Posted on 08/23/2013 6:48:09 AM PDT by markomalley
A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday.
Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business's principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.
The court held that "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients" is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples."
"Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony," the court concluded, the photographer "violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."
The court rejected arguments that the anti-discrimination law violated the photographer's right to free speech and the free exercise of religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
The state law cannot override the First Amendment which includes freedom of association
Where is the Westboro Baptist Church when you need them? If the Westboro Baptist Church does not show up, you might ask some frat boys to show up with God hates fags signs and t-shirts.
As I heard a number of clueless people say on radio during the Massachusetts gay marriage debate...”I don’t see how it will interfere with my marriage.” Hey, clueless ones, they will use it to interfere with ANYTHING they want!
Of course, in some areas they are more strict, especially in public accommodation, and some areas not all, like marriage or renting rooms in your house.
My problem is I don't see a difference in the constitutional basis for permitting or prohibiting a state from overriding the right to refuse to associate because of race as distinguished from homosexuality.
homosexuality is a behavior
does a bank have a right to refuse entry to a known bank robber?
does a casino have a right to refuse entry to a known card counter?
Oh yes they do!
But seriously…
Okay let's assume that homosexuality is a behavior and not a condition, not a condition inherited at birth, an assumption which the courts almost certainly will reject but one which we will make now.
What is the constitutional basis for prohibiting a state from requiring citizens to associate with people who exhibit a behavior as opposed people who exhibit a condition? Note the question asks what is the constitutional basis, not what is your common sense basis.
I take it sex (gender) is a condition and not a behavior. How do you justify the law prohibiting people from associating when they are of different genders? How do you justify the law that compels people to associate, such as in the Army, and the police force, in corporations, when they might not wish to associate?
Same question applies to age and many other basis upon which private people and states routinely discriminate.
In other words, I am trying to keep clear of falling into the same trap that I accuse liberals and the Supreme Court of falling into, which is to proclaim a constitutional right because they like the result which fits their agenda.
Courts might reject it but it is reality
So its okay if a school decides that sodomizes the students is a valid form of sex-ed, that’d be okay? and those who object have no right to disassociate from it?
The question however is, would it be constitutional? And why.
If we don't have those answers clear, eventually we will see our children sodomized in the schools with the state's approval
The answer is we have the freedom of association which implicitly means the right not to associate as well.
So the New Mexico Human Rights Act trumps the US Constitution?
I think your thinking sounds 110% accurate.
I'd guess conservatively speaking a minimum of 75% of these cases are premeditated in an attempt to push the agenda and force it on people.
The problem exists in PROVING it by proving that kind of thinking was involved in advance. Nobody with a "leftist" agenda is going to be truthful in a situation such as were discussing.
I'm going to write the State Bar, demanding that they rescind these Justices
law licenses, and the State Legislature demanding impeachment.
NM “Supreme” Court is an all-leftist Democrat creature.
Your constitution is absolutely clear that folks daily lives are permitted to be lived according to their faith.
I can’t imagine anyone interpreting it otherwise.
In the states where I practice, yes. I cannot decline to take on a person as a client for a discriminatory reason (sexual orientation, race, sex, etc). ‘Course, there’s lots of other reason to decline to represent just about anyone.....
The NM photographers ought to give the lesbian couple Russian vodka and the Russian flag.
I’d give them photos complete with Grumpy Cat and Looter Guy photoshopped into every photo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.