… It only follows to reason. This, of course, was the whole not-so-hidden agenda behind the driven attempts to legalize homosexual “marriage”. I still contend it was never about marriage but about forcing society – a society that has always voted against same-sex marriage every time it’s presented on the ballot, even in California – to view a disordered lifestyle as normal. You will come around to their way of thinking. And if you don’t…
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 courts dismissed arguments that the statute violated the owners’ religious-freedom rights. [SOURCE]
Ruling: The case at bar is generally applicable and neutral; it does not selectively burden any religion or religious belief. The NMHRA applies generally to all citizens transacting commerce and business through public accommodations that deal with the public at large, and any burden on religion or some religious beliefs is incidental and uniformly applied to all citizens … As such, the government need not have a compelling interest to justify the burden it places on individuals who fall under its proscriptions. Because a rational basis exists to support the governmental interest in protecting specific classes of citizens from discrimination in public accommodations, the NMHRA does not violate the free exercise clause protections under the First Amendment.
The final court ruling was based on the whole argument that this was discrimination against a protected class – a protected class that isn’t even allowed to “marry” by New Mexico’s state laws. Interesting. And yes, you read that right, the government does not feel it even needs to justify the burden it places on individuals in incidental situations.
Updated June 10, 2012 to include this link; because I concur that homosexual “rights” are not a Civil Rights issue.
“Vanessa Willock emailed Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer, in 2006 to ask her if she would photograph Willock’s same-sex “commitment ceremony.” Huguenin replied that she only photographed “traditional” weddings. Willock’s partner then emailed Huguenin the next day, asking her if she could photograph her “wedding,” with no mention of what the ceremony actually would be. Huguenin replied, via mail, that she would and sent the partner a brochure of packages and their prices. Willock filed charges against Huguenin two months later in New Mexico’s Human Rights Division, claiming as her harm that she received an email from Huguenin stating, “we do not photograph same-sex weddings.”
What I can take from this case is two-fold: first, “insult” is the moral and legal equivalency of “harm.” Willock was not “harmed” in that she suffered a personal injury. Albuquerque is a good-sized city and it is reasonable to believe that there are a fair number of professional photographers who could have shot Willock’s ceremony. Is it discrimination? Well, yes – and so what? People discriminate all the time; the difference is what or who is recognized by law to be “protected.” So Willock’s sexual orientation is protected but Huguenin’s exercise of religion is not, although both statuses received strict scrutiny in violations thereof under the US Constitution.
Harm? Photography for a wedding ceremony, gay or straight, is hardly the denial of life’s necessities.” [SOURCE]