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

[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.

you havent made your original point, but it has been corrected anyways.

Are you drinking?

My "original point" is that this type of case is an issue that should, per the tenth amendment, be left to the states.  Thanks to spuwho's link, it is apparent that the NM court acted in accordance with their state law.  If you don't feel this is the case, I would be interested in hearing why you think so.

"Protected class", as I have pointed out through numerous references to both governmental and legal sites, is an accepted term in this field of law, with a well defined meaning, which was also quoted.

The only reference you gave, made no sense, had nothing to do with the subject, and referenced an area of law that did not apply and was not discussed in the thread.

Sounds like you had a few beers for lunch to me. 

[NotNow]

Just...wow.   

[carpnter]

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.

What harm was done by this woman refusing to photograph the wedding?  They can go find another photographer to do their wedding, there was no harm done.  You cannot protect the rights of one group at the expense of the rights of another group of people. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Too bad any relevant dialogue has been pretty much ground to a standstill by the NN/SD pissing contest that typically happens whenever the word constitution is even hinted at...

JFC, I wish you two would just get a room, preferably a fully stocked law office (chrisuf??), a bottle of scotch, some herbal tea,  no internet access and just debate the absolute shit out of one another.  It's only a tad distracting, but it takes away from the actual 'topic' at hand.





Damn,  I forgot what I originally set out to type.....




Something along the lines of my not agreeing with the court's opinion, but in this case is was a blatant case of discrimination.  It shouldn't matter how a refusal is worded, discrimination is just that and a private business should be able to choose who they wish to do business or whom to not. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Whats the harm in just photographing the wedding?  Or at least keeping the bigotry to themselves?  I guess the 'we are over scheduled and cant make the time for it' excuse couldnt have worked?

I thought the same thing, but when you boil it down, it's still discrimination, only worded differently.

Much like charging different prices depending on your customer.

And this is why I'm having a difficult time with this issue in particular.  I think that businesses should have the right to do business with whomever they choose, but that doesn't mean that I approve of the blatant discrimination shown.  I also don't approve of the message sent by the court to the rest of business owners, it kind of takes away their freedoms for the benefit of others.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I see it. 

Can I go in the privately owned pharmacy that leases space at St. Vincent's and buy condoms or pick up my gf's birth control prescription?

Same concept. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Not really.  If the company doesnt sell that thing, then you can't buy it.

And that's my point, thanks.

Elane Photography doesn't 'sell' wedding packages of same-sex couples.  Technically, I suppose one could/should have proven that it's not that she wouldn't have done business with them, but that her studio just doesn't offer that type of photography package. 

Unfortunately, you can't take the discrimination out of the equation, but IMO, businesses should be allowed to discriminate.  NM is saying they don't have that choice anymore.  And there's where my inner-conflict is coming from. 

And I know that this is about a same-sex couple, but would it have been different if it had been a black couple?  An obese couple?  A down's syndrome couple?

[FlowerPower]

[/quote]
What harm was done by this woman refusing to photograph the wedding?  They can go find another photographer to do their wedding, there was no harm done.  You cannot protect the rights of one group at the expense of the rights of another group of people. 
[/quote]

Carpnter, using your logic no harm was done to the young Black men who were refused service at the Woolworth lunch counter years ago, they should have just ate at home.  I would hope you would agree that that is not something that should be permitted any longer? 

When this woman discriminated against this gay couple and she made it about their sexual orientation--she was no longer discriminating against two people--she was writing off a whole group of people and sending a message that people who are gay are not welcome in basic public accommodation. She has to be aware she is not running a private club that has the right to set who it serves.  She was putting herself above the law and putting her own biased needs over the safety and well being of those who sought services from her. 

It's similar to when additional "hate crime" charges are added in some criminal case because the assailant specifically targeted an individual because of his or her bias being against a particular class.  The impact of the crime is much greater because it does not just harm the individual attacked but anyone who might share the same characteristic. 

It may be easy to rationalize and say that someone should accept the discrimination and just pick up and go to the next business and go on about their merry way, but no other group has settled for that response in the long run.  This is exactly why there was a push to amend Jacksonville's Human Rights Ordinance. 

I have a unfortunately seen several cases of discrimination that have had severe consequences for those who were victimized.   I have worked with young people who have been fired when it was learned they were gay and their loss of income also led to them losing their housing.  Once on the streets, they didn't have many options for survival.  Discrimination destroys lives and those who perpetrate it deserve to be punished. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Now as it happens, I disagree with the circumstances of the state law in New Mexico.  I think this was handled badly and deliberately set up by the plaintiffs, who in my opinion acted in bad faith as well as abominable manners.

But it is their state law, not US Constitutional law.  Let them work it out and see what the eventual outcome is.  While it won't be a precedent for any other state, it will be an interesting discussion politically none the less.

But, surprisingly, that's where we're disagreeing.  I honestly think that the couple has every right to pursue a discrimination case, because clearly, they were discriminated against.  I'm just shocked that the court sided in favor with them on the grounds it did.  The laws of unintended consequence can potentially flood the NM court system with similar cases. 

And who does it really benefit (other than the attorney's that are going to chase the cases to collect billable hours)?

Jax had a very similar situation just recently regarding the Hands On museum, no?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Not really.  If the company doesnt sell that thing, then you can't buy it.

And that's my point, thanks.

Elane Photography doesn't 'sell' wedding packages of same-sex couples.  Technically, I suppose one could/should have proven that it's not that she wouldn't have done business with them, but that her studio just doesn't offer that type of photography package. 

Unfortunately, you can't take the discrimination out of the equation, but IMO, businesses should be allowed to discriminate.  NM is saying they don't have that choice anymore.  And there's where my inner-conflict is coming from. 

And I know that this is about a same-sex couple, but would it have been different if it had been a black couple?  An obese couple?  A down's syndrome couple?

It is the opposite of your point actually.  Are we supposed to ignore the preposition?

The problem is that they do sell a product.

They just refuse to sell that product to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation in contradiction to the state laws of New Mexico.

Its like saying that Cracker barrel doesnt sell meals intended for black people.  Its really a cheap semantic game and beneath you.

Let's take the race out of it and apply the same line of thinking to 'regular people':

So if an overweight, straight couple comes in to ask about a 'boudoir' package that some of their not-fat, straight friends just showed off and recommended Elane, but were told no.... 

Do they have a case to take to the NMSC?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

wow.  really?

How is it different?

[NotNow]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

But if you put it in the context of the  photog not refusing her services due to their sexual preference, but as to what she was being asked to shoot, then they shouldn't have a case at all.  Hence my issue with the entire series of events.

This is why I bring up the issue outside of race or sexual preference. 

[NotNow]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

or straight. or a celibate priest, or impotent, or hermaphroditic. 

It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

or straight. or a celibate priest, or impotent, or hermaphroditic. 

It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

Here goes the pissing contest.... 

Let me help you out, NN:   therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual or straight. or a celibate priest, or impotent, or hermaphroditic. person because of their sexual preference