Today’s ridiculous news comes from New Mexico. Yes, New Mexico. Not California, or Massachusetts, or, all time favorite crazy town, Florida.
A photographer (who owns her own private photography company) was asked to be the photographer at a lesbian commitment ceremony. But the photographer declined because it was against her moral and religious beliefs.
But no, the woman who tried to hire her actually WANTED a photographer who was against gay marriage so when the photographer said no, this bitch took her to court so she could demand from the court that the photographer does the wedding pictures.
Before I go on with my bitchin’, as the article says, gay marriage is not legal in New Mexico, nor does the state recognize civil-unions.
Which confuses me because they have this ridiculous “human rights” law that can take away rights from a private business owner and force them to serve a client function that they are morally opposed to because the gay couple has these rights, yet the state doesn’t even recognize the gay couple as a union.
So if I was the photographer I would take it to the highest court I could until they rule in my favor by saying “if this state doesn’t even recognize this couple as a legal union then why the hell should I be forced to photograph it when I have the right to refuse service?”
Anyways, now to my whining.
First of all, you cannot force a business to serve a client an put that clients wishes above the business owner’s right to religious freedom. Whether you think gay marriage is a “right” or not, you can’t decide that this person’s “commitment ceremony” is more important than the photographer’s right to decline. It’s not like it was a small island state where they only had one court and one photographer and the couple had no other options for photographers.
Now, here’s what really pisses me off.
This bitch wanted a photographer who was against gay marriage for the express purpose of making a political point out of her “commitment ceremony.”
Now I put that in quotations because if you’re more worried about making a political statement and taking it to court than you are about having a happy and as stress free as possible ceremony for you and the person you love, I’m led to believe that you don’t even care that much about the ceremony and maybe you’re just having one so you can make a political point and not because you really want one.
Like, how can THAT stand up in court?
Like “hey court in a state that doesn’t even recognize my homosexual union, I want to make a political point so force this lady to take my pictures.”
And then the court is like “well we don’t recognize same sex unions but yea, that photographer totally has to take your pictures. You may not have the right to a civil union but you sure as hell have the right to pick a photographer and legally force her to take pictures even though there are hundreds of photographers in this state for you to choose from.”
I know I have more inside of me to say, but talking about it more just makes me so flabbergasted that the rest can’t come out.
I hope this photographer doesn’t back down and that she takes it to the Supreme Court.
Because currently, in this situation regarding who has the right to what, the photographer is the one with all the rights.
Last time I checked NO ONE has the right to force a business to do something for you even if they deny service.
My thoughts and prayers are with the photographer and that everything will turn out right in her favor, because her rights are the ones being stepped on.
Actually…the photographer does have rights. And those rights include:
a) The right to open a business and offer services to the public.
b) The right to close that business if she doesn’t want to serve everyone.
Otherwise, she has to treat each client equally. With respect. Businesses that are open to the general public do not have the right to pick and choose who they serve, because that is discrimination. Yes, even if it’s based on a personal objection. Because that personal objection is just that: personal. Imagine if every business owner went around denying service to those he or she deemed “immoral”: no service to adulterers, no service to Muslims, no service to those who have a girlfriend 10 years younger than themselves.
Now, onto her religious freedom. Her business has no religious affiliation, as in, it is not a part of a church. She should not be exempt from having to serve every customer equally. Her freedom to practice her religion is still intact: she does not have to marry someone of the same sex. She doesn’t even have to endorse the ceremony she’s photographing. All she has to do is photograph it; her religious convictions are not being violated. She has the right to practice her religion in her personal life. If she so chooses, and if her convictions are so strong that she feels she cannot photograph this ceremony, she has the right to close her business and not risk having this happen.
I can understand why this is hard for you to understand. You’re a young white girl in the south, and you’re probably middle class. I can’t imagine that you’ve ever really been discriminated against. Imagine trying to get a caterer for your high school graduation party and having that person say they don’t want to cater your event because they think that you’re “immoral.” It’s less about getting this particular photographer; it’s about saying, “Hey, I’m just like everyone else, and I don’t want to get discriminated against. It’s not right.”
1. Even if those “rights” were rights, a person still does not have the right to sue anybody they want because that person isn’t doing what they want them to.
Next people will saying “I’m taking the carwash to court because they washed my car using clockwise circular movements when I want my car to be washed counterclockwise.”
Now back to reality because that woman can open a business if she wants and doesn’t have to serve everyone,
Ever heard of “No shoes, no shirt, no service, no dogs allowed,” and the phrase “owner has the right to refuse service?”
The owners of PRIVATE business can choose to deny service to someone. If the owner would rather deny service than make money off of that client, that is their right. Because NO WHERE does it say that you HAVE to sell someone something if you don’t want to sell it to them.
Establishments and business decline clients all the time. They can ban you from coming back ever again, to any of their locations.
You DO NOT have the right to force yourself into a business and make someone serve you.
And this especially goes towards private companies. If you have your own small business privately owned by you, you can sure as hell deny someone service. Because that business is yours. There are no shareholders and boards that help you control the company and have partial ownership of it. It is 1000% yours. So if you want to deny service based on your personal beliefs, you have every damn right in the world to.
Because gay marriage is banned in the Bible and in the Christian faith, if she doesn’t want to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony which is pretty much like a wedding in a state where they don’t even recognize same sex unions, she has every right to refuse service. It’s not as if she’s saying, “oh, you’re gay, I don’t want to take your graduation pictures or take pictures of your dog for a holiday card.”
Basically what this ruling is doing is FORCING her to go to a ceremony to witness something that is against her beliefs.
I believe that if this was a Catholic couple taking an atheist photographer to court to make the atheist come into the Catholic church to take wedding pictures, all of you liberal nutjobs across the country would be in outrage and burning Bibles in protest.
Of course, this would never happen. Because we wouldn’t legally force an atheist to come into our church to take pictures when they are entirely opposed to doing so. Because we don’t drag people to our services by court order to make a political point.
And again, since her business is her own, owned by her, runned by her, she has the religious right to refuse service. Just because it isn’t affiliated with her church doesn’t mean it has to be a religion free zone. It’s her personal business and she can choose to refuse service.
By the court ruling this, it means that if I live in NM and make cupcakes out of my home for parties, if I decide not to take an order for a transsexual bachelorette party, I would be forced to make those cupcakes in my home and sell them to people that I am religiously opposed to because I believe that man is man and woman is woman and that God made us the way He wanted in His image.
If her photography studio turned into a national chain like McDonalds and she had shareholders and was on the stock market, then it would be different. But because this is her own business, she can turn down business if it means that the client would need her to go to a ceremony that she is religiously opposed to.
If we start forcing a lady who turned her love of photography into a way to make money into taking pictures for a ceremony she is against, that is just getting one step closer to being able to court order a Catholic Church to conduct a gay wedding.
This is America. We can choose not to serve somebody. No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that the courts can force someone to sell something to someone else.
So please, do not fucking patronize me ok.
You’re the one who simply does not understand how America works.
There is nothing hard for me to understand about this. I’m not mad over this because it’s about gay people. I’m mad that a person went to court forcing a private business owner to do something that the owner had said no to because it was not a job she wanted take.
That’s like if a store offered me a job and I said no and then the store went and got a court order demanding that I work at that store.
I am also mad that this person wanted to hire someone who they knew would say no just so that they can take them to court and make a political point.
That is what I have a problem with.
I am sorry that it’s hard for you to understand that not everything is about gays and religion and that somethings cause outrage because they go against the fundamental structure of our government and Constitution.
And please, spare me the fucking “you’ve never been discriminated against.”
It’s such fucking bullshit. Sorry that I’m not a black/hispanic, gay, atheist. That doesn’t mean I have never faced discrimination. You are ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT if you think that I can’t be discriminated on.
Why don’t you try being a Catholic from New Jersey in a public school in the south where they still think there’s a chance that the Confederate still has a chance of winning against those damn yankees and immigrants.
I’m thankful that no one will follow me in the department store because I’m black (is anyone even stupid enough to do that anymore?), but just because I’m white and Christian doesn’t mean I’m not discriminated against.
I’m only called homophobic and bigoted and ignorant and misogynistic like 5 times a day but who cares.
Obviously because I am white and Christian and I cannot think outside of the mindset of a mistress of a slave plantation in 1854 even though it’s 2012 and I am actually educated on issues and am not making these statements out of ignorance but instead I’m saying these things because even if you take religion and social issues out of it, the fundamentals of the problems are still wrong no matter if the people are gay, straight, white, black, christian, muslim, jewish, atheist, baha’i.
Guess I need to get back to yelling at that 10 year old slave girl in my kitchen who isn’t making the sweet tea fast enough so that the slave drivers my husband employs can have a refreshing drink when they come back from the cotton fields.
No, wrong. Open a restaurant and try to only serve white people, or specifically refuse service to black people, see how long that lasts.
Property right my ass. If this lady doesn’t want to work for a homosexual couple then fine, but you better be okay with someone else opening a restaurant and refusing service to minorities.
Property rights are property rights, there is no exception.
I’m slightly confused by the direction of your response, mostly because the end part didn’t seem to match the rest but, “Hi my name is Katie and I get confused a lot” (get it? I probably think that was funny even though no one else thinks I’m funny).
I’m sure someone could claim that they can refuse service to like an asian because they are religiously against asians…….weird, but I think this lady actually has a credibly case because gay marriage/unions are against Christian teachings and NM is a state where not even civil unions are recognized.
But ya know, if you own your own private small business and you want to refuse service to someone, fine, you’re the one who will be losing money. So if you want to refuse service for blacks and republicans and people over 5’1, etc, than good luck making a living.
So if I had a store and refused service to red sux fans and then no one ever wanted to come in and shop because of that and my business went under, than fine. Sucks for me.
But in all serious, me refusing to photograph a red sux themed wedding because I’m a diehard till death bury me in my Jeter tshirt Yankees fan is waaaaaaaaay different than me refusing to photograph a ceremony because the ceremony goes against my religious beliefs.
But I would still photograph other things for the same sex couple. Unless the red suxs were involved.