Far Right Hypocrisy in Nevada »« Judson Phillips Has a Thinking Problem

American Decency Association: OMG! North Korea!

The sound and fury emanating from the Christian right over the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal of a New Mexico case where a photography business refused to shoot a lesbian wedding is music to my ears. The American Decency Association says we’re now like North Korea!

And even though the lesbian couple found a less expensive photographer, they filed a complaint with New Mexico’s Human Right Commission and Elaine Huguenin’s photography business was ultimately found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination laws by the New Mexico Supreme Court because she wouldn’t comprise her deeply held Christian convictions.

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case and weigh in on the constitutional issue of religious rights vs. “gay rights” the justices have, in essence, spoken by their silence. And the verdict is that “gay rights” wins and the First Amendment loses.

The appalling New Mexico ruling will stand. A ruling where one justice actually stated that Christian business owners are “now compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” The ruling by this court went on to state that such coercion is “the price of citizenship.”

The “price of citizenship”?? Have we been transported to North Korea? Since when do we have to check our First Amendment freedoms at the door in order to live and work as a citizen of the United States? What happened to the land of the free where we have the free exercise of religion?

The free exercise of religion has limits, as it has always had. And half a century ago, the nation came to the conclusion that one of those limits was that religion could not be used as an excuse for a business to discriminate against people. At that time, millions of Americans had “deeply held Christian convictions” that they had to refuse to hire or serve black people and the result was a massive injustice. New Mexico is one of 21 states that now extends that protection to gays and lesbians as well. You lost. Get over it.

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    The American Decency Association

    What is it about the Religious Right and their preferences for Orwellian names for their organizations?

    -

    …the constitutional issue of religious rights vs. “gay rights”….

    Actually I prefer to phrase it as the constitutional issues of religious freedom vs equal protection of the laws. Phrased like this, some may still disagree with me on how this should be decided, but I think it highlights things a bit differently.

  2. Chiroptera says

    And who are members of the American Decency Association? I have a sincerly held religious belief that I should piss in their flower gardens.

  3. John Pieret says

    Here is the full quote from the concurring opinion of Justice Richard C. Bosson:

    The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation — photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony — than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims.

    All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

    On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this 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 Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the [*80] God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

    In the smaller, more focused 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. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

    http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Elane_Photography_LLC_v_Willock_2013NMSC040_309_P3d_53_Court_Opin/1

    Part of living in a society is that we must all adjust to the people around us. I may find street preachers obnoxious and violative of the very religious beliefs (or lack thereof) that inspire my life but that doesn’t mean I can break the laws applicable to everyone to satisfy my dislike of street preachers … as in refusing to serve them in my luncheonette or turning a hose on them if they are on the the public sidewalk outside.

  4. Synfandel says

    …because she wouldn’t comprise her deeply held Christian convictions.

    Her case is solid. It’s all there in the Good Book.
    “Thou shalt not sell photographic services unto any betrothed who are icky, for it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.”
    Bigotiah 10:1-2

  5. Chiroptera says

    John Pieret, #4:

    Wonderful. Thanks for the quote. I just downloaded a PDF of the decision to read at my leisure. (Looks like there are some more good stuff in there.)

  6. felidae says

    I wonder if they would defend a photographer who belongs to Christian Identity for refusing to do a Jewish wedding

  7. dugglebogey says

    Next thing you know they will be forcing people to allow negroes to eat at the lunchcounter!

  8. Doug Little says

    Don’t you pretty much violate your deeply held religious beliefs just about every day according to Leviticus?

  9. John Horstman says

    Just as long as women still can’t vote – men are supposed to head the kingdom.

  10. Baktru says

    @8: Hey you can have negroes at your lunch counter all you want! Just don’t expect me back there..

    But seriously haven’t we still been through this yet? It’s discrimination, it’s wrong. Been there, done thatm turn the page, make the fokkin pictures.

  11. says

    The hive mind word of the week is: North Korea.
    Earlier this week Mike Husksterbee said that N. Korea had more freedoms than the Oama Nation.
    Fine, let’s help them all move there.

  12. Randomfactor says

    If their religious beliefs were truly deeply held, they would have folded the business rather than compromise their stance.

    Poseurs.

  13. iangould says

    As a Cromist, I demand the right to crush my enemies;see them driven before me and hear the lamentation of their women.

  14. dannorth says

    “a New Mexico case where a photography business refused to shoot a lesbian wedding”

    Ed, after all these years writing about the wingnuts I would expect you to use the word shoot with more care. They are trigger happy enough as it is without putting ideas into their heads.

  15. says

    Does anyone think for a minute that if some business decided that it wasn’t going to serve evangelical Christians that the ADA would uphold their right to do so on principle?

  16. njosprey says

    @ #3

    “And who are members of the American Decency Association? I have a sincerely held religious belief that I should piss in their flower gardens.”

    That’s what your dog is for.

  17. Matt G says

    Christians are shooting themselves in the foot yet again. If they are trying to cement in the minds of Americans that Christianity is synonymous with bigotry, they’re doing a bang up job of it. They don’t need us to make them look bad.

  18. gwangung says

    I have friends with relatives in North Korea.

    They seem to think these clowns are being a bit less than respectful here.

  19. dingojack says

    Dear ADA –
    And when some Muslims want to build a mosque in your town, I’m sure you’d respect their First Amendment right to religious expression, right?
    (Nah, didn’t think so)
    Dingo

  20. konrad_arflane says

    @ #3

    “And who are members of the American Decency Association? I have a sincerely held religious belief that I should piss in their flower gardens.”

    That’s what your dog is for.

    You guys know that moderate amounts of urine is an excellent fertilizer, right?

  21. says

    @22:

    I cannot speak for others, konrad_arflane, but I have a very large bladder. And, I would not be pissing on the root zones of inedible flowers. {;>)

  22. martinc says

    Good to see the judge knows what word means “expediently accept standards that are lower than is desirable”: “the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives” … which proved beyond the American Decency Association: “Elaine Huguenin’s photography business was ultimately found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination laws by the New Mexico Supreme Court because she wouldn’t comprise her deeply held Christian convictions.”

  23. scienceavenger says

    @5 Thanks, that’s the root of the problem. There are no “religious beliefs that inspire their lives” involved here, it’s just a smokescreen for bigotry.

  24. caseloweraz says

    Actually, North Korea has perfect freedom of religion — everyone is perfectly free to worship the Dear Leader.

  25. caseloweraz says

    The free exercise of religion has limits, as it has always had. And half a century ago, the nation came to the conclusion that one of those limits was that religion could not be used as an excuse for a business to discriminate against people.

    And in those fifty years certain Christians have never learned not to go into businesses that might force them to “compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

    It might be reasonable to conclude that they don’t consider those religious beliefs all that important. Or, what Randomfactor said in #13.

Leave a Reply