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.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#174 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Procreation isn't just making a baby.
Babies cannot survive on their own.
And they cannot become good citizens on their own, or benefit or support the society they are born into.
Thus, procreation really means the building of family, the education of future generations, the continuation of information and culture and heritage, etc.
Jeez, Willow. Seriously?
Can't figure out what you are talking about. But then maybe that is a good thing.

And since we want to give our children over to the government schools at a pre-school level and many parents farm their kids out anyway because of jobs....nothing to worry about. And thanks for the obvious about procreation and babies. That has always stumped me. And that they can't survive on their own.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#175 Aug 29, 2013
"Gay Spouses in All States Now Married Under U.S. Tax Law

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/gay-...

SSM in any of the 13 states where they are recognized, even if they now live in another state which does not recognized SSM, is considered married under IRS regs. And they can amend tax returns going back 3 years. Marriage is mentioned over 200 times in the Tax Code.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#176 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
The court does not trump logic.
If your arguments are based on authority, then you have no argument at all.
The court does not have the authority or the power to think for society, and overrule what is absolutely and self-evidently not a right.
Taken literally, these court rulings could be used to reinstitute slavery. And that is unacceptable.
Do you also claim that the courts are infallible?
Marriage has nothing to do with slavery, despite what some married folks my claim. How establishing marriage as a fundamental right of all persons could lead to slavery remains unexplained, and unexplainable.

Your denial of legal authority includes denial of the rule of law. You may wish to believe marriage is not a fundamental human right, but in our country, it is recognized as such by the law, and protected by the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#177 Aug 29, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
"Gay Spouses in All States Now Married Under U.S. Tax Law
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/gay-...
SSM in any of the 13 states where they are recognized, even if they now live in another state which does not recognized SSM, is considered married under IRS regs. And they can amend tax returns going back 3 years. Marriage is mentioned over 200 times in the Tax Code.
13 states, DC, 6 counties in NM, 14 countries, and other smaller jurisdictions in various places. Hard to keep up...

Yet only opposite sex couples can currently get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#178 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this facist talk?
The government does not have any interest at all. Society has an interest, not government. Society rules, and the institutions they create, such as government, obey. Society decides what conditions will be met to get married. Like not being related.
Thus, you need a license to get married.
Now explain to me why someone would have to get a license to exercise a right?
Do I need a license to be alive?
Do I need a license to be free?
Do I need a license to pursue happiness or purchase property?
No, I do not.
But you need a license to get married. Thus, you (and the Court) is wrong.
Fundamental rights may be restricted, but only when a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can withstand examination under the due process and equal protections requirements of the constitution. The license is for the public record and to ensure you comply with the reasonable restrictions on age, informed consent, close relative, and not currently married.

You need a passport to travel outside the country. Your freedom to travel to certain countries may be limited. Your deed to your property must be purchased and recorded by the government. You may not incite violence, killing, shout fire in a crowded theater and other certain words in airports, etc. Yet all of the restrictions on other fundamental rights, fail to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for restricting the right of marriage based on gender.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#179 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
WHy do you lie?
The 14 court cases do no such thing. The Courts do not have the power to create or rescind rights at all.
It has the power to interpret law and resolve disputes.
And it is not infallible.
Nor is the PUBLIC bound, in any way whatsoever, to agree with the Courts, or change their opinions to match that of the justices.
Do you realize that you have attempted to elevate the judge to the level of a pope?
You, sir, are one insane individual.
argumentum ad auctoritatem
You lose.
Try thinking for YOURSELF, and stop learning on the opinions of inferior minds.
Again, your rejection of authority in this case is a rejection of the rule of law. You are free to ignore it for yourself as long as you don't violate the rights of others, but don't expect us to operate as if the constitution and body of law does not exist.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#180 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Um, the constitution regulates government ... not society, and not marriage.
Marriage is not a constitutional issue, unless society succeeds in making it one, and adds another Amendment defending traditional marriage.
Marriages, corporations, unions, guilds, associations, cooperatives, and all types of relations whatsoever, may be regulated by society's morals and enforced by the state society created. Morals dictate things like fraud, public health, the future of society effected by birthrates, murder, theft, and many others.
It's that simple.
You do not get to say "hey, gays have every right to try and redefine marriage and change the laws governing it," and then turn around and say "but no one else but gays may change the marriage laws."
Got it?
Buttercup, you can fantasize all you want, but reality is laughing at you again. The SCOTUS as well as the high court of every state recognize the individual's right to marriage as constitutionally guaranteed. It is that simple.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#181 Aug 29, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I tend to agree here ... WITHOUT all the added hyperbole.

Operating a business is not quite the same as one's personal freedoms. Remember. It's licensed.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#182 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantic games 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. A drivers license is not a fundamental right. Yet even restrictions on a drivers license must be reasonable, and apply to all persons equally. While you can demonstrate a rational and even compelling governmental interest in denial of a driver's licence to a blind person, you have no valid reason to deny them to gay people. Just like marriage. You have no legitimate excuse to deny marriage to a blind person, nor a same sex couple.
Your beliefs about race and sexual orientation are not supported by science nor by many who understand civil rights. That aside, remember we protect equal rights based on choice of religious belief.
"When operating a business open to the public, you must serve the public." Again, discrimination based on personal "moral beliefs" have been use to support segregation, apartheid, the Holocaust, and target other ethnic, national, political, and other groups for punishment and disenfranchisement throughout history. Choice of religious belief is protected from discrimination, proving that even though sexual orientation is not a choice, protection from discrimination can be based on choice of beliefs.
Again, from the Supreme Court: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): 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.”
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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#183 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
2=2
3, 10, 100, 1000, do not equal 2.
Like restrictions on age, family member, and informed consent, the restriction on number is a different legal and social construct from the restriction on gender. The court recognized the difference under consideration was the one of number, not the one on gender. You provide no compelling governmental interest in restrictions based on gender.
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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#184 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. You present opinions, not facts of law, nor even US history. While true procreation has often been involved in marriage, it is far from the only reason, and again as even Justice Scalia points out, has never been a requirement in any state or federal US law. That is a fact not open to debate. Another fact is that the supreme court has firmly established marriage as a fundamental right on 14 occasions, including several which make it clear the fundamental right does not depend on procreation.
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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#185 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You present the same arguments used to support segregation, apartheid, and the Holocaust. "I don't want to associate with them, so keep them out of the public square. Again, you demonstrate the very reasons public accommodations laws came to be.
When you offer specific services for a fee, being required to follow through on your offer to perform those services in return for pay, can hardly be considered slavery. Pejorative terminology fails to provide an excuse for discrimination in the public square.
Lying, AGAIN????

Red Herrings, AGAIN?????

No excuse is required. Business owners have freedom of association, which includes the power to refuse service to people they deem immoral.

They have a right to deem public promotion of homosexual acts immoral.

Apartheid and segregation? Unlawful and immoral because it RESTRICTS THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS.

Refusing ANY SERVICE WHATSOEVER CANNOT IMPEDE CIVIL RIGHTS IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, SINCE NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO ANY SERVICE WHATSOEVER.

Now, explain to us how you came to your fascist views about people?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#186 Aug 29, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
You need Health Care Insurance if you are alive and at Birth. It is not free.
Mm, well then, if that were true, then we should be extinct by now after all these MANY thousands of years without health care insurance.

Jeez, Willow, really?
wow

Huntsville, AL

#187 Aug 29, 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.
the dope that thinks that archaic word origins are destiny is actually calling someone else a mindless zombie. You thoughts are slaves to BS constructs that have no basis in reality.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#188 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has nothing to do with slavery, despite what some married folks my claim. How establishing marriage as a fundamental right of all persons could lead to slavery remains unexplained, and unexplainable.
Your denial of legal authority includes denial of the rule of law. You may wish to believe marriage is not a fundamental human right, but in our country, it is recognized as such by the law, and protected by the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection.
Marriage has nothing to do with slavery?

Well then, quit claiming it is a right.

Unexplained? No, I've explained it SEVERAL times.

Rights are that which can be enforced by pain of death.

Thus, Right to Life, means we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force.

Right to Liberty means we have a right to defend ourselves, with deadly force, from kidnappers, or bodily harm.

Right to pursue happiness, means we can use deadly force to defend our family and property.

Where does a right to marry fit in? Where does a right exist to join ANY KIND OF UNION? Can we use deadly force to make someone marry us? Can we use deadly force to create a corporation?

No, because all forms of unions require CONSENT from someone else.

Rights do not require a license, or consent, from anyone else.

Joining a marriage, a corporation, does.

Really, you should have figured this out on your own. No philosophy, religion, or ideals required. It is just simple logic.

"Your denial of legal authority includes denial of the rule of law."

The rule of law i about subjecting the government, and all politicians, to law, and not letting anyone be above that.

So, caught lying yet again. I am all for equality under the law, especially our politicians who are often now exempt from the law.

The rational debate, and discussion of whether a law is just or not, is another matter entirely.

Would you tell me I am against the rule of law if I fought to end slavery in 1861?

You see how much of a hypocrite you are?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#189 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamental rights may be restricted, but only when a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can withstand examination under the due process and equal protections requirements of the constitution. The license is for the public record and to ensure you comply with the reasonable restrictions on age, informed consent, close relative, and not currently married.
You need a passport to travel outside the country. Your freedom to travel to certain countries may be limited. Your deed to your property must be purchased and recorded by the government. You may not incite violence, killing, shout fire in a crowded theater and other certain words in airports, etc. Yet all of the restrictions on other fundamental rights, fail to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for restricting the right of marriage based on gender.
Oh, now you say that fundamental rights may be restricted?

You mean like marriage?

In which society has a compelling and legitimate right to restrict it to one man and one woman, for the promotion of maintaining a healthy birthrate all nations depend upon?

Exactly.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#190 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, your rejection of authority in this case is a rejection of the rule of law. You are free to ignore it for yourself as long as you don't violate the rights of others, but don't expect us to operate as if the constitution and body of law does not exist.
Again, your rejection of rational thought and logic in this case is a rejection of sanity, and poses a real danger to the public good.

Refusing service is NEVER violating the rights of others, since no one ever has a right to service. This fact ALWAYS trumps the law, in all nations, everywhere on earth, whether recognized or not.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#191 Aug 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Buttercup, you can fantasize all you want, but reality is laughing at you again. The SCOTUS as well as the high court of every state recognize the individual's right to marriage as constitutionally guaranteed. It is that simple.
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?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#192 Aug 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Buttercup, you can fantasize all you want, but reality is laughing at you again. The SCOTUS as well as the high court of every state recognize the individual's right to marriage as constitutionally guaranteed. It is that simple.
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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#193 Aug 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to agree here ... WITHOUT all the added hyperbole.
Operating a business is not quite the same as one's personal freedoms. Remember. It's licensed.
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?:)

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