• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Rawlings

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
109
Reaction score
15
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

 
Last edited:
Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?
 
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.
 
Your religious beliefs are not a catch-all to justify any kind of behavior you want to do.

Sorry to inform you.
 
Wiseone said:
Your religious beliefs are not a catch-all to justify any kind of behavior you want to do.

Sorry to inform you.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ray410 said:
Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?
Click to expand...


You're obviously not down for the struggle.

This photographer DARED to dis the Gays and now he must pay.
 
TiredOfLife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
TiredOfLife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rawlings said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 


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.
 
WCH said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ray410 said:
Why not just leave others alone and hire someone who would like to take your picture?
Click to expand...

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.
 

I thought the New Commandment was to Love One Another
 
Rawlings said:
The law?! It's unconstitutional.

And why does this have to be explained to you?

Your mind on . . . .

View attachment 67152599
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
TiredOfLife said:
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.
Click to expand...

What part of inalienable don’t you understand about the Bill of Rights?
 
Here is what the court actually said in terms of if the NMHRA law, what the couple is suing under, violates the first amendment.

 


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.
 
OK, so based on soccerboy's post, looks like this did NOT violate the 1st Amendment.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…