Photographer fined by judge for refusing to photograph gay commitment ceremony

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ex-lib, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, I screwed this up this thread. We got a lot of good, civil talk on the judgement aspect of the case, but I wasn't as concerned about this particular case as 'gay rights' in general.

    My question was, isn't it fairly common for people to believe that gays are a group which cannot be discriminated against because of the "sex discrimination" text in the Constitutional Amendments?

    If it's not a common belief, then I'm just an idiot. :)

    But if it is a common belief, where does it come from? Discriminating against a group of people called gays is not prohibited in the Constitution. Where do people get the validity for the notion that gays are a 'protected group'?
     
  2. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if NM decides to issue marriage certificates 2 years latter and the couple return...then what? Tell them you lied to spare their feelings?

    Some people do not believe in lying, even if it is a "little white lie". The certificate had nothing to do with it. It was the fact that it was a same-sex marriage. I would have done exactly what the photographer did if that was my belief.

    Myself, I have no issue with same-sex marriages. I see no reason why the States are involved with marriages in the first place.

    A little anecdotal story: I had a client enter my business. After discussing his needs I mentioned I had done work for his neighbor (who was openly gay). Now I agree, I made a mistake by telling him the neighbor was openly gay, which was not my place...it was wrong of me. Anyway, this new potential client started going into a tirade against homosexuals and just about started foaming at the mouth with his hatred. I told the guy to get out of my office and that I would not work for him.

    Point is, a private business should be able to refuse to work for someone. I don't care if you don't like the color of his shirt.....you should have the right to refuse service for ANY reason.
     
  3. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well all I'm seeing is one ruling by a court. It looks like a commission made a ruling and a court of appeals supported it. I am not a lawyer. Does that mean there was a lower court ruling? Or does it mean you can appeal the commission decision to a court of appeal even without a lower court ruling? Is this the final word on the matter or can the New Mexico supreme court weigh in? Can federal courts get in the mix?

    I can't tell from the story whether this is settled.
     
  4. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It can be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS if the defendant wishes.
     
  5. leftlegmoderate

    leftlegmoderate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.html

    It's sort of odd that a judge can make a ruling like this, when the state doesn't even recognize same sex marriage/unions.

    It's always fun to imagine the reverse scenario. If it were the other way around, if the Christian lady were denied services, due to say... a hatred of 'nutty Christians', do you really think the ruling would be in her favor... or that it would go that far even?

    Looks like rights are being taken from one group, and simply given to the other.
     
  6. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is pretty interesting.



    http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service



     
    Serfin' USA and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Federal Court Rules Pharmacists Cannot Be Forced To Sell “Morning After” Pill

    A Federal District Court Judge has ruled that a pharmacist cannot be required to stock and dispense the so-called Plan B birth control pill if he has a moral objection to abortifacients:

    A federal judge ruled Wednesday that pharmacists cannot be forced by state rules to sell “morning-after” contraceptives, also known as Plan B.

    The case has been active for more than four years and started when two pharmacists, Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler, at Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia denied a woman the Plan B pill based on their religious opposition to it.

    “Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm representing Ralph’s Thriftway, said in a statement.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fe...-cannot-be-forced-to-sell-morning-after-pill/
     
  8. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I deal in reality not fantasy scenarios.

    [​IMG]

    A lot of "ifs" there. If NM issues marriage certificates. I have seen no indication that is going to happen any time soon. If the couple returns. Again mighty big if. When you want to calculate the final probabilty you multiply the two probabilities.

    NM issuing gay marriage certificates sometime in the next 5 years 1% chance.

    Probability if such an event occurred this couple bothering to hunt this photographer down... 5% chance.

    Total probability... 0.05% chance. The photographer is safe.
     
  9. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is one of those instances where my heart conflicts with my political beliefs. On one hand, I think it was mean. Someone asks you to take pictures of the most important day in their life and you say that it's, essentially, wrong or "bad". I mean, that's what the photographer is saying by telling them that as a Christian (her version of it) it conflicts with her religious beliefs because if it (gay wedding) were "good" she'd do it.

    So...that's kind of mean. And mean is never good.

    On the other hand, I don't believe that the state has any right to force people to do anything they don't wish to do. Not take photos of a wedding, not smile at your neighbor, not vote, not drive to work, not bike to work. This business was not run by public funds and people don't require photographs at weddings done by outside photographers, they just want them.

    Because all laws must be viewed in terms of not only what they protect today, but they will also protect in the future I think that this court overstepped and I hope that the decision is thrown out. This sets the precedence that your time and talents no longer belong to you if the state can force you to use them.

    I would prefer to have heard that this gay couple went to a kinder, non-bigoted photographer, gave the non-bigoted photographer their money and then told all of their friends not to go to such a mean photographer for portraiture. Boycotted them, that sort of thing. Then the problem is solved by their loss of future business.

    This is not asking someone to sit at the back of the bus. Your economic situation might force you to have to use the bus to get to work. This is not asking someone to use a different restroom. This is not about public services. This is forcing someone to perform a task they don't want to do and it is also a situation where the photographer also "lost" for his choice. They chose to lose funds by not taking on the service. They gay people lost time speaking to a bigot, but...probably found a photographer that wanted the job.
     
  10. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hang on a second dude. If you read the link the pharmacists did not stock plan B at their OWN pharmacy. That makes total sense.

    Link.

    They did not work at Walmart and refuse to go to the shelf, pick up a box of plan B that was sitting on the shelf, and hand it to a customer. Totally different scenario.
     
  11. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah I am not coming out swinging on this one. I think the situation could have been avoided with some slick talk but I don't know how I feel about the law. I personally don't think if you are a Christian you really need to make a song and dance about it. I have certain Christian beliefs but I find a way to get along without offending anyone. There was a way out for the woman.

    As far as the law... I don't know. On the one hand I know what you mean. When I was a teenager if I started a side business I would not want to have been compelled to go photograph two guys kissing and holding hands. Frankly I don't think my parents would want me to have to do that either. But on the other hand knowing how this country is if you say you can turn down gay business you know who is next on the list to be turned down and it just goes on from there. You are going to have to check every business' website to see if you are on the excluded people's list before booking a reservation. It's going to be totally dysfunctional.

    I have fairly traditional views regarding family. But I also realize that we live in a complex society. There really is no perfect solution. I would prefer if I took my 5 year old to Chucky Cheese that there was zero chance he could see a gay couple kiss. I simply do not want to have to explain it. But what can I do? We can't bar gay couples. They have rights too.
     
  12. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Yes, Christians have often criticized the courts. But as anti-religion laws proliferate, the courts may be a wall of defense. The same judge that struck down the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about gays has made a ruling that protects religious conscience:

    A federal court in Tacoma, Washington, struck down a Washington law that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

    “Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund, together with the Seattle-based law firm of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, represents the plaintiffs in the case. “If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for economic, business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for reasons of conscience,” added Mr. Goodrich.

    The plaintiffs in the case are a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway) and two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) who cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B (“the morning-after pill”) or ella (“the week-after pill”). These individuals believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that these drugs destroy human life because they can operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. Rather than dispensing those drugs, they refer patients to one of dozens of nearby pharmacies that stock and dispense them.

    In 2007, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy passed new regulations making it illegal to refer patients to neighboring pharmacies for reasons of conscience, despite allowing them to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of business, economic, or convenience reasons. Because of the regulations, Margo Thelen lost her job; Rhonda Mesler was told she would have to transfer to another state; and Kevin Stormans, the owner of Ralph’s Thriftway, faced repeated investigations and threats of punishment from the State Board of Pharmacy.

    “The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable,” the Court explained. “They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/24/law-forcing-sales-of-abortion-pill-struck-down/
     
  13. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's funny, cause you are creating the fantasy, or in your own words "slick talk".

    The fantasy is that the photographer's objections had nothing to do with whether the couple had a wedding licence or not. Sure ,telling a lie sometimes might prevent a situation from becoming worse, but still, a lie is a lie and some people don't believe in lying and do believe in standing up for what they think is right and wrong.....whether they themselves are right or wrong in the eyes of others.
     
  14. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't care if two guys kiss or two girls kiss. Make out? Well, I don't want to see anyone do that. Happiness is all too rare for me to stomp on anyone else's.

    My issue with compulsion isn't even about gays. It's about compulsion in general. I don't think that a free society compels you to do any task for any reason. Public services, yes. You have to eat, you have to travel, you have to use the potty. You don't have to get married, you don't even have to have photography at the wedding. If a gay couple were denied a place to eat that would be entirely different in my book than someone saying that they choose not to drive over to a church or park, set up equipment, and then shoot a wedding for several hours, especially when they feel their religious beliefs are such that they don't want to take pictures of the event. I would say the same if a gay photographer didn't want to handle a Catholic wedding.
     
  15. TastyWheat

    TastyWheat New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree with the principle of the law but I do believe the judge called this one correctly. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you essentially can't discriminate against someone because of something they are. The photographer really should have understood this fact.

    That being said I'm sure the sky wouldn't have fallen if someone else took their pictures and let that woman hang her business on her beliefs, be they unpopular.
     
  16. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again NONE of those is the scenario where you are working at Walmart and Plan B is on the shelf and you simply refuse to hand it over. If you have your own store you can refuse to stock it. If you work for Walmart they can fire you if you refuse. End of story.
     
  17. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Including the state law which was applied in the case you cited.
    Actually, the Constitution does not prohibit (in so many words) discrimination on the basis of sex. It guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. The word "sex" only appears once in the Constitution, in the 19th Amendment, and that only guarantees that the right to vote will not be denied on the basis of sex, nothing else.
    Again, the foundation comes from state laws, in many states.
    Actually, under New Mexico state law, what they did was illegal. Under New Mexico law, businesses that provide a good or service to the public (known in the law as "public accommodations") cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation.
    "Clearly" you have no idea what occurred in this case, what the law is, or why the court ruled as it did. But, you did manage to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion, so, there's that.
    I don't know how common it is, but it's incorrect. There is no "sex discrimination" text in the Constitution.
    While I happen to agree with you, the basis for laws such as the ones applied here in New Mexico came from the desegregation movements in the 1950's and 1960's. The idea was that businesses shouldn't be able to deny service to blacks. The concept was later altered, in most states, to include other "protected" classes, which, in some states, now includes gays.
    Yes, the ruling would be in her favor, as, under New Mexico state law (the same state law applied herein), it is illegal to deny someone "public accommodation" based upon religion or creed.
     
  18. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So is it mean to tell a severe alcoholic that you don't wish to go to the bar with them, because you think that over-drinking is a bad idea?

    I think that sometimes the truth is a good thing. Even if it's only your honest opinion that it's the truth.
     
  19. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes but once you open a business you are compelled to take all comers (no pun intended) within reason. I am not totally comfortable with the idea but I don't really see a way around it.

    Joesixpacks quote...

    Basically they are saying someone's rights are going to have to get stepped on and we chose for it to be the business owners.
     
  20. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Going with an alcoholic to a bar is a public health issue. If the guy starts a fight or drives drunk that is dangerous for society in general.

    I would much rather have two gay people in a long term monogamous committed relationship than have them hanging out single in a San Francisco bath house. The first choice is better for public health.

    And besides you are taking a picture of them. I would take a picture of an alcoholic. Why not?
     
  21. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What? You can't refuse to serve an escaped felon with a gun because of who he is? You've slightly over-reached on that Civil Rights Act declaration.

    And in any case it deals with 'sex' (meaning 'gender'), not 'sexual orientation'.

    Sexual orientation hasn't been dealt with in an amendment or legislation yet, to declare homosexuals a 'protected class'. Maybe it will be, maybe not. But it hasn't been yet. And frankly I'm not sure it should be.
     
  22. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You would argue with an escaped felon with a gun?!
     
  23. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think you understand how the comparison is valid, despite your protest.

    And in addition, I've been meaning to compliment you on how civil your posts have seemed today. Let me take this opportunity. ;)
     
  24. savage-republican

    savage-republican Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I take pictures of drunks because its fun to make fun of them, so is it ok to make fun of the gay couple after taking pictures of them?
     
  25. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh, wait. I meant an 'escaped fellow with a gub!' :)
     

Share This Page