Well, if it’s a porn actor…
See, you keep bringing blacks and Jews into it like it’s the exact same thing when it isn’t. Very few religions on earth prohibit interacting with blacks and Jews.* It’s still my position that the couple was rejected based on their commitment ceremony (which is a little political in itself, given the current political sphere here).
It wasn’t like they said, “We don’t photograph gays.”
They had a policy of photographing traditional weddings. They would probably reject a wedding in which the bride and groom wanted to get married in skimpy attire or whatever OR IF THEY WERE GOING TO FILM A POLYGAMOUS CEREMONY.
Don’t take away someone’s inherent right to a conscious and a religion (that’s been going strong for 2,000 years). I understand your personal position and your political ideals, but when we trump one’s civil right in favor of another, we have some serious thinking to do. Their ideas may be ignorant and their moral inclinations may be weak, but it’s still their own liberty. Getting your picture taken is not a friggin right. It’s not even necessary.
*yeah I’m not even gonna go there
NOW. Go back 50 or 100 years and take another poll.
If they choose to do business with the public, they are voluntarily waiving that right. If they want to stay true to their religion, don’t go into a business that requires them to compromise their principles. Their rights weren’t taken away, they gave them up voluntarily, by going into business.
If and only if they are putting themselves out as a public accommodation.
For example, if I put out a sign/ad that says “Zeriel Freelance Acting! I will act in your play for $150!”
I am then obligated to act in your play for $150, or at the very least to not refuse you on grounds that are covered by a protected class.
If I on the other hand only audition selectively, I am in fact not a public accommodation and cannot be forced to take a role based on anti-discrimination laws.
This is 100% analogous to the publishing house vs. print shop discussion in the previous thread on this kind of stuff. A publishing house does not just print any old thing, they solicit privately and selectively, therefore they cannot be forced to print anything. A print shop typically solicits public business and will print anything that falls under their terms of service, and therefore they can be forced to print things if they attempt to refuse to do so because a person is a member of a suspect class.
Why not? We went around and around on this point with GEEPERS and got no discussion, of course, so maybe you can come up with a satisfying answer. Today, most people in the U.S. would agree that that type of racial and religious discrimination is abhorrent. But not very long ago they said it was fine and they often justified it using scripture, which is the same basis for opposition to same-sex marriage. Mamie Eisenhower was supposedly the First Lady who wouldn’t let Jews into her family’s (private) home, right? Scripture was certainly invoked in bans against interracial dating, sex, and marriage. Dating or marrying someone of another race might’ve been seen as political, too. Certainly it could be dangerous if you were out on a date in the wrong place. So why is that different? If all you have is “race isn’t a choice,” that’s spectacularly unconvincing and not relevant.
The NM law says:
any person in any public accommodation
Sorry, but legally speaking, under New Mexico law, it is absolutely the exact same thing. And it goes for religions, too–I can’t refuse service to Christians because they are Christians, no matter how bigoted and/or short-sighted about human rights they are.
This.
They do not have the right, as a business offering services to the public, to deny service to someone because they are in a protected class.
…Just to expand: Being black is certainly not a choice, but you do choose who you date just like you choose who you marry, so it would seem to me that discrimination against interracial couples is just as justified as discriminating against same-sex couples.
Your bolding isnt fully illustrative.-
any person in any public accommodation
therefore it applies more specifically than to just ‘people’.
Who cares how many religions (currently) prohibit it, or even if there are any at all? That’s not germane to this discussion. In New Mexico at least, discrimination against gays is treated exactly the same as discrimination against blacks or Jews. Even if your reason for wanting to do so is based on religious beliefs.
Bess Truman, actually.
Thanks. I think I’ve botched that one before, actually.
That’s about what I figured you’d say, but you forgot the nyah nyah nyah. (Nice foot stamp, though!) I suppose you can call your misrepresentation of my statements “artistic expression.” 
If the matter were as clear-cut as you pretend it is, this issue would have been resolved long before now. One of the things you don’t seem to understand is that the law is not requiring anybody to engage in any particular “expressive conduct” in this case. As a business owner, the defendant should have been aware of those laws, so it would appear she violated the law willingly. The business (which is the entity that was sued, as opposed to the individual) should be required to pay the legal penalty.
Aw, I am crushed, but I’m not at all surprised that you don’t comprehend what I am actually saying. I will remove the confusing language and restate: Really? You’re going with a personal anecdote about recommending a wedding photographer in a discussion about discrimination, art and the First Amendment? Your friend’s request for the name of your photographer might make a nice Facebook post, but it doesn’t have anything to do with whether wedding photographs are expression as opposed to product.
I think you’re painting expressive conduct with too broad a brush. If my company, Nuclear Family Baby Products LLC, is not required to hire Hispanics or Christians just because I hammered some sticks together in a vague semblance of a highchair and painted a bunny on it, then laws governing business don’t apply at all and should be scrapped. Virtually all businesses produce something that involves creativity and expression.
Even with that deeply nuanced, highly qualified, and no doubt genetically superior statement, my disagreement stands. I’m sure you couldn’t care less, though. 
It’s not as contradictory as it sounds. You cannot be physically compelled to provide your services to all groups equally; that is: nobody is going to turn up at your door and frogmarch you to the gay wedding ceremony and make you take photographs at gunpoint.
But if you wish to operate as a service business in the equitable public environment the government is trying to create for people to live in, if you do refuse to provide a service to someone on the basis that they are a member of a protected group, there is a penalty for having done so.
Of course, for people who feel discrimination is a necessary and integral part of their worldview, a sufficiently severe penalty would effectively amount to “being forced to do X, or going out of business”. I cried a tiny tear for their trampled ‘rights’, but it dried before hitting the ground.
There are, indeed, some ways in which race and religion are treated under the law which are different from how sexual orientation is treated under the law. That said, this:
…isn’t even remotely close to one of them. Aside from the broad lack of historical awareness (namely, the extensive use of scriptural justification in the defense of both slavery and segregation), you appear to be arguing that because only a relative few contemporary religions mandate racial segregation, then the law can treat those religions differently. Which betrays a rather fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work in a contemporary American context. Religious beliefs do not exempt one from following non-discrimination laws, regardless of whether the beliefs in question are those of the Roman Catholic Church, or the White Nationalist Congregation of Upper Bumfuck, Idaho.
That may very well be the case. So what? If I own a lunch counter, and refuse to serve black professionals because I think they’re too uppity, I cannot escape prosecution by pointing at my willingness to serve black menials. Discrimination against a subset of a protected class is still discrimination.
Also, the suggestion that a commitment ceremony or same-sex marriage is automatically political is just a little bit insulting.
I’m not sure what the fuck is up with the all-caps there, but you’re right, they probably would refuse to photograph weddings like that. And they can do that, because there’s no law forbidding discrimination against nudists or polyamorists. Anyone and everyone is free to refuse to do business with people on those grounds.
“Conscience.”
Also not necessities:
*Eating at a lunch counter
*Drinking from a particular water fountain
*Using a particular water fountain
*Sitting at the front of the bus
That’s one of the points that pulled me right off the fence on this issue. It’s not acceptable to say that most people can have access to whatever they want, but a certain group can only have access to things deemed somehow ‘essential’. The right that’s being violated here is that of having equal standing as a citizen.
Exactly. The issue isn’t photography etc, it’s the dignity of being treated as equals.
I haven’t the slightest idea of what your saying. What is your point?