MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Agreed although I think the photographer is just as stupid for not giving a generic excuse.
NM Commission Orders $6,000 Fine for Christian Beliefs
Agreed although I think the photographer is just as stupid for not giving a generic excuse.
Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
i agree with that..
mmarsh
Active member
Ummm, a recent add-on? The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. That's 140 years ago.
And the USSC has cited the 14th Amendment as source in COUNTLESS cases including Brown vs Board of Education which made segregation and Discrimination illegal.
Senorjekips
I think MontyB said it best.
1. You do have the right to refuse the job, for just about any reason other than #2.
2. You don't have the right to claim to refuse a job by claiming the right to discriminate. We are not a religious theocracy like Iran (at least not yet), Religion doesn't trump law. And you do not have the right to infringe upon other peoples civil rights.
Last edited:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Judicial interpretation has twisted the meaning of "equal protection of the laws" into pretzels. The intent of the authors is clear if the phrase is not taken out of context as it has been. The entire sentence beginning with "No state" and ending with "the laws" must be parsed as a single unit. The 14th is one of a batch of Amendments passed after the civil war, which to me makes it RECENT, because it was four generations after the original craftsmanship of the founding fathers. I am sure that they would have been insulted by the notion that the FEDERAL government had a right to tell a proprietor what customers he/she must serve. If it is such a burning issue in a community, then let that LOCAL community pass laws. Then people have the option of voting with their feet by moving out of the said community to avoid the burden of unwise laws. As matters stand there is no limit to the nonsense and wrongheaded lawsuits which can be used to savage businesses and individuals who WANT to exercise judgement as to whom they will have as customers or with whom they choose to associate. You also get cases like the Moslem taxi drivers who claimed discrimination because the airport wanted them to pay for adding foot washing basins to the sanitary facilities. They felt that it was their right to exercise their beliefs by washing their feet at the airport at taxpayer expense!:bang:
So I am not justifying anything by an appeal for tolerance to kooky personal beliefs. In fact I think that the burden of exercising any such beliefs should fall upon the believer, rather than the public. Furthermore it is not the proper jurisdiction of the courts to referee conflicts of beliefs except in the case of a threat to public safety. The case of the photographers versus homosexuals should never have even been accepted by the court. The fact that it was accepted is a sad commentary upon the state of the law as interpreted by the courts. Let common sense rule rather than the law where there is a conflict!:brave: I would say to take the case through appeals up to the Supreme Court if necessary except that they would judge based upon precedent rather than common sense judging from their past behavior. What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment to BAN loose interpretation of the law caused by taking phrases out of context.:hide:
Lonnie Courtney Clay
mmarsh
Active member
4 Generations??? 1789 to 1868 is exactly 79 years apart. That's barely 1 generation. The fact is, the 14th Amendment has been on the books for over 2/3 of our entire nation's history. Your claim of it being untested is unfounded, especially when you consider the number of times its been used as legal recourse of the decades.
There is only one official place that can interpretation the Constutition and thats the USSC. That's how we avoid twisting the Constution's meaning, by following their interpretations. And your mistaken about the Founding Fathers as well, the FF believed in a STRONG Federal Government just looks at the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington had no moral issue in using the Federal Government in squashing individual rights if those rights went against the Constitution. We have always been a country with a strong Federal Government, which absolutely has the right in certain cases to infringe upon individual freedom. That is neither new nor shocking.
What you are arguing is decentralized Government, but you forget that we already tried that in the Articles of Confederation it lasted 6 years before it collapsed in a total mess. We are not going to start replacing a system that's proven to work with a system that doesn't. If we did, things segregation and Jim Crow would still be legal in the South.
All the Government is saying is you can observe your religion has long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others. And as I already pointed out, the defendants have no basis to claim freedom of religion as the Bible only forbids homosexual sexual acts. If the bible forbade congregating with Homosexuals then I'd the defendants have more of a legal arguement.
This case is about preserving a right to hate as a religous right, which as a Christian myself I find blasphemous.
There is only one official place that can interpretation the Constutition and thats the USSC. That's how we avoid twisting the Constution's meaning, by following their interpretations. And your mistaken about the Founding Fathers as well, the FF believed in a STRONG Federal Government just looks at the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington had no moral issue in using the Federal Government in squashing individual rights if those rights went against the Constitution. We have always been a country with a strong Federal Government, which absolutely has the right in certain cases to infringe upon individual freedom. That is neither new nor shocking.
What you are arguing is decentralized Government, but you forget that we already tried that in the Articles of Confederation it lasted 6 years before it collapsed in a total mess. We are not going to start replacing a system that's proven to work with a system that doesn't. If we did, things segregation and Jim Crow would still be legal in the South.
All the Government is saying is you can observe your religion has long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others. And as I already pointed out, the defendants have no basis to claim freedom of religion as the Bible only forbids homosexual sexual acts. If the bible forbade congregating with Homosexuals then I'd the defendants have more of a legal arguement.
This case is about preserving a right to hate as a religous right, which as a Christian myself I find blasphemous.
Last edited:
I see that you are what L. Neil Smith (Google him) calls a HAMILTONIAN. On the other hand, I am definitely a LIBERTARIAN. Since you pulled in George Washington, I feel free to pull in Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, whose views represent the other side of the coin. The founding fathers though united in their love of freedom, had different ways of expressing that love, some of which were rather more Authoritarian than others.
On the topic of generations, the commonly accepted definition is one generation per twenty years or so, which for 79 years makes four generations. The fact that the 14th has been twisted beyond the intent of the framers is revealed simply by the word "state" rather than "federal". The intent was clearly to prevent states from passing discriminatory laws rather than to prevent individuals from discriminating. In the case of the photographers, their rights under the 1st and 9th were clearly violated, with the possibility of dragging in the 10th "or to the people" as well. So far as testing Constitutionality goes, can you really rely upon a SCOTUS (you incorrectly said USSC) which is packed with persons who despise the notion of strict construction rather than conservatives to defend the Constitution? The answer is obviously no! Judges are not the Pope with guaranteed infallibility. They often have political axes to grind in favor of the political party which got them appointed.
Notice that there is a gap of 61 years between Amendments 12 and 13, while only five years passed between 13 and 15. Then 43 years passed until 16 in 1913. The infamous 18 was passed in 1919 and repealed in 1933 by popular demand.
Since you implied that I am prejudiced by dragging in "segregation and Jim Crow", I feel compelled to say that I am NOT particularly prejudiced, but I AM discriminatory. This is not to say that I despise people based upon race, which I call in the name of an engineer from Africa named Segun Thomas with whom I worked at JSC as an example of an interracial friendship. Racial prejudice is not restricted to whites alone, nor is class prejudice restricted to the wealthy. There is no need to point out that religious prejudice is rampant - just try changing religions and hear comments about coming to your senses to confirm that. As an engineer I of course regard all lawyers, politicians etc. as beneath contempt, an example of occupational prejudice. You cannot change behaviors ingrained in society by passing laws - all that accomplishes is to make lawyers fat.
I am strongly for a decentralized government because the behemoth federal government is eating the nation out of house and home. It needs to be starved back to 10% or less of GDP as soon as possible. Advances in technology (particularly computers) make that possible. When the next President takes office, he (or she) can look forward to a rough ride!:tank:
Lonnie Courtney Clay
http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/index.html
Litmus test on equality for women, to be taken by prejudiced men.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Missileer
Active member
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 Costitution.
Marinerhodes
Active member
I am wondering if it is possible these persons can sue the state of NM on the basis that their Anti-Gay discrimination laws infringe on their right to practice their religion.
If you look at it the way I am it seems as if the state is trampling all over those folks' right to practice their religion. Whatever the bible may or may not state their religious beliefs may state that the marriage of anything other than a man and woman is false. One could argue that if they contribute to this "sin" in anyway then they are condoning the sin of that marriage thus sinning by proxy.
This can be argued any number of ways. I personally feel the lawsuit is total bullcrap. I personally feel the state law is total bullcrap as it DOES trample a persons right to express and practice THEIR religious beliefs which in this case is a mainstream religion and not some wierd and small subsect.
Argue it how you will. These people got screwed by the bureaucracy plain and simple in my opinion.
If you look at it the way I am it seems as if the state is trampling all over those folks' right to practice their religion. Whatever the bible may or may not state their religious beliefs may state that the marriage of anything other than a man and woman is false. One could argue that if they contribute to this "sin" in anyway then they are condoning the sin of that marriage thus sinning by proxy.
This can be argued any number of ways. I personally feel the lawsuit is total bullcrap. I personally feel the state law is total bullcrap as it DOES trample a persons right to express and practice THEIR religious beliefs which in this case is a mainstream religion and not some wierd and small subsect.
Argue it how you will. These people got screwed by the bureaucracy plain and simple in my opinion.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Marinerhodes
Active member
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.
Missileer
Active member
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.
The Other Guy
Spam King
try the thumbs up. :thumb:
mmarsh
Active member
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.:bang: