PayPal

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

New Mexican Judges: Christians Have No Right to Privacy, Property, or Freedom of Religion, and Must Submit to Rabid Homosexuals!

By Nicholas Stix

I’ve been warning my readers for years that whenever gays say that the “hate crime” (or “human rights”; same difference) laws they are pushing will respect Christians’ religious freedom, they’re lying like a Persian rug. More proof of that now comes from New Mexico.

The “news story” below is a reportorial written by Scott Sandlin, who is obviously, based on this piece alone, a rabid promoter of homosexualism. (After writing those words, I googled under “Scott Sandlin,” “Albuquerque Journal,” + “gay,” and got 1,170 hits, mostly for various homosexualist reportorials.)

And his editors at the Albuquerque Journal clearly are of one mind with him, since they not only published his homosexualist propaganda, but gave it a deceptive headline: “Studio Can’t Turn Down Gay Weddings.”

Since gay marriage isn’t even legal in New Mexico, what sort of con are the grifters at the Albuquerque Journal trying to pull?

For one thing, they are lying to the public, to deceive it into believing that gay marriage is already legal in New Mexico. For another, they are insinuating that any sort of “same-gender ceremony” is synonymous with gay marriage.

This has been a homosexualist tactic for many years. They say ‘We don’t demand gay marriage, but we want civil unions.’ As soon as they get civil unions, however, they demand gay marriage.

Scott Sandlin also engages in at least …. other sorts of mischief.

For one thing, he cites a leftwing law professor, Tobias Wolff, as saying that the judges’ decision represents “follows a national trend.” This is to give readers the feeling that the homosexualists have history on their side, and all resistance is futile. Communications professors call this tactic, “bandwagoning.”

Secondly, Sandlin puffs up Wolff’s resume, to insinuate to readers that they have no choice but to accept his highly partisan view: “Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania School of Law professor who has litigated, advocated and published on gay marriage, constitutional rights and related topics.”

Of course, he’s done all those things—he’s a gay activist! But Sandlin won’t tell you that, because it would cause those readers who are not homosexual or lefty to look askance at everything Wolff—and Sandlin—has to say on the subject.

Finally, Sandlin engages in shameless sophistry, in seeking to make Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography look like a sneak, when in fact it was the people attacking Huguenin who were the sneaks. Sandlin writes,

[Plaintiff Vanessa] Willock first contacted photographer Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography in fall 2006 about taking pictures of a “same-gender ceremony” and was informed the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, the studio responded with a price list and sent a follow-up email.

How was Elaine Huguenin anything but above-board? She told Willock her position, right off the bat. When Willock’s lesbian lover then contacted Huguenin, and deceived her into thinking she wanted to hire her to photograph a wedding, Huguenin responded in character, just as she had to Willock.

Sandlin is trying to make the case sound like that of a realtor who, when tested by “civil rights” hustlers, tells a fake white client that she has an apartment for her, but then tells a fake black client that she has no apartment for her. But aside from the unconstitutionality of all civil rights laws, Huguenin was consistent and honest in her behavior towards Willock and the unnamed lover. [And why does the lesbian lover get to hide her identity?]

[By the way, I respect the right of whites to live in white communities. Thus, I support realtors who use deception in dealing with those who seem to be seeking apartments or homes.]

It looks to me as though Willock only contacted Elaine Huguenin because she knew she was a Christian, and this whole thing was a set-up, to terrorize and ruin Huguenin.

Judge Tim Garcia’s position in his opinion for the court entails that state discrimination law disenfranchises “non-protected” classes from all sorts of rights. And that is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment right of equality before the law, as well as all of the other thereby violated rights.

Judge James Wechsler wrote a concurring opinion that is almost pornographic in its dishonesty.

[Wechsler] rejected Elane Photography’s claim that its religious freedom rights would be violated by having to photograph the ceremony.

The facts of the case, he wrote, don’t indicate whether the studio was aware there was any religious aspect to the ceremony.

If you’re a devout Christian, any ceremony celebrating homosexuality has a religious aspect, in that it celebrates an abomination that is absolutely forbidden. [Full disclosure: I am not a Christian.]

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission, District Judge Alan Malott, and by concurrence, the appeals court, have expanded the definition of “public accommodation,” such that there is no such thing as a business that is not a “public accommodation.” I challenge them to cite a business that is not a “public accommodation.”

My hunch is that they would either waffle on the matter, refusing to give a straight answer, or come down on the side of businesses owned by members of “protected classes.”

For the aforementioned figures, in the State of New Mexico, homosexuals and other members of protected classes have the legal privilege to deny Christians the rights to privacy, property, and freedom of religion.

The U.S. Constitution says otherwise.

This case has to go all way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

* * *

Studio Can’t Turn Down Gay Weddings
By Scott Sandlin
Tue, Jun 5, 2012
Albuquerque Journal

A photo studio’s refusal to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting the Albuquerque studio’s argument that doing so would cause it to disobey God and Biblical teachings.

It was the third loss for the studio, and victory for Vanessa Willock.

Willock first contacted photographer Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography in fall 2006 about taking pictures of a “same-gender ceremony” and was informed the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, the studio responded with a price list and sent a follow-up email.

The opinion follows a national trend, according to the Pennsylvania law professor who represented Willock on the appeal.

“I really think what’s most important about this case is that it is the first time (New Mexico) appellate courts have talked about scope of the statute in a really comprehensive way,” said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania School of Law professor who has litigated, advocated and published on gay marriage, constitutional rights and related topics.

The Alliance Defense Fund, “a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage and the family,” stepped up to represent Huguenin and Elane. The fund didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.

Malott found the studio is a “public accommodation” — an establishment that provides services to the public — and as such may not refuse its services on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical or mental handicap.

Elane Photography argued that as a provider of discretionary, unique and expressive services, it was not a public accommodation within the meaning of the act.

Judge Tim Garcia, writing for the court, said a 1981 state Supreme Court case made it clear the concept of “public accommodation” was expanded to other nontraditional and non-historic types of business.

The earlier ruling “signaled that this court should independently evaluate the applicability of the NMHRA in all future cases,” Garcia wrote.

Willock argued, and the court agreed, that the act’s language extends protection to goods and services as well as facilities and that it reaches “commercial activity beyond the 19th century paradigm of inn, restaurant or public carrier.”

Garcia wrote that “cases addressing public accommodations statutes with similarly broad language support a national trend that has expanded the traditional definition of business activity that constitutes a ‘public accommodation.’ ”

Elane Photography argued that categorically refusing to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies did not constitute discrimination, but rather reflected its owners sincerely held religious and moral beliefs that prohibit the practice. Could an African-American photographer, under that rationale, be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally? Elane asked hypothetically.

“The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class,” the court noted. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

Judge Cynthia Fry joined in the opinion. Judge James Wechsler wrote a specially concurring opinion that rejected Elane Photography’s claim that its religious freedom rights would be violated by having to photograph the ceremony.

The facts of the case, he wrote, don’t indicate whether the studio was aware there was any religious aspect to the ceremony.

No comments: