Disturbing NM Supreme Court Constitutional Ruling

[midtennchip]

I have been following this for a while, but the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled on it.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html

In essence, if a person goes into commerce, that person forgoes his or her constitutional rights (at least according to NM law). In this case, a photographer was held to be in violation of the NM civil rights act for declining to photograph a gay couple's wedding on religious grounds.

[RED333]

I call BS on the ruling, this is part of what is wrong with this country.

I would not want to take pics ether.

[RichardR]

Wow, more proof that we're truely living in a post-Constitutional America, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated by the collective...

[TMF]

What a terrible precedent. Once again, an example of how one group seeks power over the other, not for the sake of their own equality, but to punish the previous group using the same tactics as were used against them.

[Guest nra37922]

Nothing says the photos have to be in focus

[DaveTN]

Sad day. Another successful attack on Christians and moral turpitude. Hopefully the 10th Federal District or the SCOTUS will overturn this courts ridiculous ruling.

I hope these people refuse to pay a dime.

 

[leroy]

Dont think this one will pass Constitutional muster.  I think this one will go away.   This aint an equal rights thing; its a deeply held religious objection (...per the photographer...).   I predict the "pro bono" legal groups will pick this one up and win it on appeal.

 

Heres hopin.

leroy

[TMF]

This ruling violates a very basic principle of liberty.  Two homos not getting their picture taken does not violate their rights.  They can go elsewhere in a free marketplace.  Forcing someone to abandon their religious beliefs absolutely violates a person's rights.  Edited August 23, 2013 by TMF

[Worriedman]

Could this be copied in TN, our Article 1 Section 21:
 

 

Taking of property; eminent domain

 

That no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefor.

 

Appears that if the Legislature approves anything is possible.  All the more reason to be active in said legislature's selection...

Edited August 23, 2013 by Worriedman

[Wingshooter]

But if the photographer had been muslim, I'm sure he could have stopped taking pictures at noon to face east and that would have been ok (because of religion).

[midtennchip]

Dont think this one will pass Constitutional muster. I think this one will go away. This aint an equal rights thing; its a deeply held religious objection (...per the photographer...). I predict the "pro bono" legal groups will pick this one up and win it on appeal.

Heres hopin.
leroy

They already have. The lawyer defending the photographer specializes in this type of law and has been involved for years in this case. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reversal at the SCOTUS. This court has already held that the involvement in commerce gives government the right to regulate that commerce. This will essentially be viewed by the Court the same way it views discrimination in the workplace or at any other business. For example, if the NM law can legally prohibit McDonald's from denying service to gays or an employer from firing someone for being gay, then I would not be surprised if the Court upholds this. This is the proverbial "slippery slope" we attorneys talk about. Once you say (I) government can regulate anything in commerce and (II) gays have rights equal to race, religion, etc., this is the logical result as you go down that "slippery slope." Edited August 23, 2013 by midtennchip

[TerryW]

I spent my first 21 years living in NM and still have family there.  I've been in TN the last 25, NM has turned into east California.  Oprah Pigfrey and a handful of other libtards own lots of property in northern NM.  No shock on the courts making a ruling like this, it's par for a Cali like state and it's only going to get worse. 

[leroy]

Chip... Your post above.  How does this mesh with the obamacare thing movin thru the courts that is considering the "religious exemption" for "the morinin after pills" and other stuff?  That's what i was thinking about. 

 

Help me to understand what principle of law the courts argument is built on; .....it appears to be that if you are engaged in "commerce"; that you must forfeit your "deeply held beliefs" for the sake of that business.  How does that square up with the "we reserve the right to refuse anyone's business" and "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs that are prevalent in my part of the country? 

 

leroy

[Hershmeister]

Finally justice for us shirtless and shoeless people!

[three5seven]

This ruling is disturbing on multiple levels. Under the NM Court's rationale, a church that rents/leases/licenses it's premises for ceremonies/receptions wouldn't be permitted to deny anyone (including other religions, gays/lesbians, etc.) from using them without fear of litigation and a fine. I think this case violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech guarantees of the federal constitution. (Religion, Association, and the creation of art are all present here). Moreover, although the federal government (Congress) has broad power to regulate interstate commerce and effectuate socially desirable results while doing so, i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1964, a state legislature's ability to do so is necessarily limited under the federal constitution. Arguments can be advanced that the NM law reaches only intrastate commercial activity. In my mind, the NM law is so broad that is crosses state lines. Wedding photography is a big business.  

 

Hopefully SCOTUS will take this one up and revisit the holding of Employment Division v. Smith.   

[BryanP]

But if the photographer had been muslim, I'm sure he could have stopped taking pictures at noon to face east and that would have been ok (because of religion).

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no.  Google stories about Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up customers who are carrying alcohol. Refusing to provide a service because of their religious beliefs. They've been taken to court and they've lost every time. Here's the first link that popped up when I googled it:

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court

 

How is this any different from a business refusing to do business with people who choose to be armed?  We condemn that all day long around here.

Edited August 23, 2013 by BryanP

[Sam1]

 

 

How is this any different from a business refusing to do business with people who choose to be armed?  We condemn that all day long around here.

 

That is an absolutely fantastic point.

[midtennchip]

Chip... Your post above.  How does this mesh with the obamacare thing movin thru the courts that is considering the "religious exemption" for "the morinin after pills" and other stuff?  That's what i was thinking about. 

 

Help me to understand what principle of law the courts argument is built on; .....it appears to be that if you are engaged in "commerce"; that you must forfeit your "deeply held beliefs" for the sake of that business.  How does that square up with the "we reserve the right to refuse anyone's business" and "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs that are prevalent in my part of the country? 

 

leroy

 

Hopefully, this will help.  First, Obamacare is a federal law (not state law), so the analysis (while similiar) is not exactly the same.  Second, teh "no shoes, no shirt, no service" issue does not reach illegal discrimination.  No business has unfettered discretion to refuse service to anyone (ie:  age, race, nationality, religion, etc).  Things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar statutes prohibit businesses from discriminating against certain protected groups.  While a business may THINK it can refuse service to "anyone," it cannot.

 

As for the Obamacare issues, there are two (2) groups who have challenged it on religious grounds.  First, actual religious non-profits (i.e., churches, charities, hospitals, etc.).  They now have a specific exemption under Obamacare and, therefore, the analysis is not applicable here.  The second group are for-profit businesses, such as Hobby Lobby.  That group is interesting, but still not exactly similar to this New Mexico case for several reasons.  First, the case is really about the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA").  Hobby Lobby's best arguments (and the ones accepted by the Appeals Court) were based on the RFRA.  The RFRA does not apply to state and local governments (see City of Boerne v. Flores).  Second, Obamacare has exemptions for many other entities (including non-profit religious entities and other entities who are "grandfathered" or obtained a waiver).  So, the Appeals Court said that the government did not have a compelling reason to apply the contraception provisions of Obamacare to Hobby Lobby.  Finally, the Hobby Lobby case is FAR from over.  Hobby Lobby has only won a preliminary injunction from the penalties.  It has not actually won its case yet.

[midtennchip]

This ruling is disturbing on multiple levels. Under the NM Court's rationale, a church that rents/leases/licenses it's premises for ceremonies/receptions wouldn't be permitted to deny anyone (including other religions, gays/lesbians, etc.) from using them without fear of litigation and a fine. I think this case violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech guarantees of the federal constitution. (Religion, Association, and the creation of art are all present here). Moreover, although the federal government (Congress) has broad power to regulate interstate commerce and effectuate socially desirable results while doing so, i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1964, a state legislature's ability to do so is necessarily limited under the federal constitution. Arguments can be advanced that the NM law reaches only intrastate commercial activity. In my mind, the NM law is so broad that is crosses state lines. Wedding photography is a big business.  

 

Hopefully SCOTUS will take this one up and revisit the holding of Employment Division v. Smith.   

 

True on a number of fronts.  I have been concerned for years that churches who rent out their buildings would be caught up in this mess.  Many churches have stopped renting out their buildings because of this. 

 

However, I disagree (to a point) that the New Mexico law would necessarily be struck down on Commerce Clause issues.  States have always regulated businesses in their own states.  Licensing of professions, zoning, building codes, etc. have existed for many, many years and they certainly have an effect on interstate commerce (at least based on current caselaw interpretation).  Further, states have also instituted state discrimination laws for many years that extend protections well beyond those provided by federal law (the Tennessee pregnancy act comes to mind).  Those have never been struck down on Commerce Clause issues.

 

Make no mistake.  I do NOT like this NM decision and believe it SHOULD be struck down.  But I also cannot see, given the direction the courts have taken over the years, how that will occur. 

[TMF]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no. Google stories about Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up customers who are carrying alcohol. Refusing to provide a service because of their religious beliefs. They've been taken to court and they've lost every time. Here's the first link that popped up when I googled it:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court

How is this any different from a business refusing to do business with people who choose to be armed? We condemn that all day long around here.

In a free society a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason, that includes protected classes.

[leroy]

Here's an interesting read from Hot Air RE:  The NM photographer case.  It's an interesting read.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/23/lawyer-for-new-mexico-photographer-forcing-her-to-work-at-a-gay-wedding-violates-her-right-of-free-expression/

 

leroy

[Sam1]

True on a number of fronts.  I have been concerned for years that churches who rent out their buildings would be caught up in this mess.  Many churches have stopped renting out their buildings because of this. 

 

However, I disagree (to a point) that the New Mexico law would necessarily be struck down on Commerce Clause issues.  States have always regulated businesses in their own states.  Licensing of professions, zoning, building codes, etc. have existed for many, many years and they certainly have an effect on interstate commerce (at least based on current caselaw interpretation).  Further, states have also instituted state discrimination laws for many years that extend protections well beyond those provided by federal law (the Tennessee pregnancy act comes to mind).  Those have never been struck down on Commerce Clause issues.

 

Make no mistake.  I do NOT like this NM decision and believe it SHOULD be struck down.  But I also cannot see, given the direction the courts have taken over the years, how that will occur. 

 

 

Looks like churches have already started addressing the issue:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/churches-changing-bylaws-gay-marriage-ruling-153638830.html

Edited August 24, 2013 by Sam1