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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#22 Aug 26, 2013
Lionel wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really expect anyone to believe this BS?
They believe it, it makes them feel better.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#23 Aug 26, 2013
LuzAranda wrote:
'Love' is not the same as 'justice', Biblical norms have managed a Christian society that we live in ad equivocally God says 'NO MAN SHALL LIE WITH MAN','NO WOMAN SHALL LIE WITH WOMAN' We are Christians not liers.
If you want to pray that God disapproves of homosexuality as much as you do, that would be between you and him and not our problem. Just so you know, not all Christians share in your prayer, nor your interpretation of the Bible. While our society is predominately Christian, according to the law of the land, this is a secular society. Just because there are more of you, doesn't give you the right to impose your unfortunate choice of beliefs on those who don't share them. Sorry.
Really

Huntsville, AL

#24 Aug 26, 2013
LuzAranda wrote:
'Love' is not the same as 'justice', Biblical norms have managed a Christian society that we live in ad equivocally God says 'NO MAN SHALL LIE WITH MAN','NO WOMAN SHALL LIE WITH WOMAN' We are Christians not liers.
where did Jesus say that? If it was important, he must have said something.
Rainbow to the Angels

Alpharetta, GA

#25 Aug 26, 2013
LuzAranda wrote:
'Love' is not the same as 'justice', Biblical norms have managed a Christian society that we live in ad equivocally God says 'NO MAN SHALL LIE WITH MAN','NO WOMAN SHALL LIE WITH WOMAN' We are Christians not liers.
You are living proof that 'christians' manipulate people by lying to them
.
GOD doesn't say anything; but he did carve a little something-something on a rock for you to read; check it out:
**********
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me
.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
.
3. Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day
.
4. Honor thy father and thy mother
.
5. Thou shalt not kill
.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery
.
7. Thou shalt not steal
.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods
**********
.
Gay people are neither mentioned nor implied; so check your homophobia at the church house door; sugar
.
Your religion ends where my civil rights begin
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#26 Aug 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>As an individual, she has the right to pray that God 'disapproves' of homosexuality as much as she does, but as a business owner providing goods and services to the public, she must follow the same laws as other business owners. They cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, her choice of beliefs does not exempt her from that. Sorry.
I guess I was more focused on the Supremes. The case was fairly standard fare for !st Amendment people. Like the pharmacists and morning after pill, hospitals with religious affiliations etc..

So, why did they back off of a decision or ruling on the constitutionality, legality/authorizing or illegality/prohibiting (As the AG keeps reminding us) of the NM marriage statute? Same grounds to authorize SSM as the rationale in the photog's case.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27 Aug 26, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
I guess I was more focused on the Supremes. The case was fairly standard fare for !st Amendment people. Like the pharmacists and morning after pill, hospitals with religious affiliations etc..
So, why did they back off of a decision or ruling on the constitutionality, legality/authorizing or illegality/prohibiting (As the AG keeps reminding us) of the NM marriage statute? Same grounds to authorize SSM as the rationale in the photog's case.
They declined to rule on the marriage case because it had yet to be heard by a lower court, the photographer had been there done that and lost before, twice.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#28 Aug 26, 2013
Well, this has gone on since February 20, 2004 when Sandoval county issued SSM licenses. In 2010 a judge ruled a 2004 marriage of a SS couple was valid and subject to divorce proceedings. It seems that the issue is side-stepped and not expedited for hearings. Only taken 9 years. I guess they can pick and choose the cases they want. It reeks of political maneuvering. 9 years to make the statement that a lower court has to hear it?

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apwed02-...

The only "law" in NM is the 1961 statute that mentions gender in the marriage license forms. I think we are the only state that has no law or statute specifically addressing SSM. No where else is gender specified.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#29 Aug 26, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Science when it is on your side. Anal sex? Where have you been. Behind? And as anyone knows...science is both political and social. We look at and study our biases. We don't look beyond that. Sorry you have gone off the deep end. I am sorry and embarrassed.
Seriously?

Science is finding facts. It is NOT political or social. Good grief, where do you get your crazy ideas?

Yeah, anal sex is not exactly health on a regular basis. Ergo, homosexuality is not healthy.

Well established by medical journals around the world.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30 Aug 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of gay folks do not practice anal sex, and a majority of straight folks have tried it, so your point here is a bit weak.
And if God had a problem with his gay children, he would not make so many and bless our lives and families in so many ways, don't you think? Complain to Him about his "error", not us.
It's pretty simple.
Being that I use to be bisexual and have many homosexual friends, and still do, you, sir, are an outright liar, or completely ignorant. Gay sex is mostly anal sex, oral sex being a close second.

Theology 101, God does not create gays, or handicap people, or pedophiles. Firstly, you display your lack of knowledge of the results of Adam and Eve's Fall, and thus the ever-growing corruption of the universe. Secondly, free will, God does not create robots. If one is born with a handicap, the CHOICE to overcome to the best of one's ability is still there.

So, being gay, which is either a choice, or a birth defect like any other, does not matter. Neither one is an excuse to practice homosexual behavior.

At all. On one hand, if it is a choice, then stop being a dumbass. If it's a handicap or birth defect, then rise above it just like all handicap people do.

Glad I could help enlighten you on some common errors.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#31 Aug 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you pretend that the definition of bigotry doesn't exist. <quoted text>That's good, because He doesn't. <quoted text>You're better off lying about God sweetie, Science thinks you are a misinformed idiot. <quoted text>Um dear, anal sex, not not a synonym homosexuality.
<quoted text>Dear, the law is pretty darn clear, in New Mexico it is illegal to discriminate in the providing of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. The Hugenins are insisting that their God given right to 'disapprove' of homosexuality gives their business a special exemption to the law. <quoted text>The answer is simple, if you don't want to associate with the gay folk, don't go into the business of providing goods and services to the public. There are gay folk out there whether you approve or not and they have the right not to be excluded from full participation in the public square. <quoted text>I'm not telling them not to be flaming bigots, or that they don't have to be offended by whatever. I'm simply saying that if you want to provide goods and services in the public square and the law classifies sexual orientation as one basis that you may not legally discriminate against someone for, bigots beware. <quoted text>Dear, as individuals they still have the liberty as individuals to pray that God disapproves of homosexuality as much as they pray he does, but as business owners, their liberty to do many things is restricted more than the rest of the general public. It is that simple.
Not even going to bother reading this when you start off with a lie.

I never asserted bigotry does not exist.

But I will assert that it is mostly coming from gays now.

Now when you decide to be honest, I'll consider reading your posts to their completion.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#32 Aug 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>As an individual, she has the right to pray that God 'disapproves' of homosexuality as much as she does, but as a business owner providing goods and services to the public, she must follow the same laws as other business owners. They cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, her choice of beliefs does not exempt her from that. Sorry.
Yes they can.

Sexual orientation is not the same as racial discrimination.

One has no control over the natural color of their skin. To refusing service on those grounds alone is immoral and wrong.

But one DOES have a choice on whether to express their sexual preference, whether to be gay in the first place, and secondly, to display their perversion as if it were normal. Both are choices.

The right not to associate with people based on what they perceive as immoral is LIBERTY itself. The right not to speak to or provide service to criminals is one such example. It is a basic human right for every human on earth to choose whom they wish to deal with.

The Supreme Court is wrong, on an epic and self-evident scale.

We also have the right to decide what is moral, and immoral ... not the Supreme Court.

The court has overstepped its bounds. Now, the question will be whether they will get away with it, and making a mockery out of basic human rights.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#33 Aug 26, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Not even going to bother reading this when you start off with a lie.
I've always admired immaturity in alleged adults.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
I never asserted bigotry does not exist.
Merely pretended it isn't defined as it is.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
But I will assert that it is mostly coming from gays now.
You can assert all you want dear, that doesn't change reality for anyone but yourself.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Now when you decide to be honest, I'll consider reading your posts to their completion.
read, don't read, makes no real difference to me. But sweetie, you're much more fun when you are throwing a childish tantrum.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#34 Aug 26, 2013
Try "Science and Technology in Society" by Daniel Lee Kleiman.

Leservurderinger: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Finnes i flere formater:
Innbundet
"This thoughtful and engaging text challenges the widely held notion of science as somehow outside of society, and the idea that technology proceeds automatically down a singular and inevitable path. Through specific case studies involving contemporary debates, this book shows that science and technology are fundamentally part of society and are shaped by it. It draws on concepts from political sociology, organizational analysis, and contemporary social theory. It avoids dense theoretical debate. It includes case studies and concluding chapter summaries for students and scholars."

Seems that those facts are mediated by the social and political context. Look no further than a University to see how economics, social status and gender, power and politics plays a major role.

And for your medical, try "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by, Dr John Ioannidis. How your vaunted medical knowledge and research is tainted.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2...

"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
The Atlantic, November 2010

Finding facts. What you don't know you won't look for...but then you are able to.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#35 Aug 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I've always admired immaturity in alleged adults.
<quoted text>Merely pretended it isn't defined as it is.
<quoted text>You can assert all you want dear, that doesn't change reality for anyone but yourself.
<quoted text>read, don't read, makes no real difference to me. But sweetie, you're much more fun when you are throwing a childish tantrum.
Rick? Seriously. I've been on Topix long enough to see a common pattern. And it is almost always the actual person who is immature that accuses others of immaturity.

Grow up if you want to be taken seriously, or have any kind of rational discussion.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#36 Aug 26, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Yes they can.
They can what dear?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Sexual orientation is not the same as racial discrimination.
It doesn't take the same forms as racial discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, nationality, etc, but they are all the same.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
One has no control over the natural color of their skin.
No? Really?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
To refusing service on those grounds alone is immoral and wrong.
No? Really?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
But one DOES have a choice on whether to express their sexual preference, whether to be gay in the first place, and secondly, to display their perversion as if it were normal. Both are choices.
EVERYONE displays their sexual orientation sweetie, which isn't a choice by the way, your obvious problems with ones not like your own, nobody's problem but your own.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The right not to associate with people based on what they perceive as immoral is LIBERTY itself.
If they do not associate with folk they consider to be immoral, they shouldn't have gone into business.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The right not to speak to or provide service to criminals is one such example.
Uh-huh.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
It is a basic human right for every human on earth to choose whom they wish to deal with.
But that hasn't been an absolute right of business owners in this country for 50 years now, please try and keep up with reality.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The Supreme Court is wrong, on an epic and self-evident scale.
According to you, but not according to the law and not according to the state and US Constitutions. Sorry.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
We also have the right to decide what is moral, and immoral ... not the Supreme Court.
They didn't take that right away from anybody cupcake.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The court has overstepped its bounds.
Again, only according to you, not the law nor the state and US Constitutions.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Now, the question will be whether they will get away with it, and making a mockery out of basic human rights.
The only one making a mockery of basic human rights are these self-professed Christians who assert that that the law should not apply to them as it does EVERY OTHER BUSINESS OWNER in the state, because they claim that God blesses their bigotry. God didn't take the witness stand in their defense. Sorry sweetie, but bigots who blame God for their bad acts are not entitled to special exception under the law. IF the SCOTUS hears their appeal, they will lose again. It really is that simple.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37 Aug 26, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Try "Science and Technology in Society" by Daniel Lee Kleiman.
Leservurderinger: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Finnes i flere formater:
Innbundet
"This thoughtful and engaging text challenges the widely held notion of science as somehow outside of society, and the idea that technology proceeds automatically down a singular and inevitable path. Through specific case studies involving contemporary debates, this book shows that science and technology are fundamentally part of society and are shaped by it. It draws on concepts from political sociology, organizational analysis, and contemporary social theory. It avoids dense theoretical debate. It includes case studies and concluding chapter summaries for students and scholars."
Seems that those facts are mediated by the social and political context. Look no further than a University to see how economics, social status and gender, power and politics plays a major role.
And for your medical, try "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by, Dr John Ioannidis. How your vaunted medical knowledge and research is tainted.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2...
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
The Atlantic, November 2010
Finding facts. What you don't know you won't look for...but then you are able to.
Thanks for quoting a moron.

Now here is the definition:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

It is not some kind of thing that is inside, or outside, of society. It is a concept that all individuals actually require to get any kind of work done. Rational thought, logic, reason ... none of these are subject to anything but the individual alone, for only the individual is capable of rational thought in the first place.

So a moron quotes a moron, and expects credibility? I think not.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#38 Aug 26, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Rick? Seriously. I've been on Topix long enough to see a common pattern. And it is almost always the actual person who is immature that accuses others of immaturity.
Grow up if you want to be taken seriously, or have any kind of rational discussion.
I'm not acting childish, you are! Too funny. Sweetie, you laughed your way out of the rational discussion business when you refused to read my post because you pretended I had lied.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39 Aug 26, 2013
You really are a hoot. You really do not believe in context. And I forgot you had read his stuff in your philosophy classes. I guess, for some, ideas to tend to be moronic.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#40 Aug 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not acting childish, you are! Too funny. Sweetie, you laughed your way out of the rational discussion business when you refused to read my post because you pretended I had lied.
Sorry, my post was not at you. I will leave up to you to guess. Didn't get the reply button. Just as well as it takes up so much space. Empty.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#42 Aug 26, 2013
Pierre wrote:
When political correctness trumps religious freedom, we most assuredly deserve to have our country swinging two feet above the garage floor.
Our country will be fine dear, you not so much. Seek help.

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