New Mexico Supreme Court rules that a Christian woman who runs her own photography business can't make definitions on which kinds of wedding business she will take on. As one of the Justices said "There is a price we all have to pay in our civic life"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html
In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies.
"When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said in a unanimous verdict.
The court rejected each of photographer's Elaine Huguenin's arguments, particularly one in which Huguenin had argued that her refusal did not discriminate against same-sex customers. Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn't shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage.
The court rejected any legal differentiation between homosexuality and homosexual conduct.
"The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual's sexual orientation on the individual's conduct," wrote Justice Edward Chávez. "To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA."
In the court's view, saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers.
The court also rejected Huguenin's free speech argument, saying that the NMHRA does not compel speech. "They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws." Likewise, the court said, the law doesn't regulate the content of the photographs. "The NMHRA does not mandate that Elane Photography choose to take wedding pictures; that is the exclusive choice of Elane Photography."
But it is Justice Richard Bosson's concurring opinion, not the majority opinion, that is already getting the most attention. The Huguenins, he wrote "now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views."
He continued:
The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.
In a press statement, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, who represented Elane Photography in the case, said the decision was a step toward tyranny. "Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country," he said. "This decision is a blow to our client and every American's right to live free."**
I don't think its right to have a business, setup a "shingle" to tell everyone you are available and then tell certain people you won't serve them. This is wrong regardless of what the photogs beliefs are. There is no tyranny here, just a recognition that we can't discriminate in this way. Taking pictures of a gay wedding is not an endorsement of someone else's private decisions.
This is a stunningly bad decision.
I believe living your life as you see fit and without harming another person is fundamental. However, when did someone get the "right" to force a private business to take wedding photos? Using the same logic the court did, if a gay photographer refused to photograph a fundamentalist church retreat, that would be discrimination. In both instances, the photographer should just be able to say no and the other party can find another photographer.
^ at first read I agreed, people whom have certain moral or religious beliefs should not be forced to go against those just to operate a business, but then I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it is no better than someone denying work at a wedding because it was an interracial marriage. Perhaps the decision would've been wiser to be written as "may not deny work based on sexual orientation". Keep in mind, this can still occur. Using this situation as an example all the photog has to do is say that they have another obligation.
Quote from: FSBA on August 28, 2013, 08:27:20 AM
This is a stunningly bad decision.
I believe living your life as you see fit and without harming another person is fundamental. However, when did someone get the "right" to force a private business to take wedding photos? Using the same logic the court did, if a gay photographer refused to photograph a fundamentalist church retreat, that would be discrimination. In both instances, the photographer should just be able to say no and the other party can find another photographer.
I agree, the court got this one wrong. You cannot deny someone their rights (religious freedom) in order to grant someone else a right. I've always been a fan of the saying "Your rights stop at my nose." The rights of one person should never affect the rights of another person.
Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?
I believe it should be up to each state to decide "protected classes". Personally, I would limit those quite a bit. I still believe that declaring homosexuality a "protected class" leads us down a dangerous road, but to be honest, I don't have another solution to offer either.
Perhaps we need to think "outside of the box" and come up with another way to provide for such protections.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 28, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?
Since the objection was to gay marriage, it would seem to be more accurate to say "should a restaurant owner be able to refuse to host a gay wedding reception using religious freedom as the reason?
Again, using the system that our forefathers gave us, this is a state matter. IMHO.
So a black man owning a catering service can't refuse to cater to an Klan wedding reception? He would have to compromise his conscience to the "contrasting values of others"?
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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.
I'm all for states making their own rulings, doesn't mean I can't roll my eyes at it.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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?
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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?
Agreed, this is a state issue.
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 28, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?
Since the objection was to gay marriage, it would seem to be more accurate to say "should a restaurant owner be able to refuse to host a gay wedding reception using religious freedom as the reason?
Again, using the system that our forefathers gave us, this is a state matter.
Or a black one, for that matter.
Not the same thing. IMHO.
Well, actually that is not true. If the state of New Mexico chooses to make homosexuality a "protected class" just as race, sex, age, etc., then it would be the same. I just don't see it as the same myself. I'm still grappelling with how to handle this myself. I am interested in the ideas of others.
I didn't know that. Which religions prohibit mixed racial marriage?
Also, note my correction to my original post.
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 02:18:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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".
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 02:45:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 02:18:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 28, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 28, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
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?
^ checkmate ;)
For those interested, a copy of the formal legal complaint is found here:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf (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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 03:03:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 28, 2013, 03:03:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 12:53:23 PM
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/
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 12:49:43 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 01:28:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 12:53:23 PM
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/
QuoteThe 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. ;)
Just...wow. ::)
Quote from: FlowerPower on August 31, 2013, 11:37:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 07:00:58 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 07:24:16 PM
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?
[/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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 07:35:16 PM
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?
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 07:38:15 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 31, 2013, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 07:24:16 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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.
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:56:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 31, 2013, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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.
If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige. The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings. So the case is about what happened in this instance. Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics. Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed. It is the law in New Mexico.
Quote from: NotNow on September 01, 2013, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 31, 2013, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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.
If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige. The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings. So the case is about what happened in this instance. Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics. Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed. It is the law in New Mexico.
If you've read my previous posts you'd already know that I've read the emails, the original complaint and the judgement. I agree with the original complaint; I disagree with the judgement. I think it sets a horrible precedent.
And again, how can the state dictate what 'types' of business the photographer is 'supposed' to accept? Had the same couple asked for some general head shots, there wouldn't have been a problem, so technically it's not a 'person' being discriminated against, but an activity that the photog refuses to shoot. Maybe she won't take pictures of a traditional Baptist baptism (full body immersion), but takes pictures of the more subdued Methodist version (holy water sprinkling on the forehead), should she be forced to take pictures of both?
I can give you plenty of scenarios from both sides, it doesn't change my opinion, and if I had a JD and a valid license to practice law in NM, you bet your ass that I'm quitting my job as an ambulance chaser and taking up the 'equal rights' fight for the 'protected classes' in NM.
Edit:
Are you gay, black, jewish? Need wedding pictures? Call 1-800-Ask-Tony for your free wedding photos with a side of a civil trial.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 31, 2013, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:56:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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
Thanks NRW, now I see what he was trying to say. I am not familiar enough with the New Mexico law to agree or disagree with the statement. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruling clearly identified the portion of the statute which applied to this case and clearly defined the protected class:
The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain
defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add "sexual
orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. "Sexual orientation" is defined in the NMHRA as "heterosexuality,
homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." Section 28-1-2(P). In this case,
we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that person's real or perceived homosexuality—that person's propensity to experience
feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.
So "straight" or heterosexual would seem to be a protected class, but there is no mention of celibacy, impotecy, or hermphraditic, so I can only assume they would not be protected by the law.
The New Mexico ruling can be found here:
http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 01, 2013, 12:14:02 AM
Quote from: NotNow on September 01, 2013, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 31, 2013, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: NotNow on August 31, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
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.
If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige. The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings. So the case is about what happened in this instance. Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics. Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed. It is the law in New Mexico.
If you've read my previous posts you'd already know that I've read the emails, the original complaint and the judgement. I agree with the original complaint; I disagree with the judgement. I think it sets a horrible precedent.
And again, how can the state dictate what 'types' of business the photographer is 'supposed' to accept? Had the same couple asked for some general head shots, there wouldn't have been a problem, so technically it's not a 'person' being discriminated against, but an activity that the photog refuses to shoot. Maybe she won't take pictures of a traditional Baptist baptism (full body immersion), but takes pictures of the more subdued Methodist version (holy water sprinkling on the forehead), should she be forced to take pictures of both?
I can give you plenty of scenarios from both sides, it doesn't change my opinion, and if I had a JD and a valid license to practice law in NM, you bet your ass that I'm quitting my job as an ambulance chaser and taking up the 'equal rights' fight for the 'protected classes' in NM.
Edit:
Are you gay, black, jewish? Need wedding pictures? Call 1-800-Ask-Tony for your free wedding photos with a side of a civil trial.
Please explain how you agree with the complaint but disagree with the judgement? The business provides a service. The state has a law that you can not refuse business based on trait described in that law. The business refused service based on one of those protected traits. The business was required to pay the legal bills of the plantiff. In this case, the plantiff declined any punitive damages and simply wished to make the point.
Now, one may or may not agree with adding "sexual preference" or any other trait to the state's list of protected classes, but that is another matter.
All well and good, NN, but I still can't agree with the ruling for the simple reason that ,technically, a person or person(s) was/were never discriminated against, but photographing an act by those people was refused. And the court decided to interpret that as a discriminatory act against the plaintiff.
Here's my simplified long and short of it:
If a gay couple had asked for a straight wedding to be shot, no problem.
If a straight couple had asked for a gay wedding to be shot, not happening.
No person has been discriminated against. A photographer is choosing what she will or will not take pictures of. She will do business with anyone, but she has just been bitchslapped by the NMSC and told that she has to shoot certain events as asked or risks going back to court.
IMO, a horrible precedent to set.
What happens when she turns down another couple for a ceremony, stating busy schedule, but doesn't have the paper trail to back it up? Is she discriminating on purpose or is it truly a scheduling conflict? What about if she changes her price? Is it only because the next client is black or did she really raise prices across the board?
I see. But that is why we have courts. So that when someone feels they have been slighted and they feel they have legal recourse it is up to the courts to decide what the truth of the matter is.
Quote from: NotNow on September 01, 2013, 12:49:24 AM
I see. But that is why we have courts. So that when someone feels they have been slighted and they feel they have legal recourse it is up to the courts to decide what the truth of the matter is.
No doubt.
In this case in particular, I feel the court is incorrect.
I think the court is correct. I'm not so sure about the law.
Quote from: NotNow on September 01, 2013, 01:09:41 AM
I think the court is correct. I'm not so sure about the law.
I can see that being a fair assessment as well.
Either way, after a bit more research, I believe that the NMSC erred to the side of caution on this one, which BTW was settled in '08, because of the many contentions in their 'vague' laws defining what constitutes a legal marriage:
QuoteNew Mexico county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
Posted by Justin Snow
August 21, 2013 12:32 PM | Permalink
A county clerk in New Mexico announced Wednesday that he would start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in what is the latest development in years-long saga regarding the state's ambiguous marriage laws.
ellins.jpgDoña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins said after carefully examining the state's marriage laws he has determined that they are gender neutral and that same-sex couples are permitted to marry in New Mexico.
"Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act," Ellins said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry."
New Mexico is the only state in the nation that does not recognize nor prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages, which has led to a long history of challenges to New Mexico's ambiguous marriage laws. On Feb. 20, 2004, the clerk in Sandoval County, N.M., issued marriage licenses to 64 same-sex couples before ordered to stop by the state attorney general. Since that decision, county clerks have not issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the state has been vague about whether state law permits same-sex marriage, leading advocates to take their fight to the courts and Legislature.
In March, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss and City Councilor Patti Bushee announced that they would sponsor a resolution calling on county clerks across the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and a series of lawsuits seeking to legalize same-sex marriage have been pending in the state.
In July, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the federal government's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) announced a new effort to go directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court to clarify the state's vague marriage laws. Earlier this month, New Mexico's highest court denied that request in order to allow lower courts to consider the issue first. The New Mexico Supreme Court has now been asked to consolidate all cases regarding same-sex marriage in the state in order to get a prompt lower-court decision and take the issue to the high court.
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/08/new-mexico-county-clerk-to-issue-marriage-licenses.html
Agreed. They have a mess out there. But God, what a beautiful state. I love that part of the country.