Posted on 06/05/2012 8:54:59 AM PDT by CedarDave
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
They do have that right, something I made abundantly clear. I think they were simply wrong on two counts:
A: bad business decision: it’s not really up to the caterer, the florist and the photographer to “bless” a wedding. They are there to perform a service for a fee, period. Now, as for Pastor, or counselor. That’s something altogether different.
B: I think they were used. I think this gay couple picked this business out in a blatant attempt to embarrass them. I think the gay couple KNEW this would happen. I think the business was simply used as a pawn very predictably.
But not doubt, they are 100% within your rights. Remember, it is not always smart to exercise every right you have in every situation.
No such thing anymore in the USSA.
You were talking about refusing homo sex being discriminatory.
You were talking about refusing homo sex being discriminatory.
I ask it in future tense,too.
I would never conceive that we would have a president who favors infanticide or giving old people a “blue pill”
Yet, here we are.
That’s why I asked about refusing hetero sex being discriminatory. It happens all the time now and isn’t considered discriminatory, is it?
Jesus also told believers not to cast their pearls before swine. And, when Jesus did deal with the unrepentant, He rebuked them.
And, nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus or believers should take an action that validates sin, which taking photos at homosexual "wedding" would do.
Notice how the insults always flow from Sir C. Edmund's keyboard when some points out he is wrong and a lukewarm Christian.
So, based on that logic, perhaps ministers should be performing gay weddings as a means of showing homosexuals the light! Makes as much sense as assisting two lesbians by taking pictures at a wedding ceremony.
You are very logically challenged. And a Pharisee. And did I mention you are logically challenged? And you like to take offense at comments not even directed at you. But these are, so take away.......I will not waste any more time with you.
Thank you very much; your prayers are appreciated.
That’s why I asked about refusing hetero sex being discriminatory. It happens all the time now and isn’t considered discriminatory, is it?
Unless I am totally misunderstanding something. If you refuse any kind of sex and the person you refuse continues to try to have sex with you that is unattempted rape?
The difference is homos want unreasonable consideration concidering they can not conceive or given they want a institution such as marriage to recognise what is basically a mockery to the institution of marriage.
They should have been happy with civil unions which is not offensive to religious people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.