NM Supreme Court Rules Refusal to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegally Discriminates

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Aug 23, 2013.

  1. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,187
    Or, should work. That is, among real people who aren't completely governed in their life by political axes to grind.

    And the lawyers. We all know what motivates them.

    Or we can engage in non-productive nonsense like this. Just look at this thread. So, now, because of the lawsuit, you have to come up with a good excuse to not perform the service. Oh, but watch out, as the douchbags among us might check up on your alibi and if your excuse doesn't meet the criteria, they'll sue you.

    What a bunch of baloney. Really, just a perfect example of how disgusting our political system has become.
  2. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,187
    No, that's normal people. As for those who would do otherwise. All I'll say is we normal people would be a lot better off if they were all 6-feet under.
  3. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,187

    Or what if Aliens came down and abducted all the photographers. . .

    Come on, man. Do you really believe this chit?

    Well, what if the "best" photographer didn't do his "best" work because he was forced to work under duress (at least in his/her eyes)? Hmmm. Perhaps the second best is actually the best in this case since he actually wants the business.

    But, again, to hell with logic. We have a political axe to grind? Hurray for political axes to grind. Aren't they swell?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,525
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,350
    Again, you seem to want to talk past the larger point. You are blaming the people who asked that a law on the books be enforced and absolving the person who broke it.

    If you don't agree with the law get it changed, but in the meantime it's the law.
  5. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,796
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,034
    The law sucks, but it could be easily avoided.

    The more I think about it, I think "public conveyance" is a term more applicable to a public facility like a store or a restaurant, than it is to a person providing services in person at your own event. I don't think anyone should be forced to attend an event they find morally repugnant -- even if they are a bigot.
  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    Exactly... Does a bar have to serve a sober person?
  7. phatGator

    phatGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +243
    I appreciated the reminder. I tend to misuse that expression.
  8. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,525
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,350
    Fair enough, if enough people agree with you then get it changed. Meantime, he is obligated to observe it or must be willing to accept the consequences for not doing so.
  9. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,796
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,034
    It's effectively unenforceable for photographers if they aren't dumbasses.

    And I think there may be Constitutional issues. I wonder if it goes to SCOTUS.
  10. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    Where do you sand on the law breakers that come into our country illegally?

    I think you make a convenient excuse in you retort about lawbreakers.
  11. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,525
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,350
    You and I probably have similar views on illegal immigration - the two issues are similar to me, the law is the law. One doesn't have to be all "liberal" or all "conservative" to have a consistent POV, in fact sometimes it helps greatly to not be all one thing or the other.
  12. maxgator

    maxgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +281
    There is this little thing in our country called separation of church and state... The idea is to avoid your deeply held religious beliefs from interfering with others who might not share them.
  13. maxgator

    maxgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +281
    And what better way to do that than suing them for discrimination...

    Obviously, the point of the suit was to punish the photog for refusing, not to compel them to photog gays. I'm relatively certain that no gays will be seeking the services of that photog in the future...
  14. helix139

    helix139 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,310
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,871
    No, the idea is to keep the government from establishing a state religion and allow everyone to practice theirs freely. The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the text of the constitution and private entities are free to be as religious or non-religious as they want.

    By your interpretation, clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals in churches with established doctrine preventing the practice simply because homosexuals don't share the belief and the church/clergy would be "interfering" with them.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,676
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,589
    Well there is a necessarily implied exception to many laws for the religious institution itself where the application would have the effect of dictating the institution's religious doctrine in order to avoid potential establishment clause issues (see, for example, the clergy exception to employment anti-discrimination laws in Hosanna Tabor). For an individual who happens to be religious, however, the free-exercise clause argument here is a pretty clear loser as long as Employment Division v. Smith remains good law. It's hard to imagine a more "religion neutral law of general applicability" than an anti-discrimination law.

    That's why I question whether SCOTUS would take this. Unless they have an appetite to overturn Smith the free-exercise question isn't a terribly close call, and the hybrid claim was disposed of on adequate and independent state grounds. So that leaves primarily whether they would take it for the compelled speech claim so soon after the Rumsfeld decision.
  16. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,187
    The photog should suffer the consequences of his own ignorance or "jackassedness" if you prefer. That should be enough in a civilized world. The lawsuit is a publicity grab, period. You can delve into all the legal machinations all you want, but in my eyes that is all it will ever be. And a trite one at that.
  17. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,541
    Likes Received:
    4,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,061
    I do not pretend to understand homosexuality- but as a business owner the customer is always the customer-
  18. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +633
    It's remarkable how "far" we've come that photography services are considered a public accommodation.
  19. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,187
    And money is money. Which is why I think he's an idiot. However, given the myriad "excuses" put forth that he could have used to "get out of it," it appears his greatest mistake with respect to his own situation was being honest with the couple.
  20. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,796
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,034
    There would seem to be a distinction between a public conveyance like a store or restaurant and personal services that require the contracted person to attend an event of another person's creation. We aren't talking about commercial matters that impact basic needs or personal well being, we are talking about discretionary artistic services of a highly personal nature. It would be easy to imagine circumstances at that event that could be offensive or violate someone's conscience yet you would force them to attend anyway. I don't think a person's refusal to participate in an event not of their own making is in the same wheelhouse as refusing service at a lunch counter or shoe store.

Share This Page