was a recent New Mexico Supreme Court Ruling that found a photographic business
discriminated in its refusal to take wedding pictures of a couple. I’ve not read the judgment of the Court, but
I have read the judgment from the Court of Appeals, upheld by the New Mexico
the heart of the case is the New Mexico Human Rights Act that prohibits “any person in
any public accommodation to make a
distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its
services ... to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin,
ancestry, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, spousal affiliation [,] or physical or mental handicap." The critical aspect of this ruling is the determination on whether a photography business is a public accommodation. In this case the court agreed with the
plaintiff that a public business fit the intent of the legislature in passing
In the bits and bites I’ve seen floating
around those who take issue with this judgment, and the Supreme Court ruling
that upheld it, believe the government is forcing the owners of Elane
Photography to violate their religious beliefs by mandating they must
photograph couples they do not believe should have the right to marry.
This does not strike me as a case
those who oppose same-sex marriage should hang their hat on. This is a simple case of discrimination. The business rationalized that discrimination
on their religions beliefs, but the photography business was not being asked to
sanction an act; they were performing a public and commercial service. Would this same support for their position exist if they refused to photograph American Indians, African-Americans, Lutheran’s, members of the military, or even people with Down’s syndrome? I doubt it.
In this emotional debate how quickly
we dismiss the guidance of Jesus who said. “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And
why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the
plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the
speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite!
First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7, 1-5 NKJV)
 Elane Photograhy, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Court of Appeals of New Mexico, May 31, 2012.
I watched a video
the other day. It was on the theories of
evolution versus creationism, or probably more correctly the atheist’s view
that evolution can be the only explanation of the development of life on this
planet, versus the religious belief that God had a hand in shaping life and the
creation of man.
What struck me so
clearly, and I recognize it was the video’s intent to do so, was the atheists
(including PhD’s) who supported the theory of evolution took as a matter of
faith -- that it could be the only explanation.
Of course they cited their teachers and the various classes they had
taken to confirm this must be true, but when asked if there was a clear
observable chain that showed one species evolving into another they all cited
fossil evidence dating back millions of years that suggested a transformation.
In Darwin’s “The
Origin of Species” he speculated that natural selection could cause a land
mammal to turn into a whale. “As a
hypothetical example, Darwin used the North American black bear, which is known to catch insects by swimming in the water with its mouth open.” Theorists who have followed Darwin have
expanded his theories to include microevolution – where a species can be
changed in small ways, like in color or size, over a number of
generations. They also speculate that
natural selection will, given sufficient time, result in the large-scale change
of one species into an entirely new species.
The challenge for
me is the rejection of objectivity. In this case, evolution has become a faith unto itself; with the scientific community’s knowing that evolution must have happened within a predictable process without having the factual basis to confirm it. So they teach a theory as fact, based on a
faith it must be correct.
The referenced article cites the example of the Ambulocetus natans or “swimming-walking whale” to show evolutionary theory must be correct.Ambulocetus natans is a fossil whose forelimbs had fingers and small hooves and who had large hind feet and a tail. It was adapted for swimming like
an otter. From this they speculate it is
the ancestor of the modern whale, but what if it was a unique species that did
not evolve, but rather went extinct? The
problems with dealing with fossils that are millions of years old is you must
base your judgments regarding them on your knowledge and training, and your
faith in that theory.
When the need to
prove the Creationists wrong becomes the compelling choice don’t those who
believe in evolution abandon the fundamental basis for scientific
questioning? When the scientific method is
altered and a basis for questioning is no longer accepted the issue then
becomes -- do its proponents have any foundation, other than arrogance, to hold
their belief as superior to those who suggest Intelligent Design, or Creation
days are like a merry-go-round. You buy
your ticket, climb on the horse, and reach for the brass ring. Other times it is like someone put the ride
in reverse. You are all set to have a
fun day and everything seems to be spinning out of control until the ride ends
and you throw up.
am reminded of that visionary President Calvin Coolidge, “Why
don't we just buy one airplane and let the pilots take turns flying it?”
First, let me say this is one
of the things I agree with John Oliver (The
Daily Show) on. We are three years
away from the 2016 election; give us a break on speculating who may or may not run for whatever party is going to be contesting the election. But then talking heads like Chris “I do this
for a living” Matthews really doesn’t have anything else worth keeping them on
TV for and the unemployment rates for political pundits would skyrocket, and
that would be terrible for them.
I do have to say I am amused that the who is or isn’t eligible to be president because of where they were or weren't born seems to be changing poles, just like our sun is about to. I wonder how this will play out when all the
people challenging the current President's right have to defend the next set of
candidates, or all the people who called those other guys racists for
their challenges now take up the self-same issue they so heatedly opposed over
the past five years?
As Walt Kelly wrote: “We have met the enemy and he is us!”