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.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#114 Aug 29, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry your pretty little head Huzar.....
Silk thinks he knows a lot of things.....
The real JosephOne/Knightkore has got yer back.....
Of course you have Huzar's back, you are the one and the same person. Makes no difference how much you deny it, your method if writing & cop/pasting gives you away. Silk, Lobo, and all the others know, no matter how much you deny it.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#115 Aug 29, 2013
TYPO: of writing.. copy/pasting

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#116 Aug 29, 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.
No, you are!

:)

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#117 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people are not trying to impose laws that deny to you the rights they expect for themselves, while your side continues to try to use the law to deny to gay people the rights you expect for yourself. This clearly fulfills the definition of prejudice. While animus is not required for prejudice, and is usually associated with bigotry, in most definitions it is not required. It too is clearly demonstrated by denial of the rights enjoyed by others. Clearly, the bigotry remains with those opposed to legal equality.
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.

They wish to make people provide services for them. That deprives others of their liberty. No one, not gays or anyone else, has a right to any service. Slavery is horrid.

Marriage is not a right. 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.

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.

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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#118 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
As others have pointed out, the majority of gay people do not engage in anal sex, while far more heterosexual people do. Yet we don't use that fact to deny rights to heterosexuals or to gay women and men.
You ignore the female half of the gay population, as well as the gay men who prefer frottage or other options.
Your belief God did not create gay people is your interpretation which ignores the many verses that tell you God created all things. But your scientifically unsupportable religious beliefs fail to trump the equal protections requirements of constitution, which require equal legal treatment for all persons, not just the ones of which you believe God approves. This is why we are not a theocracy.
Your belief sexual orientation is a choice is also not supported by science, nor the testimony of most adults. While you are free to restrict your own behavior as you see fit, you have no right to impose your restrictions on love on other consenting adults.
As others have pointed out? So what they have pointed out is superior to what I have pointed out?

So basically, you're just selectively choosing sources that agree with you? Very telling, very telling indeed.

Most gay men engage in anal sex. That is a fact. Get over it.

And NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT RIGHTS ARE DENIED BECAUSE OF THIS!

Red Herring much?

Let me repeat.

NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR THE REMOVAL OF RIGHTS FOR ANYONE. PERIOD.

Marriage was never right, and cannot be a right by logic alone ... unless you argue in defense of forced marriage and slavery.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#119 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from failed efforts to change it. These attempts have even included torture. Such efforts are not successful, and are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior, including suicide.
"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."
Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others' sexual orientation.
Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says [American Psychological Association]
So what are you saying? There is no hope for pedophiles who are attracted to children?

Are you saying that we don't have the free will or ability to change our sexual attractions?

That we are slaves to our sexuality?

Mmm.

Regardless of psychological studies, we have thousands of years of human history that proves other wise.

We have morals, that teach us that rape is wrong, and that we are not slaves to our sexual urges.

We have millions of priests of various religions that have proven they can be celibate, especially the Buddhists who show an enlighten state of rising above our sexual desires.

You see, I have no respect for people like you. What you just did here, is suggest that humans are animals that cannot change.

And that makes you a very bad person by the standards of every civilization on earth, since the beginning of time.

Yes, gays can choose not to be gay. We don't need psychology to tell us that humans are PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF RESTRAINT, AND/OR CHANGING THEMSELVES FOR THE BETTER.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#120 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Well, at least no one is trying to offer anything resembling a valid excuse for legal discrimination in the public square based on religious beliefs.
Perhaps it is because civilization has such a well documented history of the harm that results when discrimination is allowed under the law.
LOL!!!!!

You ignorance is astounding.

Firstly, religion and philosophy has been behind all the major civilizations in world history to date.

Secondly, discrimination is a human right. We discriminate all the time, like who are friends are, who we wish to marry, and especially against criminals and those, like yourself, that show some hidden fascist characteristics.

Discrimination is also the catalyst behind ALL CULTURAL DIVERSITY. This is sociology and anthropology, my friend. Let me dazzle you with SCIENCE. The ability to be exclusive, and set conditions for what one must do to join, or remain a member if born into .... is discrimination and exclusivity.

Is it immoral to discriminate?

No.

Is it immoral to be mean to others and excluse them for stupid reasons, like skin color?

Yes.

Is it immoral to discriminate because of religion?

No. Another philosophy or religion might be very immoral to others, thus they have a moral OBLIGATION to discriminate. Thus, we would naturally discriminate against the Aztec religion practice of HUMAN SACRIFICE, and not want to associate with ANYONE that believed this was acceptable.

Not Yet Equal Yet, your ignorance is very deep, and profoundly dangerous to society as a whole.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#121 Aug 29, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
But have they invented a pill to cure homophobic religious bigotry?
Hitler would LOVE you.

But he would have preferred a bullet to the back of the head, or the gas chambers, to kill those he didn't like.

Not a pill, like you suggest.

What is scary, is you actually don't realize how evil and morally irresponsible your comments are, do you?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#122 Aug 29, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most men into anal sex are straight. Ask your mother if she's ever given a man a "backstage pass".
Screw the photographers. Their bigotry shouldn't get special consideration just because it's "religious". Outside of the purely religious realm, they should have to follow the same laws everybody else does. If they don't want to sprinkle holy water on the couple, fine. But, sorry, this is commerce and commerce is ruled by laws.
The only reason I brought it up is to point out the health risks. That INCLUDES anyone, not just gays. I never asserted otherwise. Occasional anal sex I'm sure is just fine ... but as the primary method of intercourse as gay porn makes clear is what being gay is all about .... yeah, that will lead to serious health risks.

Nor does religion have ANYTHING to do with the argument.

This is about the basic human right to exercise their LIBERTY and refuse service to anyone, for any reason. This liberty was just stomped all over by a fascist judge that thinks gays have a right to service, or that sexual behavior is on the same level as racial discrimination, which is absolutely is not. One does not pick their race. But one DOES choose whether they will act on their sexual preference or not, that is a choice.

Got it? Good.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#123 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be nice, but there is no need, as it can be cured with information and doses of reality. The problem remains that some just aren't open to information that conflicts with the prejudice they were taught as children, which continues to be reinforced by some adults who claim to speak and judge for God. The pill we need is one that allows assimilation of new information which conflicts with the irrational prejudice we were taught as a child. Fortunately, many can do this without the help of medication.
LOL!!!!

Behold, an example of the bigoted mindset. So convinced that they are correct in their thinking, that they reinforce itself with such comments as above.

This is precisely why we can't get through to these Leftists and radical haters of basic human liberties, because they actually think they are defending what in fact they are destroying.

This, folks, is an example in part of why civilizations collapse. Ossified belief systems.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#124 Aug 29, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Well both are issues of civil rights. The "public accommodation" does actually fall under the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. And Loving v. Virginia, 388 US.1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights decision about interracial marriage which seems to be relevant once again in the context of SSM.
Nope.

Not relevant at all.

There was no attempt to redefine what marriage was, and the wording of the Loving v. Virginia makes it clear that it was the procreative aspect of marriage that one had a right to pursue, as that is what everyone knew marriage to be, procreative.

Today, most people just think of sex, and confuse marriage with merely some kind of relationship.

Really, Willow, do you think people in the 60's think the same as people do today?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#125 Aug 29, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
But marriage is not fundamental to our survival (a scientific fact)... unless he meant PROCREATION is.

You haven't really bothered to understand the statement, have you?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#126 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Marriage is not a right.
An individual's interest in marriage transcends the state's definition of it. This has resulted in the recognition of fundamental right of an individual to marry by courts under state constitutions, long before it did under the US Constitution. The only thing that varies is, in who and what that entails and the level of scrutiny necessary to review it.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#127 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Additionally, among the 14 Supreme Court rulings affirming marriage as a fundamental right of the individual, are these:
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Exactly.

And what does almost every decision above include in their context?

Procreation.

Which is exactly why homosexual relations are self-evidently excluded. They do not create new citizens.

You show us what society actually defends through the court system, which is procreation as family.

Thanks for proving our point.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#128 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The attempt is to dehumanize. But what those who try to use specific sex acts to dehumanize and justify harming others hope you forget or don't know, is that even more heterosexual people do all of the same things gay people do, while not all gay people do what they imagine.
Most gay women, and many gay men, do not practice anal. The daughter and her husband may very well be doing the things many gay people do not. This is one of the many reasons we do not use sex between consenting adults as a basis for civil rights or any other rights.
You are accusing me of attempting to dehumanize?

I think not. You attempted to make the psychological argument that people cannot change their sexual orientation.

That is dehumanizing.

You are really a scumbag, aren't you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#129 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
They wish to make people provide services for them. That deprives others of their liberty. No one, not gays or anyone else, has a right to any service. Slavery is horrid.
Marriage is not a right. 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.
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.
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.
Wrong in almost every particular.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#130 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Taking photos of a same sex couple in no way violates the photographer's free exercise of religion. They may still believe same sex marriage and homosexuality in general are a sin, may choose not to participate in such practices themselves, and follow whatever religious doctrine they might care to pursue. They simply don't have the right to hold others to their religious moral standards, which would actually be a violation of the free exercise of the customer.
Yes it does.

There freedom not to do something that is offense and repulsive to them, now do you?

And yes, they DO have a right to hold others to their own moral standards. That is ALSO a basic human right.

We do that all the time. When someone steals from you, do you not call the police? Well, that is YOU enforcing YOUR moral standards on the thief.

Their right to liberty was violated. Period.

And you don't get to decide what offends people, or is repulsive.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#131 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. The photographer can still choose not to enter into a same sex relationship or marry someone of the same sex. Photographing a same sex couples does not infringe upon where they may worship, or what religious moral views they may hold. Conversely, denying the same sex couple service amounts to projecting one's religious moral views onto the couple, which does deprive them of free exercise.
In states with anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, these suits will continue to arise. The rhetoric on the part of those claiming infringement of their free exercise of religion are lacking in rational foundation. Providing a service to someone who holds alternate views on religion or morality does not violate the proprietor's free exercise. Such an argument is laughable.
The freedom to associate works BOTH ways. The freedom NOT to associate, is what the photographers were ultimately exercising. Their basic human rights, and the very DIGNITY of being human by choosing who one deals with, is grossly violated.

If anti-discrimination laws trump basic human liberties, then such laws are equal to such evil laws that allowed slavery to begin with, and society has an obligation to ignore such laws and demand better laws.

There is no rhetoric here, except from you.
So you

Huntsville, AL

#132 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

Free-thinkers disagree, they are not normal.
.
you are declaring yourself to be a free-thinker and not normal.

got it.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#133 Aug 29, 2013
LuzAranda wrote:
God says.... We are Christians not liers.
Well, your inability to spell simple words in English [liers vs liar] proves you are a Christian.

However when you say "God says..." what you really mean is, The Bible says.

Any book claiming a woman turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun went backward 10 degrees on the sundial (2 Kings 20:11), and quails came from the sea (Num. 11:31) is going to have great difficulty convincing gay people that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong.

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 Coastal Country Jam in Huntington Beach combine... Aug 14 Appalled 1
News Paula McConnell: Our fabulous Fair Aug 5 illegal gardener 6
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
More from around the web