There have been a ton in Canada already. Haven't read about the US but I will check up on that.
A photographer should not be forced to do something he is not comfortable with. What don't you understand about that? Secondly, gays are not a minority. If you based minority status on sexual orientation we would all be minoritys. Lastly not being able to do something because of religious vows is not discrimination.
A photographer should have the right to decline something if he dosen't feel comfortable with it. Thats his right as a free person. And to sue a photographer because his religious practice would not allow him to shows how insecure and petty they are about themselves.
The NM Human Rights Commission (or whatever is the exact name of the agency) did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the statute was constitutional. They just had to apply it. The case has now been appealed to the courts. The consensus of the legal experts discussing this case and a couple of others now going through the US courts is that the doctor who offered IVF treatment to heterosexual patients only is going to lose her case. If she is going to offer IVF treatments, she has to offer them without discrimination. If her conscience does not allow her to provide reproductive services to gays, then she can simply not offer them at all. However, the photographer has a First Amendment right of her own, since artistic works are works of expression in and of themselves. The anti-discrimination statute's constitutionality ends where it collides with the artist's right of free expression and the constitutional repugnance of compelled speech. So the courts are likely to reverse the decision against the photographer, holding the NM statute as applied to artists of any kind.
Upvote
0