Est. May 2008

26 August, 2013


Discrimination seems all the rage these days, what with all the people and groups claiming to have been discriminated against lately; more and more of them are finding their way into courts across the country.

Take the recently ‘resolved’ case of Elane Photography in New Mexico:
The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.
Responding to the ruling, Amber Royster (an interesting name, by the way), the executive director of Equality New Mexico (which we can safely assume is a homosexuality-advocacy group) had this to say:
“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”
Oh, she’s right, there; this case was – and is – about discrimination; what she fails to address (deliberately or accidentally, you can make up your own mind) is that the discrimination can be trowled around liberally to all involved.

Elane Photography discriminated … based on their Creator-given, unalienable right, secured by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America, to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock, discriminated based on a man-made law, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as well as by pursuing the lawsuit after her desire – to have her ‘commitment ceremony’ photographed – was fulfilled by another photographer who, in fact, charged her less than Elane’s would have.

The New Mexico Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, discriminated in that they ignored the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, superseding it with their own local law.

And in what has to be one of the more oxymoronic statements I’ve heard in quite a while, we have to go to Justice Richard Bosson, who wrote the court’s unanimous decision:
“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,” he wrote.
Not if you’re a member of a protected class, Justice Bosson – you and your cohorts on the New Mexico Supreme Court proved that.

Napoleon was right: some animals are more equal than others.

*sung to the tune of ‘Anticipation’ by Carly Simon

No comments: