NM Justice Orders Conserv. Family to provide services

[CavMedic]

Hope this is not a dupe...have not seen it yet.
NM Supreme Court: 'Tolerance' Means Forcing Religious Photographers to Serve Same-Sex Weddings

Guess the old adage that you have the right to refuse service is not true anymore...the precedent has been set.

 

[ultra...good]

I have never had a reason to discriminate in my business. In my opinion a job is a job, a check os a check. Sometimes i recognize a customer as a potential pain in the rear so i bid high, sometimes really, really REALLY high. Anyways, why refuse service?? Charge double the price, give a cut to the church, all is good, no??

 

[jamil]

I have never had a reason to discriminate in my business. In my opinion a job is a job, a check os a check. Sometimes i recognize a customer as a potential pain in the rear so i bid high, sometimes really, really REALLY high. Anyways, why refuse service?? Charge double the price, give a cut to the church, all is good, no??

Yeah, that's one choice you can make. Sounds like he got no choice at all.

 

[metaldog]

Everyone has a choice. The question lies in ones beliefs/convictions, and whether they wish to conform, or be made an example.

 

[CathyInBlue]

When you hold your business out as a place of public accommodation, you lose the power to discriminate against customers on the basis of innate characteristics.

 

[Jerchap2]

If I was refused service by a photographer, I would just find another one who was willing to work with me. That is, unless I had an agenda to advance.

 

[metaldog]

^^^ BINGO ^^^

 

[Que]

If I was refused service by a photographer, I would just find another one who was willing to work with me. That is, unless I had an agenda to advance.

This is true, but society accepts some agendas and rejects others. Recently, there was a vet that was kicked out of a restaurant because he had his service dog with him. Like others, I felt that restaurant needed to be put on blast and others know what the owner had done. I believe that vet is planning to file a suit against the restaurant for discrimination and I'm sure the court will be on his side.

I don't happen to agree with the decision in the OP, but the court has decided, so that decision has to be accepted, just like the restaurant owner will have to service the vet at some point. Otherwise, he could always choose to close his doors.

 

[Jludo]

I have never had a reason to discriminate in my business. In my opinion a job is a job, a check os a check. Sometimes i recognize a customer as a potential pain in the rear so i bid high, sometimes really, really REALLY high. Anyways, why refuse service?? Charge double the price, give a cut to the church, all is good, no??

Exactly, free market solutions. If they want to discriminate, for whatever reason, let them, they're just losing out on business. They get to make a stand for their beliefs, someone else gets a job. Let the local newspaper run a story on it and potential customers can decide if they want to do business in the future.

 

[Jerchap2]

Exactly, free market solutions. If they want to discriminate, for whatever reason, let them, they're just losing out on business. They get to make a stand for their beliefs, someone else gets a job. Let the local newspaper run a story on it and potential customers can decide if they want to do business in the future.

Sounds like a Libertarian viewpoint, what Chris Christie called "very dangerous." I like it.

 

[Jerchap2]

This is true, but society accepts some agendas and rejects others.

My concern lately is not what our society accepts or rejects, but an out-of-control judiciary that imposes its will whether the people agree or not, even overturning decisions made by the people in ballot initiatives. These men and women in black robes have, I think, entirely too much power, and are in appointed positions such that we have no recourse other than the appeals process, which is largely a sham that also works its way up through appointed judges.

 

[N8RV]

What cracks me up about this is that "...same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico."

If same-sex marriages can't be held in the state of New Mexico, then why is this even an issue? They're saying that the state can discriminate against couples wanting to get married, but individuals and businesses can't? Nothing about that makes sense. What did I miss in the article?

How long until the NM Supreme Court demands that clergy of any faith MUST officiate at same-sex ceremonies on demand?