Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Li...

Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico

There are 1050 comments on the The Heritage Foundation story from Aug 22, 2013, titled Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico. In it, The Heritage Foundation reports that:

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer's ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony-even when doing so would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Heritage Foundation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#194 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Sweetiepie, we are not slaves. No one has a right to force me to marry them.
And you need a license to get married.
That is reality, and that means either you do not understand the Court's decision, or the Court is wrong.
Is it your opinion that the Court is infallible?
Courts are very fallible sweetie, they weren't in the case of the morally offended photographer. As a Christian, she has the right to be as bigoted as her little heart desires against anyone. As a business owner, she is obligated to provide her services regardless of the sex or sexual orientation (as well as a number of suspect classifications covered under the state's human rights act). Her allegedly Christian beliefs to the contrary are not her customers problem and the law simply doesn't provide a special right to refuse service on the basis of them. This couple asked to book her to take their photos because they had heard she was good, they got ambushed by her allegedly God-blessed bigotry for their efforts. Understandably annoyed by her I won't take your picture because God hates you and what you are doing response. They filed a complaint with the HRC. The right to refuse service hasn't been absolute for 50 years now, try and keep up.

Yes dear, you need a license from the state in order to be married. They're actually a relatively new idea that were inspired by the Eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in this country. They wanted the state to ensure that the "wrong" people could not be legally married. They also came up with the ideas of the pre-marital blood test for infectious diseases, racial purity laws, forced sterilizations and the list goes on. They were a very effective lot.

Prior to the 20th century, proof of marriage was either by state issued certificate, or proving that the two of you had been together for a period of time. Many married couples and in rural areas, most married couples, did not have state issued certificates, you had to track down a justice of the peace or judge to get one. The licensing of marriage is not proof that marriage is not a right, but proof you didn't know that our social Darwinist ancestors snuck those in so the wrong folk couldn't just say they were married anymore. They needed the state's approval to say I do.

Marriage is still our right as Americans and according to the SCOTUS, it is a right which can only be denied to us if there is a compelling interest of the state which is served by the denial of it. Our right to marry even extends to most of those currently incarcerated in prison and it can't be taken away from dead-beat parents, so tell me, what interest of the state is served by the state having the authority to determine who we may and may not marry based on their sex?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#195 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Also
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_limitations_ar...
The Court cannot enforce laws, or make laws.
The Court's opinion does not make marriage a right. There is no legislation that claims marriage is a right. There is no legal argument to backup such an opinion.
There is no law whatsoever stating that marriage is a right. Court opinions are not laws.
Nor are they infallible.
Were you drinking during your 8th grade civics class?

Sweetie, you might want to take notes. Our legal system operates on the basis of common law, which means their rulings have the force of law. By ruling marriage a right of the individual that ruling had the force of law for those it was ruling against.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#196 Aug 29, 2013
Sexuality runs the show? not even! Human mind has given us certain rules to follow. Rape is an atrocious sexual deed that originates in the evil thoughts of anyone who cannot see the VALUE of DECENT LIVING. That human subject can not see the real value of LIFE and Christian living. Sex must be secondary to a more needed desire. Love must be mighty high in our decency paradigm.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#197 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
They most certainly are.
Let us examine.
They wish to impose the belief that being gay is normal. Free-thinkers disagree, they are not normal.
I couldn't care less what you think is normal. This isn't about acceptance, just as interracial marriage wasn't about acceptance. It is about equal protection of the laws.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
They wish to make people provide services for them.
No, they wish to avail themselves of the public accommodation available from businesses to any citizen. In jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws, which prevent extending such a service on the basis of sexual orientation, it is illegal to deny service for that reason.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
That deprives others of their liberty. No one, not gays or anyone else, has a right to any service. Slavery is horrid.
Fell free to explain how in detail. I'm sure you are not up to the task.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Marriage is not a right.
Funny, the US Supreme Court seems to be suffering from the delusion that it is not only a right, but a fundamental right. You had best advance them your sage counsel post haste.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Neither is joining a union, creating a corporation, or making someone be your friend. Any kind of relationship whatsoever is subject to law, and is a privilege, not a right. You boneheads don't seem to know the difference. Being a member of society AT ALL, is a privilege, not a right. The only rights you have is to refuse to participate, and refuse to serve others. Thus, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... the power to say no to other humans beings that believe differently than you do.
Is marriage a protection of the law? Actually, don't even waste the time, because it is. What is more, the federal constitution stipulates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The bigot is clearly the one that attempts to FORCE OTHERS to accept their world view ... which is exactly what you are doing. Shame on you.
Actually, the bigot is the one who argues against others having equal protection of the laws.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And worst of all, shame on you for being so narrow-minded and arrogant that you will probably never even consider you might be wrong. YOU are the bigot, my friend, plain and simple.
Simply put, I am not wrong. I know I am not wrong because I am arguing on behalf of basic constitutional concepts, while you are arguing against equal protection of the law for fellow citizens. In essence, you are arguing for modern day slavery, or for second class citizenship, where some are entitled to less than equal protection of the laws. Such an argument is inherently dangerous as it imperils the rights of all. Should I have a vote in what religion you may worship, what you can say, if you can carry a gun, or whether you have a right not to incriminate yourself in a court of law? Of course not. Such an argument would be absurd, and unconstitutional. Just like your argument is.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#198 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is rare indeed.
But of particular interest today is the Not Equal Yet with his fascist assertion that we are slaves to our sexuality and, evidently, merely animals.
People like him are of particular danger to society and need to be exposed with great haste.
Huszar agree.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#199 Aug 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't care less what you think is normal. This isn't about acceptance, just as interracial marriage wasn't about acceptance. It is about equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
No, they wish to avail themselves of the public accommodation available from businesses to any citizen. In jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws, which prevent extending such a service on the basis of sexual orientation, it is illegal to deny service for that reason.
<quoted text>
Fell free to explain how in detail. I'm sure you are not up to the task.
<quoted text>
Funny, the US Supreme Court seems to be suffering from the delusion that it is not only a right, but a fundamental right. You had best advance them your sage counsel post haste.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
<quoted text>
Is marriage a protection of the law? Actually, don't even waste the time, because it is. What is more, the federal constitution stipulates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
Actually, the bigot is the one who argues against others having equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
Simply put, I am not wrong. I know I am not wrong because I am arguing on behalf of basic constitutional concepts, while you are arguing against equal protection of the law for fellow citizens. In essence, you are arguing for modern day slavery, or for second class citizenship, where some are entitled to less than equal protection of the laws. Such an argument is inherently dangerous as it imperils the rights of all. Should I have a vote in what religion you may worship, what you can say, if you can carry a gun, or whether you have a right not to incriminate yourself in a court of law? Of course not. Such an argument would be absurd, and unconstitutional. Just like your argument is.
Do not think Americans understand concepts. This is why posts like these distort American constitutional concepts yes?

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#200 Aug 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Were you drinking during your 8th grade civics class?
Sweetie, you might want to take notes. Our legal system operates on the basis of common law, which means their rulings have the force of law. By ruling marriage a right of the individual that ruling had the force of law for those it was ruling against.
Satan use law against good too yes? You in same company.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#201 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no bigotry. And we don't need God to tell us that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. Science already tells us that. Anal sex has some serious side effects, because it's not natural.
No one is asking for a special exemption. It is a basic human right not to associate with people you don't like, or whose actions are offensive. You do not get to tell us what WE SHOULD BE, OR NOT BE OFFENDED BY. This. the Photography people were denied there second basic right .... liberty itself.
Pretty simple.
Pretty WRONG, you mean.

Science does NOT say homosexual behavior is unhealthy or unnatural.

Homophobes aren't exempt from the rule of law.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#202 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Also
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_limitations_ar...
The Court cannot enforce laws, or make laws.
The Court's opinion does not make marriage a right. There is no legislation that claims marriage is a right. There is no legal argument to backup such an opinion.
There is no law whatsoever stating that marriage is a right. Court opinions are not laws.
Nor are they infallible.
Evidently you've had a major dose of the "I'm Clueless as Hell" flavored Kool-Aid.

Be sure to pay attention in government class. Do your homework.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#203 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The license is permission to incorporate, which requires permission.
A sovereign individual may do business without a license, and the power of levying fines for doing so impedes their liberty and pursuit happiness. But, they may take the risk of not incorporating, and being protected from lawsuits, which is everyone's right.
You're all about the sovereign individual, remember?:)
Do you have any of those mushrooms to share? You're tripping, dude.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#204 Aug 30, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty WRONG, you mean.
Science does NOT say homosexual behavior is unhealthy or unnatural.
Homophobes aren't exempt from the rule of law.
Science does NOT say it is healthy or natural.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#205 Aug 30, 2013
Huszar wrote:
<quoted text>
Satan use law against good too yes? You in same company.
"Satan" is a sectarian religious matter, only of concern to members of those religious sects that consider it important to their club's rules.

The rest of us don't give a ....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206 Aug 30, 2013
Huszar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does NOT say it is healthy or natural.
Actually, the social sciences do consider it natural.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#207 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, a mindless zombie after all, with no intellect whatsoever, still depending upon the opinions of lesser minds, rather than demonstrating any capacity of free thought.
Sad.
When relying on pejorative terminology and personal insults to make your case, it helps if the insults employed are not fulfilled by your own posts.

Your abusive insults and arrogance fail to provide a compelling governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws in effect for opposite sex couples.

Marriage is a fundamental right, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the supreme court.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#208 Aug 30, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Satan" is a sectarian religious matter, only of concern to members of those religious sects that consider it important to their club's rules.
The rest of us don't give a ....
Dismiss christians jews muslims? Billions can't be incorrect yes?

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#209 Aug 30, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the social sciences do consider it natural.
Huszar do not agree.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#210 Aug 30, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When relying on pejorative terminology and personal insults to make your case, it helps if the insults employed are not fulfilled by your own posts.
Your abusive insults and arrogance fail to provide a compelling governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws in effect for opposite sex couples.
Marriage is a fundamental right, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the supreme court.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”
Huszar get. Court is god to you yes?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#211 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. Now you are making stuff up. Marriage is regulated, and has NOTHING to do with equality whatsoever.
You provide no compelling social interest in allowing same-sex marriage.
You have it backward. Fundamental rights come first. They do not need to provide any benefit to the government.

Restrictions on fundamental rights can only be made when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated and withstand review when challenged. You provide no compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for limiting this fundamental right on the basis of gender.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#212 Aug 30, 2013
Individual rights and rights of society. Guess he could post under "Societal Rights Trump Individual Rights and Sovereignty." It is an interesting issue as it was, at some level, fought over between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Thank the latter for the Bill of Rights.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#213 Aug 30, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I present facts. I have no interest in opinions.
But I am interesting in how you came to your fascist views on why you think people are slaves to their sexual orientation. Once again, do you claim that someone cannot change their sexual desire, or overcome it?
You are now avoiding the questions posed to you.
Sorry, but what you wish to call "facts', simply are not. You present your opinions, which continue to be documented as incorrect. Personal insults fail to change that.

Evidence exists both through clinical studies as well as through the personal testimony of millions of gay and straight people around the world who will testify they have no choice over to whom they are emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted. Bisexual people sometimes confuse the issue as it takes some of them a long time to realize that while they experience attractions to some members of both sexes, they have no choice over being attracted. Like gay and straight people, they only have a choice of whether to act on their attractions.

Your desire that gay people ignore, suppress, or repress their natural attractions is unrealistic. While free to impose such a restriction on yourself, your desire to impose such a restriction on others is irrational. Such a denial of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is acceptable in your church, home, and private clubs, but not in the public square.

"The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness."

Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth [AAP]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Has the Steelcase brand lost its appeal with cu... (Jan '12) Jun '17 Jason 4
News Local Brides Say Photographer Owes Them Wedding... (Aug '08) Jun '17 AmPieJam UncleSam 620
Best camera for a beginner (May '13) Jun '17 AmPieJam UncleSam 4
Best place for Wild life Photography? (Sep '12) Jun '17 Shannon 2
News Stunning images capture hidden caves across the... May '17 No doubt 1
News Party on the Bridge kicks off Maplewood Rose We... (Jun '10) May '17 IescapedNY 20
News Indigenous artist Shelley Niro wins $50,000 Sco... May '17 bc votes last nite 1
More from around the web