Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-23-2014, 07:25 PM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,320,590 times
Reputation: 4335

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Forcing a photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding is the issue. See my post #7.
You're not seeing the big picture here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2014, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,106,504 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Taking him to court, as was done in New Mexico:

N.M. Supreme Court: Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

The article says:

In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies.

"When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said in a unanimous verdict.

Do you think this ruling was correct?
In that it does appear to be a violation of the state law, then of course the ruling is correct. I suppose what you are after is an opinion on the law itself.

If I were running for office on my voting record, I would have no fear of alienating gay voters, I have always supported gay rights. In this particular issue, I wonder if we are talking about a right, and if we are, have we crossed the line to where we are postulating a right enjoyed by gays which others do not have?

Do I enjoy a right to command service from anyone offering it while the person offering the service has no right to refuse? I'm unaware of such a right. Lawyers may refuse to take my case, painters may decide that they do not want to paint my house, merchants may order me out of their stores rather than sell me their goods. I am unaware that I may challenge any of these actions on the basis of the motivation.

This New Mexico law extends to gays, the right to challenge refusals on the grounds of motivation.

In that I favor equal rights for gays, but do not favor exceptional rights for gays, I do not think this law is truly fair. I think that it is well intended, I think that it is a response to a legitimate problem, I don't see it as the ideal solution to that problem.

And I hope that I am allowed to not see it as the ideal solution without also being required to identify the actual ideal solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I do not think this law is truly fair.
Grandstander, that was a very good post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
You're not seeing the big picture here.
You are exactly right, Shirina.

I prefer to examine specific cases instead of the so-called 'big picture'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Do I enjoy a right to command service from anyone offering it while the person offering the service has no right to refuse?
Based on the court case I referenced, it appears that you do have that right in New Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:59 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,632 posts, read 14,934,738 times
Reputation: 15935
Just my opinion:

Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
Just my opinion:

Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.
What does that have to do with the question in my original post in this thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,106,504 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Based on the court case I referenced, it appears that you do have that right in New Mexico.
Quote:
The New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA)
In New Mexico, the Human Rights Act, which covers employers with four or more employees, broadens the prohibited distinctions to include ancestry, physical or mental handicap and age discrimination directed at persons in all age groups. The NMHRA now also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NMHRA also now specifically prohibits discrimination based on genetic predisposition
State Bar of New Mexico

Under which of the above grounds would I qualify?

Suppose I am in a store and get into an argument with the cashier over what I believe is a preposterous store policy. I think I'm right and I stand my ground, but simultaneously I am holding up the line and creating a disturbance. The manager is called and rules that I am to leave or he will call the police.

Suppose the exact same scenario replacing me with a gay person. He or she has a right to challenge the eviction on the grounds that it was motivated by some anti gay impulse. The store owner is left in the position of having to try and establish that no such motivation existed, a difficult thing to do.

I enjoy no such special protection or the legal leverage which comes with it.

I think impulse behind this law is more or less congruent with the hate crimes law, another phenomena where rights are unequally distributed. It is a more serious crime with a more severe penalty if someone assaults a gay person because the attacker hates gays in general, than it is if I was attacked by someone who hated me because of my personality, because of jealousy, because of differing political views. Only one type of hate is being covered in the hate crimes law and only certain citizens are protected by it. I'm capable of generating all kinds of hate from others, I'd like some coverage as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:03 PM
 
Location: New Jersey, USA
618 posts, read 540,664 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Suppose we are having a big party to celebrate our English ancestors landing at Jamestown VA in 1607. To be inclusive, we want to hire a professional Native American photographer to document our re-enactment of the landing.

Should the Native American photographer be allowed to refuse to take the pictures we want or is he discriminating against us unfairly?
Hello again hiker 45.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the above illustration holds water. In the course of our correspondences on this issue (including a posting in a parallel thread) I have several times referenced The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because the situation you propose above is (presumably) alleged discrimination based on race, there is already a law upon which a complaint can be filed. Whether or not this particular case would be considered a violation of The Civil Rights Act would likely depend on many details that you have not specified. Regardless, it has no true bearing in the proposed Arizona law, which is of course your real point.

The fact of the matter, as I said in the sister thread of this one, is that Federal law always trumps State law. That means that the Arizona law, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it, will not allow anyone to discriminate based on any of the multiple categories covered by The Civil Rights Act without regard to the religious origins of such discrimitory actions. This means that your new law can only be used against groups not covered by The Civil Rights Act and (again as I said in the sister thread) that is the reason this law is effectively an attack on the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community specifically. The Feds are going to prevent you from applying it to most other groups that you're itching to discriminate against.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Under which of the above grounds would I qualify?
Ancestry, genetic identity, and age discrimination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top