Gay Entitlement Movement Wins Victory in New Mexico

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,150
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#1
New Mexico has officially gone to the opposite extreme of the gay rights (and religious freedom) spectrum.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/23/new-mexico-guarantees-gay-couples-rights
Reason.com said:
New Mexico Guarantees Gay Couples’ Rights to Some Really Mediocre Wedding Pictures
Scott Shackford | Aug. 23, 2013 7:21 pm

The Supreme Court in New Mexico made official what appeared to be inevitable: It is legal to force somebody who hates you to photograph your wedding. Or, rather, the courts have determined that opposition to same-sex marriage is not a government-approved reason for declining to shoot a gay couple’s wedding. From the Associated Press:
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."
I wrote about the case last summer. Elane Photography has lost every step along the way, so the outcome isn’t much of a surprise. The argument on Huguenin’s side was that being forced to shoot the wedding violated her rights to free speech and religious expression. The court disagreed, as Huguenin was not being compelled to show actual support for gay marriage, and the judges believed it’s unlikely that others would perceive her hired photography as a show of support.


Ken White at Popehat posted the full decision (pdf) for those who want to read it. White makes note of a special concurrence written by Justice Richard C. Bosson, who acknowledges the reality that this decision does have an impact on the Hugueinins’ freedom of conscience to some degree and notes that couple is not trying to stop anybody from getting married. They just want the right to be left alone and decide who they can choose to have as customers. After touching on important legal moments in the history of the intersections of religious liberty and law, Bosson concludes:
All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins 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 as a people. 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. I therefore concur.
White blogged about the decision in the context of asking why there are some who are outraged when laws force businesses to serve gays but are not equally outraged about laws that force businesses to serve all races or the other categories associated with public accommodations. A Rasmussen Poll from July indicated that 85 percent agree that the Huguenins’ have the right to refuse to shoot gay weddings. That number is interesting, in that it means there’s a significant number who support recognizing gay marriage but nevertheless feel photographers shouldn’t be required to shoot the wedding.

I would suggest maybe White is caught up in looking at the wrong categories. I think the answer lies in not what or who the law protects but rather what the law counts as a “public accommodation” versus what the individual perceives as a “public accommodation.” Does anybody have a right to a wedding photographer? If the poll question had simply asked “Can a paid photographer refuse to shoot a wedding for any reason?” and left it at that, what would the numbers be? Would the public differentiate between bigoted reasons versus other considerations?

Sticking to gay marriage, what if we changed what was asked? “Could a doctor refuse to provide medical treatment to a gay couple?” “Could an attorney refuse to represent a gay couple in a lawsuit?” “Could a supermarket refuse to let a gay couple shop there?” The responses to each question may vary not just because of a person’s attitude toward gays and lesbians, but also by their attitude of what counts as a “public accommodation.” People need food and medical care to live. Wedding pictures, not so much.

Even so, there’s still a very fundamental issue that still does not seem to get answered in these conflicts over discrimination and consumption and employment and other private situations: Does the existence of discriminatory behavior, even severely bigoted behavior, necessarily require government intervention to resolve? As I noted when I wrote about this case last year, the plaintiffs had other options that were even directly marketing themselves to same-sex couples. Bosson states, “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

The mistake here is thinking that the world of the marketplace and commerce is smaller than our society as a whole. It’s not. The marketplace is not a subset of society. A Venn diagram is insufficient to show the relationship. Imagine two parallel planes in a space with a constant immeasurable interactions between them. Bosson assumes that if the Huguenins aren’t required by the government to “leave space” for these gay couples, then there will be no other solutions forthcoming that will get these couples what they want. There is a significant amount of marketplace evidence that suggests otherwise.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,480
2,170
818
Florida's Nature Coast
#2
I have an uncle who lives there. Many of us in the family expect him to come out of the closet any day now. He is by-far the most whacked-out lib in the family and lately out of nowhere he's been posting all kinds of pro-gay stuff on Facebook. I'm expecting something any moment now about this story.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#3
As expected. There's a long running tradition of the government enforcing tolerance at the expense of individual rights. Unless people start opposing the practice on principle, almost everyone will eventually get their turn in being made to do things they don't like.

This is no different from a racist business owner being forced to serve blacks, or a smart business owner being forced to hire women. ;)

The only people who get to be exempt from this abuse are the ones with enough political pull to exempt themselves (basically, churches get to discriminate against gays and liberal colleges against whites; everyone else is subject to the same rules). I guess the wedding photographer lobby isn't what it used to be, huh? They should either start a religion or a college, and then revisit the issue.
 
Last edited:

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#4
This is bullshit, just like the private portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It completely decimates the freedom of association and contract. Decisions like this are specifically used against the gay rights movement. I know from experience: I have a super-Christian cousin who opposes basically ANY gay rights and her excuse (besides Jesus) is ALWAYS that "the gay agenda isn't just about equal rights, it's about special rights...", then she inevitably goes on about some case where a florist was forced to make flower arrangements for a gay couple, or something.

It's really hard to debate against people like that, because, in reality, they are right. Being a libertarian, of course I always try to explain that we are against these civil rights laws that restrict private individuals and companies and would like to see them repealed. They rightly point out that that is never going to happen, so, any more rights granted to gays are more areas in which "regular" people will be forced to respect or participate in those rights, ergo don't give them equal rights.

At least the judge seems to recognize that this is a terrible decision, but as the law is written, he had no choice. This actually might be a positive, in that only when laws are enforced to the fullest extent do people realize what an encroachment they have become. As long as most people don't see the effect of a law, bad laws will sit on the books and be arbitrarily applied to certain groups.
 
Last edited:
Dec 8, 2004
49,033
21,076
693
Maine
#5
Ok umm no expert here... but if you are getting married and you don't like your photographer (or s/he does not like you or your lifestyle) wouldn't you just hire another one... regardless if you are straight or ghey or whatever?

I could see an issue if say the local JP refused to marry you due to the ghey...
 

steve500

Registered User
Oct 20, 2008
4,520
2,099
368
35,000 ft
#6
This is a great way to show people who are on the fence about gay rights that their slippery slope fears may have some merit.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#7
Yep. Exactly what is going to happen. Instead of just letting things happen naturally, forcing the hand of society always leads to shit like this.
 
May 30, 2013
46,299
42,016
293
#8
This is an excellent example of Governmental overreach and the need to reclaim private ownership. The Government does not have any business legislating a private citizen's intolerant/anti-pc/ignorant/hateful/different beliefs, as these actions are not criminal. Why the hell can't people differ with other groups provided they do no harm to said group? It's mind-boggling.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,145
9,437
768
#9
I reserve the right to refuse service, and the consumer has the right to take there business elsewhere.
 
Dec 12, 2007
25,561
11,339
438
#11
How many straight wedding photographers can there be? Just pick another one.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#12
How many straight wedding photographers can there be? Just pick another one.
It's not about the wedding photos. Daddy didn't like me, so I'm gonna make everyone else like me. Whether they like it or not. You're gonna like me, god dammit, or you're gonna lose your business.
 
Dec 12, 2007
25,561
11,339
438
#13
It's not about the wedding photos. Daddy didn't like me, so I'm gonna make everyone else like me. Whether they like it or not. You're gonna like me, god dammit, or you're gonna lose your business.
Ok ok, I liked you.

That's like some jedi mind trick shit right there.
 

Wrecktum

Tounge puncher of fart boxes
Jun 29, 2006
4,351
1,457
563
Cervix spelunking
#15
My boss hates the young black males that come into the bar. He finds creative ways to skirt around the law. With a dress code and not having certain types of liqour. If this bitch was smart she could have figured a way to get around it. But I Gaurentee she started quoting the Bible or some shit.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,150
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#16
My boss hates the young black males that come into the bar. He finds creative ways to skirt around the law. With a dress code and not having certain types of liqour. If this bitch was smart she could have figured a way to get around it. But I Gaurentee she started quoting the Bible or some shit.
"Sorry, sirs. Only one Y-chromosome per photo."
 

Madness

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
1,232
219
618
#19
Ok umm no expert here... but if you are getting married and you don't like your photographer (or s/he does not like you or your lifestyle) wouldn't you just hire another one... regardless if you are straight or ghey or whatever?

I could see an issue if say the local JP refused to marry you due to the ghey...
You don't get to be an attention whore if you do that.
 

Madness

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
1,232
219
618
#20
tolerance means you put up with something existing. you don't have to like something to tolerate it. people need to get a fucking dictionary.
Tolerance means acceptance in today's society.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,412
22,044
398
Northern California
#22
It's leading to one thing... the State owns your labor, skills, and talents, and tells you when and when not to use them.

1) Wouldn't you rather the racist/homophobes/sexists were outspoken, so you knew who they were?

2) Wouldn't you rather not pay money to someone who hates you?

3) How good of a job do you expect someone will do who is forced to be there against their will?
 
May 30, 2013
46,299
42,016
293
#23
Truly equality means having special rules for your group.
San Antonio passes controversial anti-bias ordinance
HOUSTON — Leaders of San Antonio, the second-largest city in Texas, approved a non-discrimination ordinance for gay and transgender residents this week over the objections of conservatives, who have vowed to keep up the fight.

Other Texas cities have already passed anti-bias ordinances, including Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth and Houston. But this time, the measure was backed by Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a rising star in the party and on the radar of Republicans keying up for statewide primaries in March.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a tea party star, opposed the measure, as did Republican Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, who is running for lieutenant governor, and Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, who is running for governor.

“Although the proposal has been couched in terms of liberty and equality, it would have the effect of inhibiting the liberty of expression and equality of opportunity for San Antonians,” Abbott said in a statement released before the vote.

Abbott wrote to the mayor, warning that passing the ordinance could “envelope the city in costly litigation.” State Rep. Dan Branch, a Dallas Republican campaigning for Abbott’s job, also sent the mayor a letter, asking him to withdraw the ordinance because it discriminated “against people of faith.”

Council member Elisa Chan, who opposed the ordinance, angered supporters when comments she made to staff became public in The San Antonio Express-News, calling homosexuality “disgusting” and saying gays should not be allowed to adopt.

Hundreds packed City Council meetings and registered to speak about the ordinance as final hearings stretched from late Wednesday into Thursday morning. Supporters wore red, opponents blue.

“For the most part, everyone was very respectful of each side’s opinions,” said Chuck Smith, executive director of the Austin-based advocacy group Equality Texas.

Smith said the ordinance should not have been controversial, since the focus was “fairness and equality and ensuring that everyone in the city of San Antonio is protected from discrimination” while “at the same time preserving religious liberty and freedom of speech.”

But opponents present for the vote disagreed, including Jonathan Saenz, president on the conservative Austin-based advocacy group Texas Values.

“There was overwhelming opposition from people in the city of San Antonio on this issue,” said Saenz, a lawyer who called the ordinance “unconstitutional.”

“It really puts the government in the position of being used as a weapon by folks that are LGBT advocates to punish people of faith who support traditional values,” he said. “You’ve got major issues of free speech and religious liberty.”

The measure passed by a vote of 8 to 3. San Antonio joined nearly 180 other cities nationwide with similar ordinances prohibiting bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to theHuman Rights Campaign.

“Today we passed non discrimination protection for LGBT,” Castro tweeted, “Whether you're white or black, Christian or Jew, straight or gay, SA belongs to you.”

Supporters were pleased.

“It’s definitely a landmark victory in the history of San Antonio and the equality movement,” Smith said.

Opponents still intend to challenge the ordinance, Saenz said. He said efforts are underway to recall the lawmakers who passed it, or to mount a citywide referendum.

“That really is the question right now — when will the first legal challenge begin and how much will it cost the citizens of San Antonio?” he said.

Link