NM Supreme Court: refusing to photograph Gay wedding a Violation of Human Rights.

[davidtaylorjr]

Where? And there always has to be a reason, a very good one as a matter of fact, not just I don't like blacks or Jews and it's my hamburger joint.

No, sorry bad formatting on my post. I should have split the paragraphs after "in some places." I mean't that not everywhere has legal gay "marriage."

Gay Marriage is clearly against my religion, why would I want to photograph, much less attend a Gay "wedding?"

 

[brothern]

The human rights of the photographer ARE violated if the government forces her to give custom.

Sorry. Human rights do not extend to allowing people to violate the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

[soot]

Iow, if I am a professional photographer, and I have an ethical or moral issue with fighting dogs, but someone wants to pay me for photographing their championship fighting dog, am I legally obligated to do so?

No.

You probably couldn't be compelled to photograph naked 5th graders or incidents of rape/murder/mutilation either.

If something is illegal, like dog fighting, I can't imagine how the state would build a discrimination case against you for not willingly serving as an accompliace.

So that's prolly a bad example.

Now, let's say instead that you don't like hunting or fishing so you refuse to take portraits of people posing with their prize catch or kill.

If so, your decision not to take those pictures because of ethical considerations would be prefectly legal.

So long as you applied the same standard to everyone I think you'd be cool.

But if you were to decide that you will take pictures of fish, or weddings, you need to apply the same standard to all people.

I mean, you couldn't decide that you'll take pictures of a guy posing with a fish, unless that guy was a Jew or a Mexican.

 

[JayDubya]

Sorry. Human rights do not extend to allowing people to violate the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Not giving someone custom does not violate their rights or their freedoms. Custom is all about a voluntary exchange between someone who has goods or performs services you want, and someone who wants to exchange property (money) for the goods or services someone else can provide. Both parties have to want to do it.


If you disagree, come to my house right now and make me a cheeseburger, or I will sue you. (That would make as much sense)

 

[TiredOfLife]

No, sorry bad formatting on my post. I should have split the paragraphs after "in some places." I mean't that not everywhere has legal gay "marriage."

Gay Marriage is clearly against my religion, why would I want to photograph, much less attend a Gay "wedding?"

You wouldn't, but if you are a wedding photographer then that's what you do, photograph weddings. When the state approves of weddings that you don't you can do your job or you can quit, or lie about being already booked. It's a rock and hard place alright, but that's life. Eventually the people who go into that business won't have issues. It's the transition that will seem very unfair to many, even most.

 

[brothern]

Not giving someone custom does not violate their rights or their freedoms. Custom is all about a voluntary exchange between someone who has goods or performs services you want, and someone who wants to exchange property (money) for the goods or services someone else can provide. Both parties have to want to do it.

If you disagree, come to my house right now and make me a cheeseburger, or I will sue you. (That would make as much sense)

Cheeseburger making is not a right.

However if you would like to discriminate against a person by refusing them housing, employment, goods/service offered to the public, etc ...

 

[JayDubya]

However if you would like to discriminate against a person by refusing them housing, employment, goods/service offered to the public, etc ...

Refusing service to a potential customer for any reason IS a right. It derives from the natural human right to property, and the freedom of contract.

It is a right this government is violating.

Cheeseburger making is not a right.

I agree, I don't have a right to make you make me a cheeseburger. That's my point.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Refusing service to a potential customer for any reason IS a right.

That's not actually a right.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

You wouldn't, but if you are a wedding photographer then that's what you do, photograph weddings. When the state approves of weddings that you don't you can do your job or you can quit, or lie about being already booked. It's a rock and hard place alright, but that's life. Eventually the people who go into that business won't have issues. It's the transition that will seem very unfair to many, even most.

So if someone owns their own photography studio and they are Christian, they should either 1. Close up their photography studio, or 2. promote what they believe to be sin, or 3. Sin by lying about being booked? That's ridiculous.

 

[brothern]

Refusing service to a potential customer for any reason IS a right.

It is a right this government is violating.

Oh for J=#)$78 sake.

Human rights become meaningless in the light of religious persecution of all kinds of people and minorities of whom the church/mosque/prayergroup didn't happen to approve.

 

[TiredOfLife]

So if someone owns their own photography studio and they are Christian, they should either 1. Close up their photography studio, or 2. promote what they believe to be sin, or 3. Sin by lying about being booked? That's ridiculous.

Call it what you like but that's the reality.

 

[JayDubya]

Human rights become meaningless in the light of religious persecution of all kinds of people and minorities of whom the church/mosque/prayergroup didn't happen to approve.

Again, the only human right being violated here is when a judge is trying to demand that a photographer take photos when she doesn't want to.

A photographer is not in the position of authority to persecute anyone. The government is, and it is absolutely persecuting people when it tries to force them to give custom when they don't wish to do so.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Call it what you like but that's the reality.

Clear violation of rights, the court, obvilously liberal, got it wrong as is becoming a trend.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Clear violation of rights, the court, obvilously liberal, got it wrong as is becoming a trend.

I will have to disagree and the trend is not going your way. Hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride for you and those like you for a bit.

 

[brothern]

I agree, I don't have a right to make you make me a cheeseburger. That's my point.

Which has nothing to do with offering goods/services, unless you own a greasy spoon open to the public!

Again, the only human right being violated here is when a judge is trying to demand that a photographer take photos when she doesn't want to. A photographer is not in the position of authority to persecute anyone. The government is, and it is absolutely persecuting people when it tries to force them to give custom when they don't wish to do so.

The woman was perfectly happy to take photos of anyone in the public as it was her idea of providing herself a living, EXCEPT the gays who were getting married. In a society that values the unalienable rights of all individuals, the beliefs/ideologies of one does not trump the rights of another. I don't know how to get clearer than that, because you seem to clearly take the stance that some people have more rights than others.

 

[Wiseone]

In some places. I have the right to deny service to anyone. I am not required by the Constitution to do anything I believe against. I have freedom of religion and free excercise of that religion. Not to mention that lately liberals have changed the definition of discrimination to say sexual orientation. It's absurd.

O yes you are, unless you think that paying your taxes isn't required because you don't believe in it. Or at the very least you have to admit that the Constitution allows Congress to require you to pay taxes, regardless of your belief in those taxes.

 

[JayDubya]

The woman was perfectly happy to take photos of anyone in the public as it was her idea of providing herself a living, EXCEPT the gays who were getting married.

And that's her prerogative.

In a society that values the unalienable rights of all individuals, the beliefs/ideologies of one does not trump the rights of another. I don't know how to get clearer than that, because you seem to clearly take the stance that some people have more rights than others.

Complete non-sequitur.

I don't have a right to make you make me a cheeseburger anymore than the gay couple has a right to make her take photos.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I will have to disagree and the trend is not going your way. Hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride for you and those like you for a bit.

Those of us who still believe in morality.....

 

[davidtaylorjr]

O yes you are, unless you think that paying your taxes isn't required because you don't believe in it. Or at the very least you have to admit that the Constitution allows Congress to require you to pay taxes, regardless of your belief in those taxes.

Fair enough, though I do believe you are to pay taxes. But Gay Marriage is a clear violation of my religion and therefore I should not be required to take part of it in any way for any reason.

 

[Wiseone]

Not giving someone custom does not violate their rights or their freedoms. Custom is all about a voluntary exchange between someone who has goods or performs services you want, and someone who wants to exchange property (money) for the goods or services someone else can provide. Both parties have to want to do it.
If you disagree, come to my house right now and make me a cheeseburger, or I will sue you. (That would make as much sense)

On the individual level I can see how your argument makes sense, after all its not like these person is the only wedding photographer in town. However these laws barring discrimination of customers based on things like religion, race, sexuality, etc don't exist because only a few folks discriminate, they exist because of what used to be the case for some people. As you know wholesale discrimination used to be norm through all levels of society, without these laws the government would have never been able to compel equality as we know it today on many formerly racist states/cities/towns, etc. Because while if one guy doesn't want to sell you a product or let you in his store because you're black, its not really a big deal to you if every other store owner will let you shop, but if all store owners decline your business than suddenly you are an unequal citizen who has had your rights violated by your fellow citizens.

That is where these laws come from.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Those of us who still believe in morality.....

Your morality you mean? For that majority of the nation what they define as moral is for more equality.

 

[Wiseone]

Fair enough, though I do believe you are to pay taxes. But Gay Marriage is a clear violation of my religion and therefore I should not be required to take part of it in any way for any reason.

If you're the only one who feels that way its no big deal for the individual who's business you decline, but what if everyone else feels that way, how is that equality for the individual concerned?

 

[brothern]

In a society that values the unalienable rights of all individuals, the beliefs/ideologies of one does not trump the rights of another. I don't know how to get clearer than that, because you seem to clearly take the stance that some people have more rights than others.

And that's her prerogative. Complete non-sequitur. I don't have a right to make you make me a cheeseburger anymore than the gay couple has a right to make her take photos.

It's exactly what you're contending. That the photographer has the right to discriminately pick and choose who she provides services to on the basis of the person's character, and that the person has absolutely no recourse.

/sigh.

Well let's just hope that you are never are forced into a society that wishes to refuse you participation in economic and social exchanges because of how you look/think, huh? I would suggest avoiding Egypt and Sudan.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If you're the only one who feels that way its no big deal for the individual who's business you decline, but what if everyone else feels that way, how is that equality for the individual concerned?

Then why don't they find like-minded individuals and start their own business? Quite frankly, if I was forced to photograph a Gay Wedding, I probably would do poor work because my heart wouldn't be in it. (Yes, I do photography) Why don't they just find another photographer?

 

[Wiseone]

Then why don't they find like-minded individuals and start their own business? Quite frankly, if I was forced to photograph a Gay Wedding, I probably would do poor work because my heart wouldn't be in it. (Yes, I do photography) Why don't they just find another photographer?

The reasons these laws exist was because of systemic racism that would not allow certain individuals from participate in society on the same basis as everyone else. Those laws have been expanded to include other parts of society often subject to discrimination, including homosexuals. Now like I've said, a systemic problem is not the same as an individual problem, or in other words one business refusing you is not the same as all businesses refusing you, however the law can only be applied to the individual and instead of trying to draw an abritrary line to decide how many businesses can descriminate because its considered an affront to an individual's rights we just say that any discrimination is wrong.

Personally I'd go find someone else rather than go to court, but I also see the wisdom and pragmatism in just outlawing any descrimination rather than allowing some of it until it becomes such an inconvinence to be considered as having made a group of people second class citzens.