Michigan House passes religious freedom bill (believer, principle, anti-gay, organizations)
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.
As I understand it, this case was based on New Mexico law, which is probably why Michigan passed the law that was the impetus for this thread.
That is why I am very curious how the new case in Washington will play out. I am glad the florist is stubborn enough to stand by her beliefs. That is how issues get resolved.
As I understand it, this case was based on New Mexico law, which is probably why Michigan passed the law that was the impetus for this thread.
That is why I am very curious how the new case in Washington will play out. I am glad the florist is stubborn enough to stand by her beliefs. That is how issues get resolved.
You do know what it means when a court declines to hear a case right? It means the courts aren't forcing anyone to do anything about it. The lower court said that if you are a public photography studio then you cannot discriminate, but must serve the public at large. The supreme court said they had no need to hear an appeal to a case outcome that they saw no controversy in. If you want to discriminate you have to be completely private, like Oral Roberts University, it think. The photography studio was getting government breaks (and likely refused to become completely private), etc. Michigan is indeed making controversy by passing a pro-public discrimination law, the Fed District Courts and SCOTUS might soon have to decide how things unfold.
Yes they are. In New Mexico photographers are forced to participate in gay weddings.
Except no they are not. They are being forced to conform to ew Mexico's Human Rights Act. Not to participate in a gay wedding. The "gay wedding" is just in cherry picked incidental application of the law in THIS particular case and in the particular cases Jeff also cherry picks to run with his little anti gay anti atheist demonization narrative.
That is the difference. No one is going around specifically forcing people to engage with gay ceremonies. But they ARE forcing public businesses to conform to the law. If in a PARTICULAR application of that it happens to relate to a gay marriage, than that is incidental.
They are being forced to conform to New Mexico's Human Rights Act.
If you are a professional photographer in New Mexico and if someone wants you to attend a gay wedding and the following reception and take photographs to document the events, you have to do it.
Did you even read the news article that I attached?
If you are a professional photographer in New Mexico and if someone wants you to attend a gay wedding and the following reception and take photographs to document the events, you have to do it.
Did you even read the news article that I attached?
Did you even read my post? The reason they have to do it is that they are being made conform to a law that ALL people in business have to follow.
The difference is subtle but important. No one is going around forcing people to attend gay weddings. They are going around forcing them to conform to a law that applies to everyone.
All you and Jeff are doing is cherry picking one single application of a general law, and acting like we are forcing people to do that specific thing. That is not the case. They are being forced to conform to a general law, and the gay wedding is one single instantiation of the application of that law.
Your error is the same as Jeffs when he claims that we are forcing bakers in the US and NI to supply cakes to Gay Wedding Ceremonies. The fact is we are doing no such thing however. What we ARE doing is asking that those bakers conform to the same anti discrimination law that everyone else in business has to conform to. The Gay Wedding Cake is simply one single cherry picked application of that law. There are many many others.
So did I read the article? The question is did YOU read it, because it is written there for all to see "Elane Photography violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."".
The only thing they are being forced to do is conform to that Human Rights Act. If they can not conform to the law that applies to everyone, they should not be in business. Simple as that.
If a straight photographer gets his panties in a twist over shooting a wedding he doesn't want to shoot, he can get out of it easily without breaking any laws. Simply quote an exorbitant fee for the job and most folks will go elsewhere.
If they accept the price, sub-let the job to another person within, or outside the firm. It happens all the time. A brother-in-law is a professional photographer who does many dozens of weddings a year. If illness strikes or some emergency, it's not uncommon to have another photographer on call who can "pinch-hit."
LANSING, Mich. — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents claim but will merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
Assuming the bill is enacted, my primary question is: Does the state of Michigan actually have enough money to waste on defending a bill that will be throw-out as unconstitutional as soon as a federal appeal is made?
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.
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.
