This story really interests me as I just had a bit of debate over whose rights trump whose when it comes to gay marriage and religion.
I support gay marriage. I love the gays. Great people.
Some of you will be surprised to know that it was former Atlanta talk show host Neal Boortz that convinced me that gay marriage should be legalized.
His argument was pretty simple: give me one reason, that does not relate to religion, that gay and lesbian peoples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I couldn't come up with any reasons that didn't involve religion and since we do not live in a theocracy it made sense to legalize gay marriage.
I have held that belief for the past 10 or 15 years but recently had an interesting theoretical question that has given me pause to think.
That question is this:
Suppose gay marriage is legalized in the U.S., and I suspect it will be soon.
And suppose I am a member of a small religious congregation that believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
We don't want to hurt anyone, we welcome anyone to our church, but we only perform marriage ceremonies for "traditional" couples.
If this were the case, would the courts and ultimately law enforcement, force my congregation to perform gay wedding ceremonies, or would I have the freedom to practice my religion without impediment?
Like I said up top: whose right trumps whose?
This groups right to marry or that groups right to freely practice their religion?
I don't have a good answer other than to say that I would legalize gay marriage and stipulate that religions could choose to honor or not, so long as gay and lesbian couples could go to another church or go to the courthouse to legally wed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).
The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.
Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”
The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Bosson wrote. Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”
Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”
The ruling affirms a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.
The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.
Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”
The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Bosson wrote. Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”
Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”
The ruling affirms a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.
