On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

Court: Christian Photogs Can't Refuse Gay Marriage

The ironic part is that New Mexico, where this case took place, doesn't even recognize same sex marriage. This kind of thing is exactly why elections matter - so we can get good judges.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that it is illegal for a photography business owned by Christians to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony—even though New Mexico law does not permit same-sex marriage. The court based its judgment on the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which makes it illegal “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here

7 comments:

Sue said...

Lord help us.

Erin Welther said...

What I don't understand about these kind of lawsuits is that the company isn't discriminating against people, it's simply making a decision on what kinds of business to engage in. If 2 same gender heterosexual people wanted to hire the company to photograph their "wedding" the company would have still refused.

Pattymelt said...

So I guess the court is trying to get all Christians with consciences out of business. Sad day isn't it, when our government officials haven't any morals or straight thinking---

Anonymous said...

Based on their own law where you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation, it also says you cannot discriminate against religion. So the two classes would be equal according to their own law. Couldn't they use that law in their favor?

Anonymous said...

Based on their own law where you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation, it also says you cannot discriminate against religion. So the two classes would be equal according to their own law. Couldn't they use that law in their favor?

Clinton said...

I recall when my own state chose to add the
category of 'sexual orientation' as a protected
group to its version of the NMHRA. Several groups
questioned the inclusion of 'sexual orientation' and
predicted just this sort of scenario as an inevitable
outcome.

Naturally, they were derided as Cassandras at best,
accused of clutching at straws because of their
homophobia at worst. And so the law passed....

Fred said...

Perhaps the Courts can compel the performance of the service, but what power do they have to compel quality service? Give those fags a photo album of that terrible day that no one will ever forget!


Popular Posts