Originally Posted by Missileer

If you were Father Flannigan and were asked to perform a Wiccan marriage ceremony, you can refuse to do so because, to his belief, the marriage would not be valid by the tenets of the Catholic Church. While the refusal is discriminatory, the right to religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. People discriminate every minute of every day. That's how we became individuals, by choices. That's how we became different colors, creeds, and nationalities. Our Judicial branch is broken and has been since day one and that is quoted by the Founders since President Washington, and especially by Thomas Jefferson. They have become lawmakers and "thought police" who make decisions based on personal judgements instead of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your example is not exactly the same.

The Bible says "Thou shall have no other God other than the Lord"

A Catholic priest could say (with a great deal of legal backing) that forcing him to preform a Wiccan ceremony is a violation of his Constitutional rights to practice his religion as by doing this ceremony he is being forced to recognize a deity other than the Christian God.

Here its different, the Bible only forbids heterosexual sex. It does not say anything about forbidding to snap a photograph. Which means the 1st Amendment doesn't apply, which means its a violation of the defendants 14th Amendment right.

We have already had one court recognize this, and judging from the way the court has acted in the past they are likely to uphold it.

As somebody said above, the defendants were stupid to argue 1st Amendment protection as a reason to deny service, they would have been better to refuse service from a business standpoint. Instead they had to make a political statement and they are going to pay a price for it.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I don't know if you have them but we have laws preventing people profiting from a criminal act so if were convicted of discrimination they can't turn around and use that action as the basis of another law suit.

I agree the whole thing is stupid but had the photographers been a little smarter the whole thing would never have happened although personally I agree with Mmarsh on this one I don't remember a section of the bible that tells you to refuse to work for homosexuals therefore their actions are ones of interpretation not biblical necessity.

They wouldn't be suing the state for this act. They would be suing the state for what would essentially by reverse discrimination. Discriminating against a person in favor of another person based on religious beliefs. Regardless if that belief is written in the bible or not.

Correct me if I am wrong: Group A stated they did not want to take the photos of Group B because they felt it would go against what they believe their religion states or implies. Group B and the state of NM states they can't do that because they passed the anti-discrimination laws where gays are concerned.

So it seems to me there is a clear violation of Group A's freedom to practice a religion as taught by their church or as interpreted by themselves.

It is a moot point I suppose since all is said and done. I am eager to know the outcome of the appeal.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your example is not exactly the same.

The Bible says "Thou shall have no other God other than the Lord"

A Catholic priest could say (with a great deal of legal backing) that forcing him to preform a Wiccan ceremony is a violation of his Constitutional rights to practice his religion as by doing this ceremony he is being forced to recognize a deity other than the Christian God.

Here its different, the Bible only forbids heterosexual sex. It does not say anything about forbidding to snap a photograph. Which means the 1st Amendment doesn't apply, which means its a violation of the defendants 14th Amendment right.

We have already had one court recognize this, and judging from the way the court has acted in the past they are likely to uphold it.

As somebody said above, the defendants were stupid to argue 1st Amendment protection as a reason to deny service, they would have been better to refuse service from a business standpoint. Instead they had to make a political statement and they are going to pay a price for it.

The Constitution doesn`t mention any certain religion for situations like this. So the Christian Bible doesn`t enter into the conversation at any place. The right to practice their religion as they see fit includes not being compelled by the Government to do or support anything that is considered sinful as long as no common law is violated.

Lower court decisions are often overturned. The first ammendment paints a broad enough swath to protect all religious beliefs so this case is textbook example of ifringement of a religious belief.

I have to cogratulate you guys on the quality of the debate on this thread.

I can't find an 'applause' icon.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

I have to cogratulate you guys on the quality of the debate on this thread.

I can't find an 'applause' icon.

try the thumbs up.

Originally Posted by Missileer

The Constitution doesn`t mention any certain religion for situations like this. So the Christian Bible doesn`t enter into the conversation at any place. The right to practice their religion as they see fit includes not being compelled by the Government to do or support anything that is considered sinful as long as no common law is violated.

Lower court decisions are often overturned. The first ammendment paints a broad enough swath to protect all religious beliefs so this case is textbook example of infringement of a religious belief.

------------------------------------------------------------------

All I am saying is they are going to have some relation/some support about HOW exactly the 1st amendment right are being infringed. You cannot claim a 1st amendment infringement without some sort of proof. Otherwise you are going to have people pulling all sorts non-defined religious rights from thin air as being constitutionally protected. Otherwise, the court would very easily dismiss such a case as being groundless. Your Wiccan example had a reasonable explanation, so far these defendants explanation doesn't pass the mustard.

If I were a judge on this case, I would be asking the defense for an explaination of how exactly are their rights to practicing their religon are being infringed. For the moment, I don't see it.

And while Lower court rulings can be overruled, it actually doesnt happen that often, as higher courts dont like overturning cases on principal and do so sparingly. Furthermore, the higher a case goes up the legal system the LESS likely the higher court is to overturn it.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

try the thumbs up.

Thank you. It must be nice to have a brain that works when you ask it to.

Do you know that it is true that brains are notoriously lazy, and dislike being kicked into action. You probably have experienced the sensation of an answer you have been searching for popping up about two hours later when you haved ceased chasing it.