There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly. But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof. However, the linked story grants someone's lifestyle choice over someone's Constitutionally protected rights. Now, I'm quite sure there are more than 1 photographer in New Mexico, especially in a big city like Albuquerque but IMO this lesbian purposely picked this photographer to stir the shit pot and they got what they want. I'm guessing you're happy about this.
Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.
"Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
Nova, if you had asked me 10 years ago if I thought the government would dictate what kind of light bulb I had to buy, I'd probably laughed at you. If you had asked the average American 100 years ago if the government would have it's filthy hands in as many aspects of our lives as it does now, you would have been committed. Don't think for a second that the government (notice I didn't just say Dems) wouldn't jump at the first chance to get into the church. That's the final frontier.
As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|