Again: this is not the issue in this thread. Take it to another discussion.
10/10
Considering some of the Christians I’ve met (and others who’ve made the news in various spectacular ways), I’d suggest a better question is “is it OK for a stripper to hang out with thieves and criminals?”
Of course it does.
Mark 12:31:
[QUOTE=Jesus of Nazareth]
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
[/QUOTE]
Aren’t gay people at least as likely to be your neighbours as people of different races? Doesn’t that mean you should love gay people? (Just as you should equally love criminals, strippers and tax collecters – loving them does not mean that you support everything that they do.)
And you are making things better how?
Although this is the key point to the issue, and in fact to every issue I’ve seen the OP bring up here, I fear he or she will never get it.
This is what I was thinking: If a religious woman didn’t touch men re:religion but say, offered services to women only (like a salon), can she be sued for gender discrimination?
I think there’s a difference between people who are against ssm legally and people who just belong to a religion that does not recognize it. There are plenty of rabbis in my religion who don’t object to the laws that do allow ssm but won’t perform those ceremonies. I really resent you calling them ‘dick-holes’.
Again, please refrain from your attack on religious peoples. I think they’re a protected class on the Dope.
See, I disagree. If a gay person had said, “Please come and photograph my 50th birthday!” and the photographer said, “We don’t do gay people’s birthdays”, that’s a difference.
The photographer said that she didn’t film/photograph/whatever same-sex ceremonies. That’s an action, a political belief, a religious belief. This is where I think the NM HRC erred. When someone’s religious rights are trumped in favor of someone’s civil rights, then the law should be applied narrowly unless the government can find some invested interest. And if NM doesn’t have enough interest in making same sex marriage legal, what’s the purpose here?
But even if the couple was discriminated on the basis of being gay, I think the ‘public accommodation’ thing is sketch. It’s the only basis the commission had for fining the photography company. Now, if they had provided a service like car rentals, I see where it would stick (just like the NJ case).
If services equal public accommodation, then that has to apply to massage therapists, psychologists, lawyers, cleaning ladies, and so forth.
eta: NM law
Not goal shifting–simply a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Vanderbilt offer a public service–education. They would be in violation of the law to refuse to permit a person to purchase that education on the grounds that that person was of any particular race, religion, or country of origin.
Once they have accepted a person as a student, that student is expected to live under the rules that Vanderbilt, as a private entity, sets. So Vanderbilt has the option of making really stupid rules regarding the leadership of school sponsored organizations and a prospective student has the option of reading their handbook and choosing to go elsewhere for that education.
Elane Photography offers a public service–photos and videos of people’s life events. They would be in violation of the law to refuse to provide that service on the grounds that that person was of any particular race, religion, or country of origin.
If you do not understand those differences, you have no business starting this thread.
Now, whether New Mexico law offers the same protection from discrimination to homosexuals as it does to people of different races, religions, and countries of origin, I do not know. One agency in New Mexico says yes. That is the point of the discussion, a discussion that will be resolved in court.
It still fails to amount to an “attack” on religious freedom.
The definition of public accomodation under the New Mexico Human Rights act is found in NMSA 21-8-1-2
H. “public accommodation” means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private;
and 28-1-1-7 covers sexual orientation
“F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;”
If a photography business advertises on the internet and the Yellow Pages, as this one did, it is almost certainly going to be considered a public accommodation. If the photographer only photographs events occurring at a particular church which does not perform same-sex ceremonies and only advertises to members of that church, it’s very likely not going be considered a public accommodation.
But you’d have to prove they were being discriminated against based on sexual orientation and not the act itself (and ssm isn’t done in NM, anyway). The state of NM is getting awfully circular if it say that private businesses have to do what the state won’t.
So you can interpret it in two ways:
- Public accommodation = services (which is a real floodgate, imo - does this mean that attorneys in NM have to take up all cases now?)
- Businesses that qualify as ‘public accommodation’ provide services
Finally, what about the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
Jesus did.
I don’t see two ways to interpret it- one defines public accommodations and the other identifies the bases on which public accommodations may not discriminate. And yes, it does mean that attorneys can’t refuse to take a case because of the potential client’s race, religion, gender, gender identity sexual orientation, etc. They are of course, free to refuse to take a case because it’s a loser, because they are too busy, because the potential client is a pain in the ass or for any other reason that is not an illegal one.
And about the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act
It’s definitely a rule of general applicability , and it seems the court has decided it doesn’t directly discriminate against religion or among religions and also that it’s “essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
red herring, photographers aren’t required to take all clients, they just can’t say “no I won’t do this because you are (black|female|gay|under 5’2”)"
Too many people fought my rights as a Jew- to live where I want, no quotas to get in college, get jobs etc for me not to fight for SSM rights. I would never join a shul whose Rabbi wouldn’t perform SSM marriages, especially if they don’t object in principle. It is a dick move and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Perhaps I’m reading it wrong. (:
So if if the photographer didn’t want to take pictures of, say, a Romney event, they’d also be in violation of this law? (Re: political ideology)
How is taking a picture not considered ‘speech’? Shouldn’t the nature of the business be protected under the First Amendment because it is speech?
If the compelling governmental interest is to include same sex marriages in one’s photography resume, why won’t the government allow same sex marriages?
Not convinced it is the ‘least restrictive’, because it’s not only a matter of religious rights but also political rights. And speech.
It’s not about what’s morally right here (to me), it’s about the law. And I feel that all artists, photographers, writers, etc. here on the Dope would feel their expressions are protected under free speech. Photography is an art form, not a place to hang your hat. This is the same Constitution that allows the KKK to have marches. The photographer’s liberty may have been violated. I have issue with a government telling artists what their message is supposed to be.
I guess we’ll see.
I have no particular opinion regarding the way that the court case will be resolved or even the way the court case should be resolved.
I do object to the way that the OP continuously confuses issues and claims martyrdom.
= = =
In terms of your claim that they were not discriminating against the person, but the act, I would be interested in how you separate those. Would Elane Photography be amenable to providing services to an unmarried hetero couple who chose to engage in a commitment ceremony? I don’t know. Have they ever asked to see a marriage license for a couple celebrating an anniversary to be sure that the couple was not living under common law marriage?
With the really sketchy information provided, so far, it is difficult to tell that they were motivated by the act and not the relationship.
Where do you see political ideology mentioned in the list of protected classes?
And another thing: if a Christian business was operating outside the scope of Christian law, wouldn’t that alienate the kinds of customers it was trying to attract? Let’s say Elane Photography advertised in the church’s bulletin and directory. Don’t you think that would harm her marketing efforts to her target base there? People have the right to not speak.
The ADF does not speak for all, or IMO even most, Christians.