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.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#380 Sep 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Egy ilyen édes gyermek. A szülok nagyon büszke, vagy még mindig a szekrényben, mint egy lángoló aranyér az emberiség apu és anyu?
Sweet child? You are no kind of sweet. You related to wicked witch?

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#381 Sep 4, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to help Huszar out a bit.....Huszar doesn't know just how evil you all are. I found an insult just for you.....I'm assuming this is Hungarian? Seems Huszar may be too.....so I left you a parting gift.....home Huszar doesn't mind.....and if Huszar does.....oh well.....he can bite me too.....
Enjoy the fond Hungarian words I left you.....
Do not make Huszar mad. Do not speak for Huszar.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#382 Sep 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It really doesn't matter that you didn't see them, he didn't bother to even read his Wikipedia cites. PS Wikipedia should NEVER be confused with peer reviewed.
That was tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Guess it worked.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#383 Sep 4, 2013
Huszar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweet child? You are no kind of sweet. You related to wicked witch?
Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#384 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Oh yes, it's about acceptance, NOT equal protection.
Feel free to substantiate this opinion. I don't think you can.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
They already have that. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness like everyone else. And like EVERYONE else, certain behavior like being attracted to children are not tolerated, nor are protected by law. Bad choices are not protected by law ... ever.
You have yet to provide a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
They had no right to the service. Period. Neither do I. What we wish for, does not constitute a new right. All services are conditional. Have enough money? Are you honest? Do you stink? A business owner has the absolute right to refuse service for any reason, including stupid ones.
I explain everything, and am always up to the task.
Actually, in many jurisdictions, they do. Because many jurisdiction prevent businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality. Just as service cannot be denied upon the basis of race, religion, or sex.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Yes, the Supreme Court is delusional if they believe that access to any kind of union is a right. All unions are privileges that require acceptance and permission from at least one other person ... and so by a much higher law .... logic itself ... cannot be a right. A justice that does not understand that has no standing whatsoever.
No, they are not. It's basic constitutional law. Read the 14th Amendment. All persons within a state's jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
All unions are regulated and protected by law. Each KIND of union also has different laws, since they are designed for different things. There is no equality whatsoever with any type of union, and all unions require some sort of structure of authority, like a president or CEO, or husband and wife.(Yes, those are titles as well.)
Until you can provide a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, such a restriction remains unconstitutional.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No, the bigot is one who is so narrow-minded, that they will never admit when they are wrong, or consider that they might be wrong. I have proven you wrong, time and time again. You refuse to see it. That is not only bigotry, it is also insanity.
I am not wrong. The constitution guarantees equal protection. The courts have held that such protection may be infringed only if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest, and you have yet to provide such an interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.

By wishing to hold fellow citizens as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law, you have proven yourself to be a bigot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#385 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<And I have no right whatsoever to marry anyone. I require PERMISSION to marry anyone, thus, it cannot be a right.
The SCOTUS has already ruled marriage is a basic fundament right.

Btw, you need PERMISSION to buy a gun too, thus according to you that can't be a right either.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#386 Sep 4, 2013
Huszar wrote:
Do not make Huszar mad.
Or what?

Grow up.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#387 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Huszar corrected. Huszar ask please to forgive. Huszar forgive too.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#388 Sep 4, 2013
edmundo wrote:
<quoted text>
You say nothing at all with fewer words than anyone I know.
Does that somehow meet the limitations of your twitterhead attention span?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#389 Sep 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Score one for Christians.
Let's see.... that makes the score Lions: 10,000, Christians: 1

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#390 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the law has the force of law. Court decisions resolve disputes.
Two entirely different aspects.
Um, no, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution.
You need a license to get married. Thus, it is not at all a fundamental right. You don't need permission to exercise a fundamental right.
Slavery is outlawed. You don't get to make people associate with you by force. Thus, no form of union, marriage or corporation, can be a right.
But you do need a LICENSE to create a corporation, and a marriage.
No court has ruled against this fact.
Simple logic.
Fist off, you did not just say that Court Rulings do not have the force of law! ROFL! Court Rulings are the Voice of the Sovereign. There IS NO HIGHER LAW. That's why it's called a "Court" ... the Court of the Sovereign. When the Court is Sitting at Law, it defines "what the Law is and is not". When sitting in Equity, it adjudicates "Petition(s)for the redress of grievances". Especially regarding SCotUS decisions, there is no higher Law other than the Constitution itself. Period.

Still muddling things with the "Historian's Fallacy" and "Presentism", eh?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#391 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, so is marriage restricted, because it is not absolute.
"Marriage restrictions
Marriage is an institution that is historically filled with restrictions. From age, to race, to social status, to consanguinity, to gender, restrictions are placed on marriage by society for reasons of benefiting the children, passing on healthy genes, maintaining cultural values, or because of prejudice and fear. Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.[92]"
Just as society ALSO regulates and restricts corporations, and all other forms of unions.
That has nothing to do with the fact that no service is a right. That IS absolute, as the 14th Amendment ended slavery and compulsory service of any kind. No business person can be compelled to provide a service, and all such laws that do violate this basic human right are illegitimate and without standing.
The fact that laws do not conform with reality has always been an issue with the law since the beginning of time. Thus, society changes the laws.
Regardless of any legal opinion, the photographers have an absolute moral right to refuse service for any reason, and the REASON is because they are not SLAVES.
Marriage is a form of Contract. Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, except for overriding reasons the State at any level may not interfere with the Right of Contract. Neither can the State, again except for overriding reasons, mitigate the Right of Free Assembly/Association.

Government involvement in the Marriage contract is relatively recent in the U.S., and with few exceptions has been unwise if only for the simple reason that it is irrational and incoherent with respect to the principles and logic of the Constitution.

It is an irrationality that will need to be corrected as others have been.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#392 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
That doesn't mean it was legitimate in the first place to make such a ruling. Nor does that mean it won't be overturned in the future. Nor is it my fault that laws are often written by incompetent lawyers rather than rational individuals.
Laws change. And not all laws are good for society. Laws are often passed irrationally as a reactionary measure against some isolated event, a fact that is well known in the legal community.
Nor does that justify the utterly irrational notion of comparing discrimination against race, for which one has NO CHOICE, to sexual orientation, for which one HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER EXPRESSION AND DESIRE.
Thus, it is immoral to discriminate against someone for race. It is NOT immoral to discrimination against someone for choosing a lifestyle. One is clearly and self-evidently stupid. The OTHER is a basic social right to maintain freedom of thought and diversity of culture.
Name ten instances where the SCotUS has reversed itself.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#394 Sep 4, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Which is the point. Thanks for coming around. People, no matter what their demographic or description, have a right to associate. DOMA was struck down. Those meeting the same standards of the marriage regulations, who are of the same sex, have the right to associate in marriage as you do.
And you also throw in pederasty which is not a GLBT trait. And you say it is all choice. Go to a bar and ask someone to be attracted to someone they do not find attractive. Give them a few more drinks and then tell them it is a choice. Give them a few more drinks. Then you end up sounding like a C&W song. Androgyny? Would love to see your evidence based and peer reviewed published cites. Homosexuality as a Diagnosis was dead 40 years ago. Not in the DSM 5.
He is NOT "Correct". He gets his definitions INcorrect in almost every particular.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#395 Sep 4, 2013
Huszar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huszar corrected. Huszar ask please to forgive. Huszar forgive too.
Excellent, though I deeply wish that he had made his point without citing the heretic Saul.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#396 Sep 4, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see.... that makes the score Lions: 10,000, Christians: 1
I think the jury is still out on that decision. They only like their lions in cartoons or in cages. They are exterminating the rest.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#397 Sep 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He is NOT "Correct". He gets his definitions INcorrect in almost every particular.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

Freedom of association is a basic human right, which means no one has to associate with anyone they don't like.
It's called the right to liberty.

No, here he said "Freedom of association is a basic human right..." And therefore people can associate with those they want and join a club, a political party and even get married to whom they want. Was glad to see he agreed that marriage is a freedom of association.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#398 Sep 4, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of association is a basic human right, which means no one has to associate with anyone they don't like.
It's called the right to liberty.
No, here he said "Freedom of association is a basic human right..." And therefore people can associate with those they want and join a club, a political party and even get married to whom they want. Was glad to see he agreed that marriage is a freedom of association.
ok, but just barely.

He went completely off the rails when he conflated "Freedom", "Right" and "Liberty". It's a common colloquial mixup, but he's trying to base arguments ON the conflation itself.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#399 Sep 4, 2013
Huszar wrote:
Huszar corrected. Huszar ask please to forgive. Huszar forgive too.
Huszar phony pidgin English act, immature and insulting.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#400 Sep 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the jury is still out on that decision. They only like their lions in cartoons or in cages. They are exterminating the rest.
Do you know why lions lick their asses?

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 Photographer and firefighter joins passions to ... Mon Anne 3
Mountains Beyond the Clouds May 27 Alan Jones 1
News East Tennessee organizations welcome visitors f... May 27 the dreamer 1
News More May 22 Bill Shorten 1
News Halton District School Board elementary art sho... May 9 photos and video 1
News Halton Hills native's photo exhibit in Toronto ... May 8 GTA photos 1
News Art of Halton elementary students on display fo... May 7 Meanwhile Milton ... 1
More from around the web