking into an establishment and expecting service from one who does. A non-religious example: If I walk into your establishment that clearly says "no firearms allowed", I shouldn't have an expectation that I am going to get service when I plunk my Smith and Wesson revolver down on the counter. Like it or not, it's your business, and if you are an anti-gun zealot I shouldn't have the expectation that you must serve me when I break your rule.

Good response ;)

However, the legal system of the United States clearly does not think that homosexuality belongs in the same category as firearms, but rather in the same sense as race or gender. If you want to be served at the restaurant of an anti-gun zealot, you leave your gun in the car, or at least keep it put away. By doing so you are immediately given the right to access the same services as everyone else, and you are not discriminated against for being a gun owner. The problem isn't who you ARE, or even the choices that you've made, but rather the item that you have on you. If the anti-gun zealot identifies you as being a gun owner and refuses to ever serve you again because of that legal choice you've made -- I would argue that you have every legal right to sue him for unlawful discrimination. You can put away your gun and receive service, just as you can put your shirt on or put shoes on. However, when a business refuses to do business with you because you are a homosexual, you can't simply leave your homosexuality at the door. That is discrimination based on who you are, and is thus unlawful. Which is why you can refuse someone service because they're not wearing a ****, but you can't refuse them service because they're black.

There is nothing that a homosexual can "leave at the door" to receive service from this wedding photographer. I suppose in your mind they could simply choose to not be gay. However, if this was a wedding between two fat people, it would also likely be unlawful discrimination for the photographer to refuse to work their wedding on the grounds that their gluttony is a sin, even if they could technically lose weight to receive that service.

Whether it's your business or not, you do not have the right to run your business in a way that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution is interpreted by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, not the individual business owner.