The following denominations are accepting of gays and lesbians, with a combined total of many many millions of members:
The United Church of Christ
The Community of Christ
The Presbyterian Church
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Anglicanism
The Mennonite Church USA
Church of England
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
the United Methodist Church
The Metropolitan Community Church
The United Church of Christ
The Episcopal Church
The Moravian Church
the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
German Lutheran
Swiss Reformed Church
The Old Catholic Churches
The Uniting Church in Australia
The United Reformed Church
the Protestant Church in the Netherlands
the United Protestant Church in Belgium
The United Church of Canada
the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden
the Church of Iceland, the Church of Norway
the France Reformed Church
the Waldensian Evangelical Church
First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto
PUBLIC accommodations - businesses, etc - are not allowed to discriminate
PRIVATE accommodations - churches, you, your house, an in house service provided by a church for the exclusive usage of the membership - can be as discriminatory as they want to be.
No goalpost shifting. You just can’t quite grok the concept of public vs. private.
NM also has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was supported by the ACLU.
Note: I don’t support the OPs claims. I’m just not convinced the law was applied correctly. NM forbids ssm. If this law were applied correctly, it would appear that NM also violates its own laws.
And thinking that not supporting SSM is a mistaken point of view and discrimination based on that is low behavior doesn’t mean you think religion is “teh eebil” (a phrase by the way that makes me want to scratch my eyes out. I swear, it’s like nails on a chalkboard).
Do I disagree that the Alliance Defense Fund (a political action committee dedicated to defending the first amendment rights of neoconservative Christians) stated that “you will be punished if you don’t fully endorse or promote the homosexual agenda, whether you agree with it or not”? No. I will take you at your word for that. It seems completely natural for a political entity to use emotionally-charged language in such a manner.
Do I think that New Mexico’s Human Rights Act allows a place of public accommodation to discriminate against people based upon their sexual orientation? Since the court has ruled that ADF’s client was guilty of discrimination, then I am fairly comfortable stating that this is the current interpretation of the existing law.
Do I think that it is acceptable for anyone to discriminate against anyone based upon their sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation? No, I don’t.
I hope I have made my position on this subject crystal clear.
As to the charge leveled by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that this decision is “…just a snapshot of what’s happening around the country in business, sports, Hollywood, and schools. Homosexual activists are absolutely determined to punish people who refuse to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle choices,” I find it ludicrous. How can a demand to be treated equally in the eyes of the law be an attack against any organization or creed unless such an organization or creed supports discrimination against any of the above defined groups? In other words, all that any group needs to do to avoid being ‘punished’ is to adhere to the law as passed by the legislative body and interpreted by the judiciary.
Please keep in mind, these same laws are also applicable to the protection of YOUR rights as well. They are not the result of some evil homosexual agenda. I imagine that if they were, the wording of the laws would be considerably different.
GEEPERS OP made me recall an animal rights activist I knew who started out to film a hunt with the idea of showing how horrible it was. Later he admitted to me that he had bonded with the hunters during the filming, and had a better understanding of what made them tick.
He listened to the hunters talk about why they hunted for food, as opposed to buying pre-killed meat at the market… and although he disagreed with the killing of animals, he had enough respect for different viewpoints that he learned something new, and he made friends when he might have made enemies by remaining closed minded.
Yet sadly these homophobic professional photographers could not open their minds beyond the BS that they would be promoting something they disapproved of, rather than just accepting that their gay clients only wanted a private keepsake film of their wedding, something that straight couples would never have to battle to obtain.
One side - everyone should have the right to choose their customers, just as much as we have the right to choose who we do business with AS customers.
Opposite side - I don’t want to see white only lunch counters.
My personal message-board recommendation - you can discriminate, but you have to file with the business permit office and publically post who you discriminate against. That way others can decide if they want to do business with you or not based on your officially posted bigotry.
That’s a bit surreal… The law already prohibits anyone from touching anyone who doesn’t want it. There isn’t any discrimination involved: no one is allowed to lay a hand on someone else who doesn’t wish it.
(Trivial exceptions aside: if you and I are on a crowded bus, then, yeah, we might involuntarily get jostled together.)
A filming /photography business is not a restaurant, rental, entertainment venue, or anything I can think of that is a public accommodation in the traditional sense. I’m not sure ‘services’ equals ‘public accommodation’.
Two things jump out. They weren’t refused services on the basis of being gay…and NM law does not have ssm, though they don’t outright forbid it. SSM seems to be a giant clusterfuck in that state.
Every person on Earth who is against SSM is being a dick-hole. Every single one.
They may be nice otherwise, but they’re still prejudiced against homosexuals. Is someone who thinks blacks shouldn’t be able to marry whites not being a jerk?
Well, a Catholic or Jew who follows their religion closely, certainly would be anti-woman. But most religious people are decent, because they ignore the especially evil parts of their religion.
If it were created at the behest of an omnipotent being one would expect it would be right from the get-go.
Religion is made-up. It’s a fairy story. Denying other people rights because your favorite fairy-story tells you to is way-shitty.
Yes, they were. The distinction you’re making is nonsensical and not worth the effort. That being said, I’d like a clear explanation of what is going on in this case. I can’t find a lot of explanations of the meaning of “public accomodation” in New Mexico law, and most of the hits I’m getting on Google are related to this case, so that doesn’t help much. I find myself thinking there has to be more to this law.
I support Paul Lynde Day (June 13th). He was great. I just wish they wouldn’t always combine it with Liberace Day (May 16th) and try to screw us out of a second long hot weekend.
