Yes, you do. So like I’ve been saying, the argument about discriminating against gays vs. refusing to do same-sex ceremonies is a distinction without a difference.
There’s no legal requirement for it, as far as I know. Arguably, pretending to be gay and revealing after the ceremony that you aren’t could prompt a valid claim for an annulment from your new spouse, but I don’t believe at any point one is required to check a “Yes, I am gay” box in filing the paperwork for a same-sex marriage license.
Similarly, I wouldn’t want to deny a marriage licence to someone who is utterly disinterested in (or incapable of) sexual activity of any kind, so long as the spouse is aware of such.
This wasn’t an “official” commitment ceremony. AFAIK, New Mexico does not recognize SSM or civil unions.
In states with legal same sex marriage, would it be illegal to discriminate against straight same sex couples on the basis of sexual preference? Can two straight males get married for the civil advantages? I would think they can, though I have no cite for that.
Sure, just like a male and a female could have a sham marriage for tax purposes.
I’m not sure what you’re doing here. I said that they can’t refuse a religious poly ceremony, either, since religion is a protected class. There are people who, weirdly enough, don’t hate gays per se, but also feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. OR they don’t care of gays get married but they don’t want to be the one to participate because of religious reasons. Rabbis and pastors come to mind.
It’s not a hard concept.
Since churches also provide a public accommodation by renting buildings, I’m wondering if you think they have to comply with this law as well?
Probably.
If these civil rights laws eventually extend to federal rights, then I’m willing to bet we’ll have more sham marriages for immigration purposes.
Twenty-five years ago, there was not requirement that my wife and I show sexual compatibility to get married. I do not believe any state has added that to the licensing questionaire, nor are requesting a sworn statement from a doctor or professional sex therapist to ensure we have a physical interest in each other.
Without going into great detail, the courts defer heavily to Congress in immigration matters, and do not apply strict scrutiny even to fundamental rights or suspect classification issues pertaining to immigration… so I’m willing to take your bet.
Churches, generally, are not a public accommodation, even though open to the public. If a church happens to own an otherwise secular ballroom or something they might have to.
I’m saying it sounds like you’ve accepted my argument, although I don’t think you meant to. The whole ‘she’s not discriminating against gays, she’s discriminating against same-sex marriage’ thing is nonsense because only gays have same-sex marriages.
I said nothing about hate. I don’t care how these people feel personally about gays and I do not care in the slightest why they feel that way. The issue is what they do, which is discriminating against gays. I do think their actions are hateful regardless, but that’s a side issue that we don’t need to get into in a discussion of the law. I believe you’ve also erronously made this claim in previous debates about this topic. Can we just skip it this time since it is totally irrelevant?
This issue has been litigated elsewhere in the past. If the church has a building it rents out to the general public, then yes, they cannot discriminate against gays on religious grounds.
Why wouldn’t they have to comply? Nobody is holding a gun to their head, forcing them to rent out rooms for money. If they want their church to remain sacred and unsullied by the gay, they just have to quit renting it out like the local whore.
It’s a very simple concept, if you want to be in business, exchanging goods and services for money, you can choose your customers based on any criteria you like, except for a few protected classes. If you can’t manage that, don’t be in business.
On the level of this situation, that’s basically what it amounts to. The photographer(s) are not pushing for legislation to ban gay marriages from being photographed or preventing the couple from hiring another photographer. They simply don’t want to photograph this wedding and a small business should certainly have this right (i.e., the right to turn down a potential client for whatever reason silly or otherwise). Personally, I have to wonder at the mentality of someone who would want a photographer who admits they don’t want you as a client.
He’s also one of the posters who defends scientific racism (albeit a bit more coyly than some of his fellows).
I have a hard time understanding why it’s so astonishing to some that someone of his ilk would be in favor of businesses having the right to engage in racist discrimination.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
It appears he thinks bigotry in the marketplace is nothing worse than feelings being hurt.
[/QUOTE]
No. Attributing his opinions on this issue to general cluelessness is ridiculously over-generous.
You forgot that they want to “weaken” our males so we’re easier to invade :p.
I have never seen finger-quotes in written form. That’s so cute!
The initial complaint was filed in 2006, original ruling in 2008, appeal ruling 2012. Doesn’t seem like a long time if you’re a lump of coal, but 6 years seems too long to decide a case that is as cut and dried as you “pretend” this one to be.
Yes, I know, it is your favorite case. However, in *this *case, the one most of us are discussing, the Court said
[QUOTE=Elane Photography v. Willock]
Under some circumstances, even conduct that is usually expressive may not be intended to express any message and, therefore, would not be entitled to First Amendment protection. *See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 568 (1995) *(stating that although marchers in a parade are typically expressing a collective point and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection, marching with no purpose except to reach a destination is not entitled to First Amendment protection).
[/QUOTE]
Is there some reason you find the ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals to be unworthy of consideration? Their decision seems to be based on many of the cases you refer us to, yet you object to their conclusions. Granted, they’re not the fancy-schmancy SCOTUS, but they do represent the state in which the affected business was operating and in which both plaintiff and defendant reside.
Hell, I was remiss in a lot of things yesterday (thunderstorms, hail, 8" of rain, and month-old chicks, not to mention fighting demons), so just this once I thought I would skip researching every case mentioned in every post not addressed to me, and you had to call me on it. My bad. My point was that the appellate court in this case determined
[QUOTE=Elane Photography v. Willock]
Here, as in Rumsfeld, the NMHRA regulates Elane Photography’s conduct in its commercial business, not its speech or right to express its own views about same-sex relationships. As a result, Elane Photography’s commercial business conduct, taking photographs for hire, is not so inherently expressive as to warrant First Amendment protections. The conduct of taking wedding or ceremonial photographs, unaccompanied by outward expression of approval for same-sex ceremonies, would not express any message from Elane Photography.
[/QUOTE]
They arrived at this conclusion after reviewing multiple cases, including your pal Hurley. They clearly believe that taking wedding photographs does not constitute expression on a level that would warrant protection under the First Amendment. I think it only follows, then, that there is no element in the New Mexico law or the original ruling on this case that can be represented as compelling expressive conduct.
Well, all right, but it won’t be anywhere near as much fun as coming up with that pun was. Federal judiciary or not, my point was and is that a ridiculous number of things can be described as “speech or expressive conduct.” If we can apply that label to wedding photographs, then why can’t I apply it to my Nuclear Family PostAtomic Play Pen with the yellow bunnies painted on it? “It’s the only play pen big enough to hold the new, mutated, post-Fukushima babies, but I’m not going to sell it to you, because your wife is a—well, she’s a husband.”
I can’t speak for this particular couple, but what happens when every photographer doesn’t want you as a client… or there is only one?
If every photographer doesn’t want you as a client, you probably shouldn’t have your photograph taken. Given the variety of the American marketplace (and the current economic crunch), I would place that scenario at nearly impossible. Likewise for the scenario of their only being one photographer available. And even in such a case; very, very small isolated settlement perhaps; the couple is in the same position as anyone else whom the one and only photographer doesn’t want to photograph for whatever reason: they’re just out of luck, should have moved somewhere that has more than one photographer competing for their business. Having a wedding photographed is not a necessity like getting a prescription filled or having a medical procedure Millions of people go through life without being photographed.
This kind of logic enables Jim Crow and apartheid systems to exist. “If nobody wants to serve you, you don’t deserve to be served. We know that because nobody wants to serve you.” Mmmm, tautology!
They don’t want this person to be their photographer. They want to be treated equally. They want the same choice of service providers, the same choice of restaurant, the same choice of job, the same choice of home that everyone else gets.
There is every chance that this is the silliest argument that has ever been thrown out in GD.