What’s idiotic in this case is: NEW MEXICO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE!
In short, the SUpreme Court is requiring photographers to show more respect for gay marriage than the state does.
Here’s another question: is it EVER okay for a photographer to turn down a potential client on moral grounds?
Suppose a prominent local man dumped his wife of 30 years to marry a hot 19 year old girl. Can the photographer make a moral judgment and say, “I refuse to work at your wedding?”
SUppose a Mormon wanted trhe photographer to work at his wedding to bride #5? COuld the photographer turn that job offer down?
Suppose a couple getting married at a nudist colony tried to hire a prudish Christian photogtapher, who said, “That’s a disgusting, immoral lifestyle, and I won’t work at your wedding?”
Legally, why is it okay to discriminate against SOME sexual behaviors but not others?
And the answer is because there’s a law that restricts discrimination on one basis but not the other. If adultery, polygamy or nudism are protected classes then it would be illegal to discriminate against them for that reason. This isn’t that hard.
Lots of states have that idiotic problem, at least for now.
That’s kind of ironic. But whether they recognize same-sex marriage or not, they don’t allow businesses to discriminate against gays.
Yes. This is not that complicated. If you’re a public accommodation, you cannot discriminate based on sex, religion, race, and some similar criteria. I think some of the people who are criticizing the ruling want the law to be broader than it really is.
Judge Sarah Singleton, ruling on a lawsuit brought by two Santa Fe men wishing to marry, issued an order Thursday directing the clerk’s office in Santa Fe County to issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples
Santa Fe County is New Mexico’s third most populous county, and the city of Santa Fe is the state capital. Doña Ana County, the second largest in the state, began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples Wednesday. About 90 licenses have been provided to these couples so far, the AP reports. Some Republican legislators are planning to file suit to stop the issuance there.
True, but where civil rights laws and freedom of religion meet, the constitutional status has been worked out for about 50 years now. Just like a bigoted hotel owner in Alabama can’t refuse a room to people on the basis of their race, a bigoted photographer in New Mexico can’t refuse service to people on the basis of their being gay. In New Mexico, civil rights laws have been extended to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Interesting, but it’s really a separate issue from this topic. Whether or not the gay wedding was state-recognized, the photographer can’t refuse service because they’re gay.
Exactly. This isn’t really a case about gay marriage. It’s about discrimination against gays. I agree that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is discrimination against gays, but that’s not the pertinent issue here- the case just happened to involve a wedding photographer. If it had been a restaurant the issue would be the same.
OK, here’s a hypothetical scenario: a gay couple go to the Xtian photographer at the photography studio that features a Jesus Fish in their Yellow Pages ad. The couple walks in and says: “Look you right-wing S.O.B., you better photograph our wedding or we’ll slap you so hard!”
Question: could the photographer decline the job on the basis of the customer being rude?
You can re-word the scenario any way that fits your sensibilities … doesn’t change the point … if the prospective client is rude, whether a gay consumer, a Black consumer or one with a bizarre religious theme in mind, like say a Satanic wedding, if the customer is rude to the businessman, must he do business with them?
Here’s were the hell it has to do with it … if a business, in this case a photographer, sees that it can’t object to working for a prospective client on religious grounds because the clients protected-class status trumps the religious freedom claimed by the photographer (the photog is Xtian and it’s against their beliefs to be involved in a gay wedding), then I don’t think it would take very long for said businesses to try to find some other means of avoiding said clients and their events. One of the ways might be to claim that the customer was just too rude and/ or hard to work with. Is this where the further lawsuits start? And why the minor league outrage, like I’m the only one who’s thought of this?
Y’all ought to put you “knee-jerk” setting on a lower number.
SirGalahad has written his question in two different ways. While I don’t want to speak for Marley, I believe his “No, come on.” response is to the second formulation and not the first.
That’s not what SirGalahad asked. SirGalahad asked if the law lets customers go berserk and be abusive to businesses as long as they’re members of protected classes. The answer is obviously no.
To your question: I think here you are both assuming that if a business makes a habit of discriminating against gays (or blacks, or whoever) that it won’t develop a reputation in that community. If that happened, they very well might get sued for discrimination.