An odd legal case-Only in America??

[bmattock]

If this thread veers toward whether sexual orientation should be a protected class, it'll lose whatever tangential relation to photography it might've once had. I'm happy to discuss the rest of this privately.

Fair enough. No need to take it private, I am willing to step away.

 

[Leighgion]

I find it darkly comical how some people point to the first amendment as a guarantee that they can discriminate on the grounds of their religion.

The very foundation, indeed the only possible foundation, of a pluralistic society that guarantees freedom of religion is that while you have the right to believe anything, you surrender the right to do many things, even if your commandants/holy book/whathaveyou says you should. It's a bit ironic, but absolutely necessary given that by definition religious sects will have conflicts with groups who aren't adherents to their fold. The law must not favor one sect's beliefs, or the foundation of religious freedom is undermined because it's impossible to grant special dispensation to every possible belief system. The law must first consider the weal of the whole society and if we accept that that discrimination is against that interest, then open and active discrimination by organizations that function under the law cannot be tolerated.

I know there's a strong current in America that is pretty much against a secular government, but I wonder if any of them really consider that, aside from being directly against the spirit of the Constitution, that a government that's openly religiously biased is a threat to the freedom to peacefully practice all religions, including the one that might enjoy ascendency at the time. If a culture grows accustomed to any group being on top and persecuting others, the groups can always change position and the days tick off until that happens and the bloody retributions come.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

That being the case, I am glad I no longer live in New Mexico. I would not wish to run a business where I was forced to provide services to people I did not wish to provide services to. I have no problems with homosexuals. I do not believe they are entitled to protected status.

I wonder when we'll stop fining and start putting people in prison for refusing to accommodate lifestyle choices that their own religion puts them in opposition to?

I find it interesting that a photographer could refuse a job because the person wanting the work done was too ugly, too fat, too obnoxious, or a whole raft of other reasons, but not because they were gay.

Well, my answer to New Mexico...nonservium, baby. Good luck to all ya'll.

Fine, pick and choose who you want to do business with.

This **** happened a long time ago. You know what I am talking about.

The photographer was wrong. It is plain and simple. And those who do not see the problem with this, well, then you are part of the problem

New era, new day, some old crap. When will we ever learn.

 

[bmattock]

Fine, pick and choose who you want to do business with.

This **** happened a long time ago. You know what I am talking about.

The photographer was wrong. It is plain and simple. And those who do not see the problem with this, well, then you are part of the problem

New era, new day, some old crap. When will we ever learn.

Sorry, said I would step away. I disagree with you, and I won't be put into a bucket with racists. This isn't about race.

 

[bmattock]

The very foundation, indeed the only possible foundation, of a pluralistic society that guarantees freedom of religion is that while you have the right to believe anything, you surrender the right to do many things...

This wasn't about forbidding a person from doing something, but rather mandating it. In other words, the state compels her to to provide a service she did not wish to provide.

In any case, my personal objection to the law is not on religious grounds. In fact, as I've said, I'd have had no problem taking the requested photos, myself. No big deal to me. I concern myself not with the religious aspect of the woman's argument, but with her right to conduct her business as she sees fit.