So, churches won't be forced to do gay weddings?

[280plus]

You still refuse to answer my questions 280. How very surprising. rolleyes

What questions? Restate them...

I'm saying yes, the laws should be followed, if you don't like the laws change them. What's inconsistent about that?

No see, I'm going to do everything I can to see that A. Obama doesn't get into office in the first place and B. If he does I'll do everything I can to thwart his attempts to disarm us.

You defend the laws surrounding anti-discrimination only because you think you're able to outsmart them when they would apply to you (via quoting an "astronomical price") and because they don't offer explicit protection to the people you are most interested in discriminating against.

Yes, when I look at a job (NOT the person) that I'm not particularly interested in I will quote a high price. I do not, nor have I ever, done that as a means to discriminate against someone's race, creed or sexual orientation. There's the difference. That doesn't mean others don't. She paid thousands of dollars because she was discriminating against their sexual preferences and as a person who provides a public service, that is an illegal action according to the laws in her area.  It's really not that hard to understand. She's not a "private citizen" when she's acting in the role of providing photography services to the public. They contend that what she did was no different than a restaurant or hotel refusing them their services based on their sexual orientation. I agree with them. Or do we want to go back to the times when there were white restaurants and black restaurants? Not me.

I didn't say the gov should punish you I said they are bound to do so and will if there is a law in place that prohibits a particular activity. The gov didn't put the law in place,  people did. Also not hard to understand

I'm arguing that if a law is in place and people feel it's wrong or unconstitutional they must do what they can to remove it from the books, not violate it because they don't agree with it. It just makes her another scofflaw, but one that got caught.

Again, it's not against the law to discriminate against discriminatory people so I could refuse to work for her, tell her exactly why and be perfectly well within the law. I haven't discriminated against her race, religion or sexual preferences. Don't like it? Add a law to the books that says I can't be a bigot to a bigot.

 I didn't say "It 's the law so it must be right ." I said "It's the law so it must be obeyed until it is no longer a law." I mean, go ahead and disobey it but be ready to face the consequences if you get caught.

Finally, at no time did I say anyone's position around here is "wrong" I said I disagree with them. So we'll just all have to agree to disagree on this.

Personally, I'm thinking the horse is just about dead and I don't have time to sit here and refute your arguments ad nauseum.  Especially when I see people just trying to twist things I said around and put words into my mouth.

[BrokenPaw]

Or do we want to go back to the times when there were white restaurants and black restaurants? Not me.

Different times.  Back then, black people had essentially no financial clout whatsoever, and were in that position because of a governmental policy that was beyond their control.  So there was no "free market" to decide.

Things would be different, today.  I'd have no problem at all repealing the "you must serve people of all colors" laws that apply to restaurants and so forth.  Let a business try to post a "no blacks" sign in the window, and watch what happens, even without government anti-discrimination legislation. 

Gay people are an economic force to be reckoned with, if for no other reason than because they're more likely to have disposable income than straight people of equivalent education and job status, since gay people for the most part do not have children. 

So let businesses discriminate.  Let the gay and gay-friendly community find out that Phelps Photography, Inc. doesn't want gay dollars, and that Gayer Than A Tree Full Of Monkeys With Cameras LLC would be happy to do the job.

Gay people, in my experience, are far more likely to specifically support a gay-friendly business than anti-gay folks are to specifically support an anti-gay business; when it comes to dollars, I'd be willing to bet that the business willing to work with gays would end up with a better bottom line. 

And that's the way the free market is supposed to work.

-BP

[280plus]

Agreed, if you believe the law is wrong by all means do what you can to work up the support get it repealed, and good luck to you. I think the attempt alone would stir up just as much trouble as "No Blacks" signs reappearing in the windows. "Anti discrimination laws are unfair to those who discriminate". Doesn't sound like much of a platform.  Getting support might be a little tough. 

[Perd Hapley]

Phelps Photography, Inc.

 

[Marnoot]

I really don't see this as discrimination against the gay people themselves, but rather the event. I'd be willing to bet that if it had been a gay person wanting the photographer to do a family portrait, or some other event not revolving around an issue the photographer considers immoral, there wouldn't have been a problem. It's the event that is being discriminated against here, in my opinion, rather than the people themselves.

Edited to add: Obviously I'm injecting how I would view it if I were the photographer. It's certainly possible she wouldn't accept gays as customers at all.

[doczinn]

I said "It's the law so it must be obeyed until it is no longer a law."

And you really don't see the problem with that?

[Balog]

As long as you crap all over the freedom of someone he doesn't like it's ok.

[BridgeRunner]

The trouble is, it isn't a law.  It's a weirdo interpretation that is totally out of line with legislative intent and precedent.  The photographer didn't break the law.  The "law" as interpreted by this tribunal didn't exist until they decided it did.  I doubt it will stand up on appeal. 

A person is not a "public accommodation". 

[BrokenPaw]

A person is not a "public accommodation". 

With certain thoroughly be-sequined exceptions.   

-BP

[280plus]

I said "It's the law so it must be obeyed until it is no longer a law."

And you really don't see the problem with that?

No, guess I don't. You're advocating violating the law?

As long as you crap all over the freedom of someone he doesn't like it's ok.

There you go, that's it, happy now?

[280plus]

her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.

 

Willock's attorney, Julie Sakura of Santa Fe, said the commission's decision based on a public accommodation "is the correct application of New Mexico law to the facts of this case.

" Sounds like a law to me?

I think it's more like I'll crap all over the freedoms of those who like to crap all over the freedoms of others. And no, I don't have a problem with it.

[280plus]

Alright, someone lay down a logical case for abolishing the anti discrimination laws. This I gotta hear...

[BridgeRunner]

her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.

Substitute "human rights panel" for state appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit court, US Supreme Court, and then I'll agree with you.  A human rights panel or other local or state tribunal does not have the power to bind its interpretations on anyone but the parties involved in that case.  Yes, they can declare it is the law.  They can also declare that my house (were it located in New Mexico) is a public accommodation because the public may look at it on Google Maps.  And they would be wrong in that case too.  That's why we have appellate courts.

 

Willock's attorney, Julie Sakura of Santa Fe, said the commission's decision based on a public accommodation "is the correct application of New Mexico law to the facts of this case.

"

Sounds like a law to me?

Wow, that's totally awesome.  You mean that once I'm admitted to the bar, anytime I say my client is right, that's *law*?  That's kinda' neat.

Sorry, but the plaintiff's lawyer saying that a plaintiff's verdict is correct is *hardly* a convincing argument.

[doczinn]

You're advocating violating the law?

Absolutely.

Look, "It's the law" is, morally, exactly the sames as "just following orders." It is an abdication of your responsibility to make a decision about what is right and wrong. "Just following orders" is more often used to justify doing something morally wrong, while "it's the law" is more often used to justify not doing something morally right, but they are the same.

Alright, someone lay down a logical case for abolishing the anti discrimination laws.

OK: How about freedom of association? As a business person no less than as a person, I (and everyone else) have an absolute right to choose not to associate personally or professionally with anyone I choose.

[280plus]

New Mexico Department of Labor
Human Rights Division
1596 Pacheco Street
Aspen Plaza, Suite 103
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Phone: (505) 827-6838
Toll-Free: (800) 566-9471
Web Address: http://www.dol.state.nm.us/dol_hrd.html
Agency Description/Mission: The Human Rights Division is responsible for enforcing the New Mexico Human Rights Act of 1969 and state executive orders affecting human rights. The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, credit and public accommodations on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, age, physical or mental handicap, or serious medical condition. The division accepts complaints of discrimination and investigates those complaints to determine if there is a prima facie case of discrimination. The division also offers an educational program to employee and employer groups on unlawful discrimination so as to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

[280plus]

Tuesday, May 18, 2004
New Mexico: No Repeal on Human Rights Act 
365gay.com reports that New Mexico's Attorney General Patricia Madrid has issued a legal opinion that the state's Human Rights Act is not subject to repeal by the referendum process, as referendums are not applicable to laws concerning the "preservation of the public peace, health or safety."

The New Mexico legislature amended the Act last year to add the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity to the anti-discrimination provision. Opponents are attempting to gather enough petition signatures to bring repeal of this change to a public vote. Representative Earlene Roberts stated that the petition may still be turned in and the issue brought into court. Linda Siegle of Basic Rights New Mexico is pleased with the AG's opinion:

"We're really pleased that the attorney general is affirming the limits of the state Constitution. The Legislature never envisioned that referendum would be used to take away basic human rights."

Majority rule is not mob rule, and thankfully there are checks and balances in our system.

[280plus]

I don't know Bridge, sure sounds like a law to me. I posted that quote simply to indicate that in the article it was refered to as "law" at least twice. I understand the ramifications of it coming from the defense lawyer, don't worry. 

This really is a fascinating case. The anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment if you cite your religious beliefs as grounds for the discrimination. Sounds like a great big can of legal worms to me.

Doc, I get the point but:

Look, "It's the law" is, morally, exactly the sames as "just following orders."

Show me a law that advocates the massacre of non combatants or the mistreatment of prisoners. Apples and oranges.

Give me an example where "its the law" has been used to justify not doing something morally right. My thinking is laws are in place to force us to do what is morally right. Let's face it, laws only keep honest people honest anyways. I know you can't legislate bigotry away. Any more than you can legislate guns away.

You are free to associate or not associate with anyone you like in this country for any reason. I don't like certain people, I stay away from them. But I don't base that decision on their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc etc. I base it on their character. All the laws are saying is that you cannot do it openly. A bandaid at best, I understand. Give me a workable alternative.

[BridgeRunner]

I don't know Bridge, sure sounds like a law to me.

Then you really ought to learn some basics about legal processes.  Like what courts can produce binding precedent and what courts merely apply the law as is.  Novel, or as in this case, completely wacky interpretations coming from lower courts tend to get overturned.  Note that Heugelin is appealing to district court.  This human rights things is such a low-level court that the first court to appeal in is district court!  Yeah...no, this isn't law.  This is a decision binding on these parties in this only, and it is subject to appeal.  And the appeal is very likely to be successful.  ACTUAL law does not support the idea the idea that a person is a public accommodation.  (Sequined exceptions noted :p )

I posted that quote simply to indicate that in the article it was refered to as "law" at least twice. I understand the ramifications of it coming from the defense lawyer, don't worry. 

It did not come from the defense lawyer, it came from the plaintiff's lawyer. Willock is the plaintiff.  Sakura is her lawyer.  Referring to something as law does not make it good law.  That's not how it works.

If a real court at the appellate level affirms this decision, then it will be law.  Right now it just isn't, however much you would like it to be.  Human rights panels do not get to bind the people of the State of New Mexico or anywhere else to their interpretations.  It's a decision, not a law. 

This really is a fascinating case. The anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment if you cite your religious beliefs as grounds for the discrimination. Sounds like a great big can of legal worms to me.

Not a problem.  Until you declare people to be public accommodations.  Which an appellate court is very unlikely to do, precisely because of the First Amendment problem, as well as the problem of other implicit rights, like the right to privacy and self-determination.

My thinking is laws are in place to force us to do what is morally right.

Laws exist to prevent us from infringing on other people's rights. 

You are free to associate or not associate with anyone you like in this country for any reason. I don't like certain people, I stay away from them. But I don't base that decision on their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc etc. I base it on their character. All the laws are saying is that you cannot do it openly. A bandaid at best, I understand. Give me a workable alternative.

That's nice, but no law mandates that.  It is not illegal to choose not to associate with someone on the basis of their membership in a protected class.  Even this decision--which is not binding precedent--doesn't say that.  This decision is based on the provision of services, which the panel claims constitutes a public accommodation.  No one has ruled that personal association is a public accommodation, and no one will.  And the ruling that a small business providing professional services on a contract basis is such an accommodation is both not binding law on anyone else in the state or country and is likely to be overturned on appeal.

[anygunanywhere]

Alright, someone lay down a logical case for abolishing the anti discrimination laws. This I gotta hear...

Because "anti discrimination laws" do not prevent discrimination.

Just like anti gun laws do not prevent crime.

Anti discrimination laws are distorted to favor percieved (not actual) discrimination and allow discrimination against those not targeted by the legislation.

This is exactly the same as gun laws do nothing to punish the criminal and only infringe on the law abiding who are not the targeted group.

Anygunanywhere

[doczinn]

Show me a law that advocates the massacre of non combatants or the mistreatment of prisoners. Apples and oranges.

The difference is only of degree. The law has required the confiscation of private property without any or without adequate compensation. It has required that a man be put in jail for growing a plant in his own yard for his own use. It has required that we be enslaved to the "needs" of those who will not work.

Give me an example where "its the law" has been used to justify not doing something morally right.

How about things as simple as driving 66 instead of 65 on the freeway? Or converting an AR-15 to full auto? Or having a beer before reaching 21 years of age? Our daily lives are filled with "you can't." In most cases the act we can't legally perform would violate no one's rights in any way, which makes it morally right.

You are free to associate or not associate with anyone you like in this country for any reason....  All the laws are saying is that you cannot do it openly.

And why can't I? No-one has a right to associate with anyone else, personally or professionally. There's no ethical reason to prevent me from hanging a sign in the front of my business barring blacks, gays, jews, and women with blued hair if I choose to do so. Bad business decision? Yup. Bad moral choice? I think so. Illegal? That's just wrong.

Give me a workable alternative.

What makes you think we need an alternative?

[280plus]

Then you really ought to learn some basics about legal processes.

Then why are the refering to it as a "law"? I'm not the one who used the term first. It's called "The Human Rights Act of 1969" That's not a law? Whatever...

It did not come from the defense lawyer, it came from the plaintiff's lawyer

Whoops, my mistake.

If a real court at the appellate level affirms this decision, then it will be law.

Well there you go. The panel decided she violated the NMHRA of 1969 and it's relatively recent addition of sexual orientation which, so far I perceive as a "law". We'll just have to wait and see then, won't we?

Until you declare people to be public accommodations.

They're claiming she discriminated in the providing of a public service. It's called the "service industry". Hotels, restaurants, Photographers, HVAC guys, they provide a service.

My thinking is laws are in place to force us to do what is morally right.

Laws exist to prevent us from infringing on other people's rights[/quote]Same idea, different words.

That's nice, but no law mandates that.

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said there.

And the ruling that a small business providing professional services on a contract basis is such an accommodation is both not binding law on anyone else in the state or country and is likely to be overturned on appeal.

Again, let's wait and see.

[280plus]

Alright, someone lay down a logical case for abolishing the anti discrimination laws. This I gotta hear...

Because "anti discrimination laws" do not prevent discrimination.

Just like anti gun laws do not prevent crime.

Anti discrimination laws are distorted to favor percieved (not actual) discrimination and allow discrimination against those not targeted by the legislation.

This is exactly the same as gun laws do nothing to punish the criminal and only infringe on the law abiding who are not the targeted group.

Anygunanywhere

I'm pretty sure I said most of that too, no argument although I'm not sure what you mean by the"distorted" line.

[280plus]

The difference is only of degree. The law has required the confiscation of private property without any or without adequate compensation. It has required that a man be put in jail for growing a plant in his own yard for his own use. It has required that we be enslaved to the "needs" of those who will not work.

The law still does all those things, doesn't it? We need to change those laws or get rid of them. Eminent domain? Weed? Welfare? I'll agree they all need to go. Why are they still on the books?

How about things as simple as driving 66 instead of 65 on the freeway? Or converting an AR-15 to full auto? Or having a beer before reaching 21 years of age? Our daily lives are filled with "you can't." In most cases the act we can't legally perform would violate no one's rights in any way, which makes it morally right.

I have no problem with the moral aspects of victimless crime but I also realize that if I partake in any of those activities and get caught I must face consequences. Again, My problem is with crimes that DO infringe on the rights of others and I believe bigotry is one of those crimes.

There's no ethical reason to prevent me from hanging a sign in the front of my business barring blacks, gays, jews, and women with blued hair if I choose to do so.

The idea that you think that way brings me back to the disheartening word.

What makes you think we need an alternative?

Because, I've gathered that what we have now is not good enough for you folks and I was wondering how you proposed to change things. Now I'm not so sure I want to know... 

 

[Sergeant Bob]

I don't really have a rooster in this fight but, I really get tired of hearing that old saw "If you don't like a law,  then change it".
About the only time that is used is by someone who agrees with the law, however wrong it is. Look at the drug and gun laws.
You or I have no more power to change a law than we have to decide who is going to be the next President of the United States. Look who we are stuck with. We are merely slaves to the majority.

[280plus]

I don't agree with the gun laws, the drug laws etc etc and I'd love to see them changed, but I do agree with the anti-discrimination laws and I'm not afraid to say it. Or at least the principle behind them. If everything was peace and love you wouldn't need them but guess what, welcome to the real world. And, once again, discrimination is NOT victimless, therefore making it a "worse" crime against morality than all the others, IMHO of course. So we're back to apples and oranges.

You have three choices: obey the law, disobey the law and face consequences or lastly change the law. It's an old saw because what the hell else can you do?