New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution (Homo Impositionus)

[Rawlings]

August 25, 2013
By Tom Trinko
American Thinker


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments does not apply to people who work for a living.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Given that a person exercises his religion by living his life in harmony with his beliefs, any attempt by government to force people to commit sins is a clear and direct repudiation of the targeted individual's First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, the New Mexico Supreme Court has found that a photographer who declined to photograph a gay "wedding" was at fault. One judge said:

[Some people] 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.

... t is the price of citizenship.

The flaws in this reasoning are so great that one cannot help but wonder if this is an explicit attempt to overthrow the Constitution.

The first glaring error is the Court's assumption that the New Mexico state legislature can make laws unconstrained by the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Mexico.


Read more: Articles: New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
________________________________________________________________

The imbecilic left is at it again, imposing its morality, such as it is, on others, and once again, in violation of the imperatives of commonsense and decency, natural and constitutional law.

 

[Ray410]

Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?

 

[TiredOfLife]

It's a rock and hard place but over time the issue will solve itself. For those caught in the bind, I would switch to photographing kids sports and babies. We aren't back to the days of no blacks or Jews need apply.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?

Why not follow the law?

 

[Wiseone]

Your religious beliefs are not a catch-all to justify any kind of behavior you want to do.

Sorry to inform you.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Your religious beliefs are not a catch-all to justify any kind of behavior you want to do.

Sorry to inform you.

If they were we could sure have a lot of fun. There was a faith a while back with Temple Prostitutes. They got away with it, tax free, for a bit.

 

[WCH]

Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?

You're obviously not down for the struggle.

This photographer DARED to dis the Gays and now he must pay.

 

[Rawlings]

It's a rock and hard place but over time the issue will solve itself. For those caught in the bind, I would switch to photographing kids sports and babies. We aren't back to the days of no blacks or Jews need apply.

You're out of your mind. This is a serious, utterly unacceptably violation of natural and constitutional law. It renders the First Amendment utterly meaningless. What's wrong with you? Christians are not going to stand for this or obey it! This is a Christians need not apply offense!

Doh!

 

[WCH]

It's a rock and hard place but over time the issue will solve itself. For those caught in the bind, I would switch to photographing kids sports and babies. We aren't back to the days of no blacks or Jews need apply.

What happened is these 'protected' groups have been given more rights than the rest of us.

So forget about us all being equal under the law. This is no longer true.

 

[TiredOfLife]

You're out of your mind. This will not stand in the federal courts. What's wrong with you? Christians are not going to stand for this or obey it! Religious liberty is the new civil rights fight.

The Christians already do obey it, in housing, public event spaces, restaurants, and all other Public Accommodations. It's the law and now it's being applied to this. The higher courts might knock out an exception for a time but it won't be for long and don't count since they know the issue will resolve itself given time. You don't get to run your business by different rules just because you're a right-wing Christian.

 

[ttwtt78640]

August 25, 2013
By Tom Trinko
American Thinker


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments does not apply to people who work for a living.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Given that a person exercises his religion by living his life in harmony with his beliefs, any attempt by government to force people to commit sins is a clear and direct repudiation of the targeted individual's First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, the New Mexico Supreme Court has found that a photographer who declined to photograph a gay "wedding" was at fault. One judge said:

[Some people] 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.

... t is the price of citizenship.

The flaws in this reasoning are so great that one cannot help but wonder if this is an explicit attempt to overthrow the Constitution.

The first glaring error is the Court's assumption that the New Mexico state legislature can make laws unconstrained by the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Mexico.


Read more: Articles: New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
________________________________________________________________

The imbecilic left is at it again, imposing its morality, such as it is, on others, and once again, in violation of the imperatives of commonsense and decency, natural and constitutional law.

What religious beliefs could prevent a person from taking only certain wedding photos? Could a firefighter refuse to put out a blaze based on the property owner's sexual preference? Can a cemetary refuse a burial request based on the religion (or lack thereof) of a corpse? It seems that if you offer a service, then you can claim no religious right to limit providing that same service to all customers.

 

[TiredOfLife]

What happened is these 'protected' groups have been given more rights than the rest of us.

So forget about us all being equal under the law. This is no longer true.

Equal in this case means you say you take pictures at weddings so do that, it's a wedding and you are running a business, not a church.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?

That is a good question. I am unaware of the actual details of this case. I can certainly see the situation not being simply a refusal of the request in advance, but possiibly that the photographer arrived at the time of the wedding and then decided to refuse service at that point, leaving the gay couple in a bind.

 

[Rawlings]

Why not follow the law?

The law?! It's unconstitutional.

And why does this have to be explained to you?

Your mind on . . . .

 

[opendebate]

You're out of your mind. This is a serious, utterly unacceptably violation of natural and constitutional law. It renders the First Amendment utterly meaningless. What's wrong with you? Christians are not going to stand for this or obey it! This is a Christians need not apply offense!

Doh!

I thought the New Commandment was to Love One Another

 

[TiredOfLife]

The law?! It's unconstitutional.

And why does this have to be explained to you?

Your mind on . . . .

View attachment 67152599

You'd best check with the Supreme Court on that. You can place reasonable restrictions on religious expression, and we do, and it's not a religious restriction to require a business to act like one instead of a church. A church that doesn't want gay weddings inside it has no problem but a painter that won't paint a church that does gay weddings has a problem. One is a church and one is a professional. They are both expected to act like what they are.

As I said, it's a rock and hard place that will solve itself over time.

 

[TiredOfLife]

That is a good question. I am unaware of the actual details of this case. I can certainly see the situation not being simply a refusal of the request in advance, but possiibly that the photographer arrived at the time of the wedding and then decided to refuse service at that point, leaving the gay couple in a bind.

No, she just said she's a Christan and doesn't do gay weddings. As a business, that's not an option, for good reason.

 

[Rawlings]

Equal in this case means you say you take pictures at weddings so do that, it's a wedding and you are running a business, not a church.

What part of inalienable don’t you understand about the Bill of Rights?

 

[Rawlings]

I thought the New Commandment was to Love One Another

What are talking about?

 

[soccerboy22]

Here is what the court actually said in terms of if the NMHRA law, what the couple is suing under, violates the first amendment.

Second, we conclude that the NMHRA does not violate free speech guarantees because the NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government mandated message or to publish the speech of another. The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws. We also hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[TiredOfLife]

What part of inalienable don’t you understand about the Bill of Rights?

The part where you don't understand that isn't actually true.

 

[opendebate]

What are talking about?

i was responding to this post by you

Christians are not going to stand for this or obey it! This is a Christians need not apply offense!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

August 25, 2013
By Tom Trinko
American Thinker


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments does not apply to people who work for a living.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Given that a person exercises his religion by living his life in harmony with his beliefs, any attempt by government to force people to commit sins is a clear and direct repudiation of the targeted individual's First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, the New Mexico Supreme Court has found that a photographer who declined to photograph a gay "wedding" was at fault. One judge said:

[Some people] 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.

... t is the price of citizenship.

The flaws in this reasoning are so great that one cannot help but wonder if this is an explicit attempt to overthrow the Constitution.

The first glaring error is the Court's assumption that the New Mexico state legislature can make laws unconstrained by the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Mexico.


Read more: Articles: New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
________________________________________________________________

The imbecilic left is at it again, imposing its morality, such as it is, on others, and once again, in violation of the imperatives of commonsense and decency, natural and constitutional law.

View attachment 67152598

The article is an idiotic piece of partisan stupidity. Try posting something that gives objective facts of the case and situation and then we can assess the veracity of the claim.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

OK, so based on soccerboy's post, looks like this did NOT violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[douglas]

The bill of rights are not absolute, and were never meant to be. You have a reasonable protection of religion and freedom of speech under the law; you can't scream "fire" in a theater, or shout obscenities at passerby's on the street, or print lies for the purpose of defrauding others, etc. It's not "everything goes", you are expected to use common sense. Your religious rights are perfectly safe under this law; there is no Christian tenant forbidding you from doing business with sinners or non-Christians. But, whether there was one or not, you chose to put yourself in business and that comes with responsibilities; giving equal service to customers as defined by anti-discrimination law, is one of those responsibilities. The judges even provided a workable compromise; print your anti-gay message in an accessible area to your customers, but serve them regardless of it.

Would you seriously want this law revoked? I'm certain we could start promoting "No Conservatives need apply" if that's what you want.