NM Supreme Court rules, Photogs can't refuse Gay Weddings

[NotNow]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.

What portion of the Bill of Rights applies to this case?  Other than the Tenth of course, which is normally ignored by the federal government.

[NotNow]

I believe this is obviously a case which resides in the "state" side of things.  The Federal Government has not added homosexuality as a protected class in civil liberties law.  I don't believe that New Mexico has either.  It is my understanding that gay marriage is only legal in a few NM counties.   Sounds pretty muddled to me.  I can't blame them as I am pretty "muddled" on the subject myself.

[carpnter]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.

What portion of the Bill of Rights applies to this case?  Other than the Tenth of course, which is normally ignored by the federal government.

The First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was incorporated to apply to the states by Supreme Court rulings.

If the state can force a person to render photography services to a gay couple getting married when they believe it to be contrary to their religious beliefs, they can just as easily require a church to allow a gay couple to get married in the church and require its pastor to conduct the ceremony. 

[NotNow]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.

What portion of the Bill of Rights applies to this case?  Other than the Tenth of course, which is normally ignored by the federal government.

The First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was incorporated to apply to the states by Supreme Court rulings.

If the state can force a person to render photography services to a gay couple getting married when they believe it to be contrary to their religious beliefs, they can just as easily require a church to allow a gay couple to get married in the church and require its pastor to conduct the ceremony. 

The Federal government has not found homosexuals to be a "protected class", therefore no federal discrimination laws apply in this case.  I assume that NM has such an anti-discrimination law in place.  Does anyone know?  Otherwise, you are right carpnter, I would be interested to hear the basis for the courts decision.

[Cheshire Cat]

What is clear to me at least is that our laws are conflicted when it comes to this issue and others.  As was already pointed out, we do have laws that protect some in society based upon their race/color and gender when it comes to protecting the rights of women.  In this case the issue is protecting those who are GLBT from some of the same prejudice that the laws based on color were created for.  I think what is so frustrating and really what underlies the injustice with a situation like this is the understanding that we as a society have failed to reach the point where we accept people for who they are.  The fact that some people are unable to do that is what led to laws that attempted to correct societies moral compass and as such the civil rights of others. We are not there yet and have much growing to do.

While I get why this couple took the issue of being turned down by a photographer because of their sexual orientation to court on one hand, that being "the principal of the thing and rights", on the other I wonder if the better course of action is for folks to make a statement by "not patronizing" businesses that do not adhere to our personal code of ethics.  I think changing how society responds via public outcry and support or non support of businesses may be the way to achieve real change at a level that matters.  Personally, I would never want to do business with any one who did not respect me.   

[NotNow]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.

What portion of the Bill of Rights applies to this case?  Other than the Tenth of course, which is normally ignored by the federal government.

The First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was incorporated to apply to the states by Supreme Court rulings.

If the state can force a person to render photography services to a gay couple getting married when they believe it to be contrary to their religious beliefs, they can just as easily require a church to allow a gay couple to get married in the church and require its pastor to conduct the ceremony. 

The Federal government has not found homosexuals to be a "protected class", therefore no federal discrimination laws apply in this case.  I assume that NM has such an anti-discrimination law in place.  Does anyone know?  Otherwise, you are right carpnter, I would be interested to hear the basis for the courts decision.

Constitution Check.  We are all a protected class, nn.  Just FYI.

No, we are not.  The government has designated "protected classes" of persons.  It has even instituted race based bias in the name of "Affirmative Action".  That is legally required racial discrimination.  Millions of dollars have been awardedby various state and federal based on discrimination of against these classes.   

We are definitely not all "protected". 

[NotNow]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.

What portion of the Bill of Rights applies to this case?  Other than the Tenth of course, which is normally ignored by the federal government.

The First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was incorporated to apply to the states by Supreme Court rulings.

If the state can force a person to render photography services to a gay couple getting married when they believe it to be contrary to their religious beliefs, they can just as easily require a church to allow a gay couple to get married in the church and require its pastor to conduct the ceremony. 

The Federal government has not found homosexuals to be a "protected class", therefore no federal discrimination laws apply in this case.  I assume that NM has such an anti-discrimination law in place.  Does anyone know?  Otherwise, you are right carpnter, I would be interested to hear the basis for the courts decision.

Constitution Check.  We are all a protected class, nn.  Just FYI.

No, we are not.  The government has designated "protected classes" of persons.  It has even instituted race based bias in the name of "Affirmative Action".  That is legally required racial discrimination.  Millions of dollars have been awardedby various state and federal based on discrimination of against these classes.   

We are definitely not all "protected".

Actually it works a bit differently than you seem to think.  We all have equal protection, but there are penalties associated with certain kinds of discrimination.  The penalty isnt an onus of protection around an individual american citizen, but an onus of penalty for certain kinds of discriminatory behavior.

Classes arent protected.  Certain kinds of discrimination are punished.  Thats the way it works.

OK, so when a white person is discriminated against because of their race, what is the punishment?

[JayBird]

^ checkmate 

[spuwho]

For those interested, a copy of the formal legal complaint is found here:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

Reading through the facts presented through copies of the emails that passed between them might prove interesting.

There used to be a sign businesses used to post inside that said "We retain the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason". I wonder if anyone can hang those up anymore.

The legal costs the photog was forced to pay on behalf of the gay couple was $6700.

[NotNow]

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 2574 (1976). Two White employees and one Black employee were charged with stealing property from their employer. The two White employees were fired while the Black employee was retained. In the first big reverse discrimination case, the Court decided that Title VII is not limited to discrimination against minority persons, but includes discriminatory actions against majority persons as well.

As was pointed out before editing, the laws and court decisions on this subject go both ways.  It is a muddled area of law.  The Obama administration seems to be pushing for "protected class" status for at least homosexuality.  We will have to wait to obseve the societal consequences of such an action.

By the way, "protected status" classes means that if someone of such a class is descriminated against, ostensibly because of their class status, then the offending party is subject to penalties decided by the state.  "State sponsored discrimination" on the other hand, is when a government allows or mandates that certain "classes" be selected over others.  As crazy as it sounds, both practices are currently in use in this country.  In a perfect world, the first would not be required.  The second should never be allowed to happen.

[FlowerPower]

I think the court was correct in its ruling.  Non-discrimination laws are on the books to protect people who are not doing anything but existing from other people's actions.  I have grown tired of people trying to make the argument that somehow their "religious liberties" are being infringed upon when really they are only attempting to make excuses for their own biases and resulting bad behaviors directed against categories of people.  When someone chooses to discriminate against someone because of a characteristic they have (race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, etc.) in the areas of work place, housing, and public accommodation,  the persons who experience the discrimination are harmed by the actions of the discriminating party.  This is a real harm that could be compared to other crimes like harassment, bullying, assault, theft etc.   There are real world consequences from discrimination that harm our civil fabric.  Having a religious belief does not give one the right to engage in behavior that harms people. 

[NotNow]

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 2574 (1976). Two White employees and one Black employee were charged with stealing property from their employer. The two White employees were fired while the Black employee was retained. In the first big reverse discrimination case, the Court decided that Title VII is not limited to discrimination against minority persons, but includes discriminatory actions against majority persons as well.

As was pointed out before editing, the laws and court decisions on this subject go both ways.  It is a muddled area of law.  The Obama administration seems to be pushing for "protected class" status for at least homosexuality.  We will have to wait to obseve the societal consequences of such an action.

By the way, "protected status" classes means that if someone of such a class is descriminated against, ostensibly because of their class status, then the offending party is subject to penalties decided by the state.  "State sponsored discrimination" on the other hand, is when a government allows or mandates that certain "classes" be selected over others.  As crazy as it sounds, both practices are currently in use in this country.  In a perfect world, the first would not be required.  The second should never be allowed to happen.

That is absolutely not the truth, notnow.  There are no protected classes.  There is a penalty for discrimination.  The penalty does not occur because of the existence of the races, genders or faiths.  The penalty occurs because we are all entitled to our Constitutional and Civil Rights.  The law enumerates a few broad categories in which our society has seen massive and widespread abuse.  Such as lynching, hanging, beating and killing people in a widespread and systematic way based on those categories.  Also evicting, falsely imprisoning and forcing to work for substandard wages or compensation in a deliberate and widespread pattern designed to keep that group of people at a disadvantage.

It is a falsehood to continue to propagate this nonsense about 'protected' classes.  The laws do not 'protect' anyone.  They penalize evil doers.

With all due respect, I would refer you to the formal complaint that spuwho provided us with a link to:

13. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice
for "any person in a public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering
or refusing to offer its services ...to any person because of..sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, §
28-1-7(F) (emphasis added). To prevail in a discrimination claim brought under Section 28-1-7 of
the NMHRA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally discriminated against
the plaintiff because of his or her protected class membership. See Sonntag v. Shaw, 2001-
NMSC-015, '111, 130 N.M. 238, 22 P.3d 1188; Smith v. FDC, 109 NM. at 517, 787 P.2d at 436.

"Protected class" are not my words, they are the words that the courts have used in numerous cases to refer to those categories of persons that the various legislatures designate in these types of laws.  One can simply "google" the phrase.  It is defined in the National Archives under EEO Terminology:

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.


Thanks for the link spuwho, the NM law is clearly stated to include homosexual and bi-sexual persons.  Thus, in NM, it IS illegal to discriminate (not do business with) such persons.  Individual state decision, as it should be.

[NotNow]

I am aware that facts do nothing to change your mind.   I will point to just a few more items besides the reference in the court case we are discussing, as well as the definition of the term in the National Archives:

From Michigan Tech:

http://www.mtu.edu/equity/need-know/protected-groups/

From Attorneys.com:

http://www.attorneys.com/discrimination/what-are-protected-classes/

And of course, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

I really don't want to waste anymore of mine or anyone else's time with this diversion.  It is not what the thread is about.  The facts about what "protected class" means and where it is used are clear.

The important point that I was TRYING to make was that the tenth amendment clearly makes this a State issue and it looks like New Mexico has a clear law regarding these situations.

[NotNow]

Here, by the way, is the definition of criminal offenses under the civil rights act.

Civil Law has its own bizarre twists and situational turns, and finding some coherent sense of tort law is a lot more ephemeral than you would like to make it sound.

But the criminal understanding of Civil Rights is as follows
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/

The Criminal Section prosecutes cases involving the violent interference with liberties and rights defined in the Constitution or federal law. The rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected. In general, it is the use of force, threats, or intimidation that characterize a federal criminal violation of an individual's civil rights.

Our cases often involve incidents that are invariably of intense public interest. While some violations may most appropriately be pursued by the federal Government, others can be addressed by either the federal Government or by state or local prosecutors. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that acts constituting federal criminal civil rights violations are sufficiently remedied, whether prosecuted federally or by local authorities.

It falls in line with exactly what has been explained to you. 

Two things:

1.  The discussion of the term "protected classes" has nothing to do with your quote.  There is no discernable relationship.  Your quote, which you described as a "definition", is not a definition at all.  You have simply referenced the "mission statement" of the criminal side of the DOJ civil rights division.

2.  The case we are discussing, and ALL that we have discussed, is civil law, not criminal.  We are discussing DISCRIMINATION in this case referencing a New Mexico "public accomodation" but it would be applicable to employment and other areas as well.  Your quote references CRIMINAL law which involves "the violent interference with liberties and rights defined in the Constitution or federal law." 

I don't claim to be an attorney, but I am well trained in discriminatory practices.  I hope that I have been able to clarify both the use of the term "protected classes" as well as the difference between "criminal" and "civil" law in these cases. 

[NotNow]

Sorry, Notnow, but no cigar.  It is merely the wording of a court opinion in a civil lawsuit in a State Court.  If I recall, you believe that State Courts should have the greater say in how to interpret their own laws, so I find it curious that you are questioning the decisions of this state body.

But it is not representative of US Civil Rights or Discrimination as Law.  That is why there is an appeals court and a legal process of judicial review.

One could do the same thing by pulling statements of NRA members and then trying to explain that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to kill native americans.

Also,  if you would read my posts, you would see that I have repeatedly stated that this issue should be decided by the states.   I have also stated that the New Mexico court handled this case appropriately according to the state law there.

Your NRA statement is literally nonsensical.