Is this a case of religious liberty trampled?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography, an Albuquerque photography studio co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for refusing to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex “commitment ceremony.” The court ordered the business to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees

***

The case is ripe for hypotheticals: An atheist web programmer asked to create a megachurch’s Internet site? A Muslim graphic designer asked to create an advertisement for a hot-dog stand? According to the court’s decision, the government has the right and the responsibility to force each to participate, despite his conscience objections.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302764/new-mexico-assaults-r...

 

Is this a religious freedom case? I think so, but I'm not sure.

On the one hand, if Chick-Fil-A was banning serving homosexual patrons, it would indeed be wrong. So is this company doing essentially the same thing?

I don't think so. For one thing, you may disagree with homosexuality being righteous or acceptable, but you would agree they need to eat. That's something not too political. But being forced to partake in a ceremony which you are fundamentally opposed to? That isn't right. It's the same as how a Church should not be forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to.

Furthermore, this article makes an interesting point.

New Mexico liberals have cheered the courage of Antonio Darden, a Santa Fe hairdresser who earlier this year publicly refused to cut Governor Susana Martinez’s hair because of her opposition to same-sex marriage. “If I’m not good enough to be married,” he told the Santa Fe New Mexican, “I’m not going to cut her hair.” By the standard set in the wedding-photography case, the governor could file a discrimination complaint against Darden, as the Huguenins’ attorney pointed out in a New Mexican op-ed.

[Scott Newman]

I have mixed feelings about the article and what it's saying

On one hand, I do agree to a certain extent that fining her and making her complete the job took away her freedom to have an opinion. I agree with the article to a certain extent on that point. But, on the other hand, I think that having an opinion that actively denies another human being equal rights, is wrong, and there's no other way of putting it. I think that same - sex couples have been discriminated enough, that a hair dresser refusing to cut the hair of a woman who seeks to deny another him equal, has the right to. What I'm trying to say is I'm half and half,I agree and disagree. It's hard to put it into words

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I think I see where you are going. You disagree with the stance, but you don't like what's been done to support it.

I would quote Voltaire "I will fight you with my last ounce of strength for what you say, but defend you with my last drop of blood for your right to say it".

I think that same - sex couples have been discriminated enough, that a hair dresser refusing to cut the hair of a woman who seeks to deny another him equal, has the right to.

The problem here is double standards. If one person is allowed to deny service on the basis of their opinion, so should another person.

[Abreo]

I prefer the philosophy that any of the more frivolous businesses "have the right to refuse service to anyone." When it comes to something like insurance or hospitalization or something along those lines my opinion is the complete opposite but in this case they should be able to refuse service to whomever they want just like I can refuse to financially support anyone I want.

Of course that only works if there's an alternate business for the people to go to. If everyone refuses to serve homosexuals then thats pretty bad.

[Linnea who lives by Hippie Hill]

In this case, I don't think that this is a case of the removal of religious liberty. This is because a person's religious beliefs and practices are their own and they can believe in them as much as they please; they have the first amendment for that. However, if someone rejects a job on the conduct of others that infringes on their beliefs, they probably have little to no business refusing it, because that would infringe on the religious freedom of the client. For example, if a person for religious reasons could not wear a spaghetti strainer on their head wanted to be served at a restaurant where the owners ardently believed that all people should wear spaghetti strainers on their heads, the non-strainer-wearer should be served, despite their religious differences. In this case, religious beliefs are like assholes: everyone has one, but everyone would probably be better off if we kept them to ourselves.

*Even then, if it's patently offensive to the strainer-wearers and the non-strainer-wearer refuses to put one on, it could get quite ugly. But my last sentence still holds true.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

However, if someone rejects a job on the conduct of others that infringes on their beliefs, they probably have little to no business refusing it, because that would infringe on the religious freedom of the client.

How would it infringe upon the client's religious freedom? Does the client's religion require that this particular individual do the work for them?

[Linnea who lives by Hippie Hill]

Well, if a particular client, is, say, a non-strainer-wearer and the services they are looking for are all offered by strainer wearers who reject non-strainer-wearers. The non-strainer-wearer will find it very difficult to find said service, not because they are dangerous people or because they are inherently evil, but because their beliefs and those of the provider don't necessarily agree with one another.

I think it's less of a problem than if one person does it, but if it becomes a norm. It would cause total chaos, and people who were non-strainer-wearers then couldn't sell their homes, couldn't use taxis, couldn't go to hotels. It's trying to prevent people from facing wide-spread discrimination for their beliefs, and allowing people with unconventional beliefs to be able to get the things they need. 

It stands to say here as well that having a belief is the right of every person, and a belief alone is not harmful to anyone. Acting on that belief could be harmful, but preventing someone from having a belief is infringing on their rights as people.

[Tyler]

Well I have to admit, I do think the state is in the wrong here.  I completely agree with the law that forces places like restaurants and hotels to not discriminate against people, but this is a private photography business.  Ceremony photographs hardly falls into the same category as places to sleep and eat.  I don't agree with the photographer's view on homosexuality, but I do think that he is within his right to choose the clients he wants to work for.  If he doesn't want their patronage, he shouldn't be forced to spend the day at a wedding he disagrees with, working for people he is uncomfortable being around. 

Also Vertigo, in reference to the "Pragmatic Atheism" thread, I want to say that it is very big and humble of you to admit that your arguments are flawed and unsubstantiated.  That can't be easy.  I know you didn't say anything like this directly, but by abandoning the thread out of nowhere and moving on to other threads like this I can only assume that that means you have no response and no further means of arguing your point.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Also Vertigo, in reference to the "Pragmatic Atheism" thread, I want to say that it is very big and humble of you to admit that your arguments are flawed and unsubstantiated.  That can't be easy.  I know you didn't say anything like this directly, but by abandoning the thread out of nowhere and moving on to other threads like this I can only assume that that means you have no response and no further means of arguing your point.

1. If you are going to respond to a thread, do so within that thread.

2. Have you heard of multi-tasking? I'm currently responding to this thread, writing a 5000 word story on an optimistic vision of the future, and working on an Mphil.

3. Don't think that just because I've been away from something it has been abandoned.

[Eystein,]

It was pretty petty and vengeful to take this to court and it was wrong to rule in the favor of the client. A private contractor who also is his/her own boss should be able to refuse a job for whatever reason imaginable, however stupid it is. The refusal deserved to be made publicly known though, but not through a lawsuit. Let the jungle telegraph sort these things out. We've come far enough to be able to wade out such bigotry, and by not tolerating the occasional outbursts of it, load mouthed liberals aren't doing anyone any favors.

[Latch33570]

I am surprised that the case wasn't dismissed. It is ridiculousness.      Also the governor can't sue for discrimination. He didn't refuse because of illegal reasons.