NM SC: Photographers can't refuse homosexual weddings
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 1 of 11  
Message
NM SC: Photographers can't refuse homosexual weddings
Posted by TN Bhoy on 8/22 at 4:16 pm
How the frick is this a "human rights" violation? And why does NM have a "human rights act?"

quote:

SANTA FE, N.M. — 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 Thursday.

In an unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court said the business's refusal in 2006 to photograph the ceremony involving two women violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."





Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by LSURussian on 8/22 at 4:20 pm to TN Bhoy
But Toddy promised us things like this wouldn't happen.....


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by burdman on 8/22 at 4:20 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:

involving two women violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."


When did homosexual become a race? I keep seeing it being compared to a race.

That being said, I'd take the pictures. Not going to pass up money because someone is ghey.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Boats n Hose on 8/22 at 4:25 pm to burdman
So businesses don't have the right to fefise service to anyone?

And yea I'd take the money, idaf about sexual orientation.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Sentrius on 8/22 at 4:26 pm to burdman
quote:

Justice Richard Bosson wrote that the business owners "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different."

"That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us a people," Bosson wrote in an opinion concurring with the court's ruling. "That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."




As someone who supports gay marriage, this is insane.

This judge needs to realize that people don't belong to you.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by burdman on 8/22 at 4:27 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:

So businesses don't have the right to fefise service to anyone?


Where did I say they shouldn't? I could careless who someone wants to sleep with, I just don't get why a sexual orientation is the same thing as race.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by DvlsAdvocat on 8/22 at 4:31 pm to TN Bhoy
I'm all for gays having the same spousal/legal/whatever rights as hetero couples, and I also believe that a business owner should have the right to accept or decline whatever business opportunities they want. This ruling is extremely misguided.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Green Chili Tiger on 8/22 at 4:34 pm to TN Bhoy
States rights supporters rejoice!


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Poodlebrain on 8/22 at 4:34 pm to Sentrius
Justice Bosson seems unclear on the concept of rights. The right to free association includes the right to not associate. Rights do not require compromise. If his reasoning is valid, then there is conscientious objection is no excuse from military service in a combat unit. Objectors just "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs."


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by lsuprof on 8/22 at 4:34 pm to burdman
Now that the case has worked its way completely through the New Mexico courts, the photographers in question should pursue this case through the federal courts. This case raises constitutional issues that could be pursued at the federal level.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Sentrius on 8/22 at 4:36 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:

States rights


Is still oppressive here.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by LSUTiger10387 on 8/22 at 4:38 pm to lsuprof
This will undoubtedly be overturned at the federal level. It's a gross violation of the constitution and common sense rolled into one. You cannot force a private citizen or business to associate or support a particular sexual orientation. This is absurd.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Tigerlaff on 8/22 at 4:40 pm to TN Bhoy
Hey, they wrote the law. I don't support it, but states' rights.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Tigerlaff on 8/22 at 4:41 pm to lsuprof
quote:

Now that the case has worked its way completely through the New Mexico courts, the photographers in question should pursue this case through the federal courts. This case raises constitutional issues that could be pursued at the federal level.


This.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Taxing Authority on 8/22 at 4:42 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:

In an unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court said the business's refusal in 2006 to photograph the ceremony involving two women violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."
Absurd. What if a photographer turned down a heterosexual couple? Wouldn't they be entitled to the same protection? On short... Who could a photographer turn down? And if a photographer cannot turn anyone down... Do they have to work all the time?

F*ck this. I'm all for gheys doing whatever they want in their own private lives. But why can't they respect the photographers wishes to do the same?

I don't get it. What makes the ghey's private life choices superior to the photographer's?

Sick.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by MMauler on 8/22 at 4:43 pm to TN Bhoy
This one is easy -- just tie one on the night before and do shitty pictures.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Revelator on 8/22 at 4:44 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:

Hey, they wrote the law. I don't support it, but states' rights.



You do understand that two judges can interpret the same law two completely different ways even at the state level right?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Taxing Authority on 8/22 at 4:45 pm to Sentrius
quote:

Justice Richard Bosson wrote that the business owners "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different."
why don't gheys have to "channel their conduct, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different?"

Where is their exemption?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Tigerlaff on 8/22 at 4:48 pm to Revelator
quote:

You do understand that two judges can interpret the same law two completely different ways even at the state level right?


Of course I do. The issue here is not what "could" have happened, but what the final arbiter of NM law, the NMSC, did decide.


This post was edited on 8/22 at 4:50 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Green Chili Tiger on 8/22 at 5:02 pm to Revelator
quote:

You do understand that two judges can interpret the same law two completely different ways even at the state level right?



It was a unanimous decision and the New Mexico Human Rights Act "guarantees full and equal services and accomodations to all people regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap".

How many different ways can you interperate that?



Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 1 of 11           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.