Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judges order Christians to work for 'gays' [photographers]
WND ^ | 8/22/13 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 08/22/2013 2:07:18 PM PDT by madprof98

Justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court have ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the beliefs of Christians, and owners of a photography company in that state must violate their faith in order to continue to do business.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” the opinion from the court said.

****

Threatened the judges, “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. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: corruption; democrats; govtabuse; homofascism; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; moralabsolutes; queeringamerica; ruling; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last
There is a price, it seems, and guess who is going to be made to pay it?
1 posted on 08/22/2013 2:07:18 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Fine. Take me to jail. You really won’t get your pictures then. The homosexual mafia is always seeking to extort others.


2 posted on 08/22/2013 2:09:22 PM PDT by Obadiah (Inside of every Liberal beats the heart of a fascist yearning to reveal their true nature.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I moved out of CT seven years ago just because of this.


3 posted on 08/22/2013 2:10:08 PM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

and the regressive communist libs will cheer that they put another “straight” company out of business. It will be considered a victory to them....which was probably the ultimate goal in the first place.


4 posted on 08/22/2013 2:10:17 PM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Freedom of religion = dead.


5 posted on 08/22/2013 2:11:26 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (The only people in the world who fear Obama are American citizens. KILL THE BILL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

This is not really a First Amendment case, but, a Thirteenth Amendment case.....


6 posted on 08/22/2013 2:11:29 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

I like how they cite the constitution here....


7 posted on 08/22/2013 2:12:20 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

There seems to be nowhere in Obama’s America to escape it. I would not be the least surprised to see the leftists demanding Christian photographers document some of their other sacred rites—an abortion, perhaps, or a porn shoot. I mean, we all have to compromise, don’t we?


8 posted on 08/22/2013 2:12:26 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This court is invalidating the 1st Amendment.

Definitely time for civil disobedience, at the very least.

9 posted on 08/22/2013 2:12:49 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Yes, the Constitution actually DOES cover their Freedom of Religion. The Courts are run amok, and it’s high time we challenged every and all of these Evil decisions.


10 posted on 08/22/2013 2:13:01 PM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Our "president will be MOST pleased you can be certain.




11 posted on 08/22/2013 2:14:01 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey (Block Captain..Tyranny Response Team / al-Kilab Division)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little

So Christians have to compromise by violating their faith, but gays don't have to compromise by going to another business?

F You. I'm tired of compromising because it's us that gets the short end of the stick, not them. Not just gays, all the liberal socialist commie marxists of every flavor.

I'm done with them all.

I will not comply.

12 posted on 08/22/2013 2:14:25 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

So, didn’t there used to be signs that said, “We reserve the right to refuse to serve ...” followed by whatever it was. Hippies, I believe, or if folks were barefoot.


13 posted on 08/22/2013 2:14:30 PM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

The Ruling Class has declared war on Christians.

There are more battles to come, and more casualties will be counted.

The goal of the Ruling Class is to extinguish Christianity in America.


14 posted on 08/22/2013 2:15:02 PM PDT by Oak Grove (H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oak Grove

I guess what Christians in New Mexico can do is patronize Christian businesses. No one can take the photographer to court for being too busy photographing non-gay events.

What’s next, a gay bachelor party? Oh Lord!

No pics please.


15 posted on 08/22/2013 2:18:05 PM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Just go in there and take pictures of the ceiling and sky.


16 posted on 08/22/2013 2:20:58 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

freedom of thought and freedom of association are such old fashion notions I guess


17 posted on 08/22/2013 2:22:15 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

Those who blaspheme homosexuality, refusing the mark of the beast, will be made to starve


18 posted on 08/22/2013 2:23:46 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Their mistake was saying why. In contract oriented work like wedding photography if you don’t want to take that gig (for whatever reason) you say you can’t, you don’t say you won’t and you ESPECIALLY don’t say why you won’t. Once you say why you’ve established that you are discriminating, then the only question is do the courts consider them a protected class.


19 posted on 08/22/2013 2:24:08 PM PDT by discostu (Go do the voodoo that you do so well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths...”

No, that is arguably America’s great weakness.

I suggest the photographers photograph the wedding while wearing T-shirts that say, “Homosexuality is sin”.

After all, in a multicultural, pluralistic society, all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others...

Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the homosexuals should have compromised in THEIR choice of photographers?


20 posted on 08/22/2013 2:25:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

What ever happened to this sign that was in most stores 50 years ago?

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!


21 posted on 08/22/2013 2:25:57 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

frame every picture to cut out one or the other “spouse”

or not show the heads.

i would photoshop every shop with the grooms in black face... and say they were mocking civil rights.

or place nazi arm bands on all the guests

or photoshop the judges face on all the weird guests.

so many options, but this is government sanctioned slavery.


22 posted on 08/22/2013 2:27:13 PM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Homos are running around trying to destroy small businesses.

Look like the court agrees with them, which means the homos will increase their terrorism 10 fold.


23 posted on 08/22/2013 2:27:15 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (The only people in the world who fear Obama are American citizens. KILL THE BILL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I’d go to jail first. Or rather, they could “try” to put me in jail.

The government is losing its last shreds of legitimacy.


24 posted on 08/22/2013 2:27:18 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Find a woman willing to fight in court, get her a companion animal pig legitimately and bring her to a muslim restaurant.

Then go to the SC with it.

This is the only way to stop the religious war on Christianity by the courts.

Two words. Equal protection.


25 posted on 08/22/2013 2:28:26 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

This isn’t someone refusing to hire...it’s someone refusing to take a job. I can’t see any circumstance where the government could force someone to contract to work for someone else.


26 posted on 08/22/2013 2:28:27 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The photographers should show up at the wedding wearing Bible verses on their clothing.


27 posted on 08/22/2013 2:30:37 PM PDT by forgotten man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The conservative right is going about this all wrong. Using first amendment “freedom of speech” is too amorphous of a legal argument given how many “special cases” of its curtailment have been enshrined into case law... think fire/crowded theater. A more effective legal strategy involves contract law. A business owner enters into a contract when services are performed and “consideration” flows both ways of both party's free wills. The left is in effect forcing one party to enter into a contract against their will, which strictly speaking, makes the contract illegal and unenforceable, ask any contract lawyer. That legal maxim predates the existence of the United States btw and lies at the very bedrock of English common and US contract law.
28 posted on 08/22/2013 2:32:36 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oak Grove

Wonder what the court would have ruled if the photogs would have said they were muzzies?


29 posted on 08/22/2013 2:33:45 PM PDT by biff (WAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Borges

It’s been that way since the first discrimination lawsuit. It all stems from segregation days, once we decided that whole “black restaurant” “white restaurant” thing was no good it started a whole ball of wax. To me both sides are wrong, wedding photography business is tough enough without ruling out customers (especially a demographic that has more money to spend and is more likely to buy a higher priced package), and the gay couple (like everybody else) should wrap their head around the idea that some people don’t want their business and the proper response it to give somebody else the money.

But given all that it’s an old rule in contract business, going back to the early days of discrimination lawsuits, that you never say you won’t you only say you can’t. Saying you won’t opens the door to possibilities, and in that kind of lawsuit even when you win you lose (bad press, costs, lost opportunity because you’re busy in court). “Sorry booked solid then” is the correct answer.


30 posted on 08/22/2013 2:34:40 PM PDT by discostu (Go do the voodoo that you do so well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Appeal.


31 posted on 08/22/2013 2:35:26 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

There is a solution. The business can say that they don’t do weddings, and then just do them when they want to.


32 posted on 08/22/2013 2:41:10 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

bump


33 posted on 08/22/2013 2:42:42 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I guess that in the spirit of this ruling Muslims should accept non-halal food when in jail.


34 posted on 08/22/2013 2:43:02 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I don’t know. If it comes down to it there is such a thing as calling in sick. Gee sorry. Or wear a button that says: All proceeds from this photoshoot proudly donated to The Tea Party or Wheaton College. ;)


35 posted on 08/22/2013 2:43:13 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
So take REALLY shitty pictures and charge them. Sue them if they don't pay.

Two can play this game!

36 posted on 08/22/2013 2:43:20 PM PDT by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

That sign was made illegal in 1964, which is why many conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act. The conservatives of the day - and I was only 6 at the time - believed freedom of association was too important to lose. I continue to believe they were right.


37 posted on 08/22/2013 2:43:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I guess it is too much to ask the homosexuals to “comprise” and go to a pro-homosexual photographer.


38 posted on 08/22/2013 2:43:33 PM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Well they can be vocal during work expressing their legally protected speech and see how that goes for them.


39 posted on 08/22/2013 2:44:13 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Easy solution, take sucky pictures at gay weddings. The word will quickly get around to the gay community that they don’t want to go there.


40 posted on 08/22/2013 2:47:25 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the people. T Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths”

What a ridiculous idea!

Multiculturalism is a weakness, usually fatal to healthy societies. You could make the argument that America is different, that it won’t kill us - but a STRENGTH?

Don’t make me laugh.


41 posted on 08/22/2013 2:47:51 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Judges CAN be removed from office, even Federal for life judges, if they violate the constitution.

This judge should be servicing some tattooed thug in jail right now but we no longer seem to have a legal mechanism to invoke the Constitutional limits on the government mafia.

Just who is going to drag this judge off the bench? I bet the JBTs will come to his defense.

This criminal has just ruled that people engaged in perverted anal sex MUST have their rectal relations celebrated while at the same time ruling that Christians have no right to FREELY practice their religion in spite of such protection in the Constitution.

Hot Tar and Feathers time folks.


42 posted on 08/22/2013 2:48:24 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

A religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Being of a certain race is not a moral issue.

These two are not the same thing as sanctioning immoral behavior, which many feel include gay marriage.

Since when is the point of compromise always needing to be at the point of the lowest common denominator?

Why does the gay couple not need to compromise, and find someone to photograph their occasion that agrees to do it?
Why must it be forced?


43 posted on 08/22/2013 2:48:35 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

It isn’t about getting their photos. It is about FORCING people with religious objections to bow to the homosexual agenda.


44 posted on 08/22/2013 2:48:48 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the people. T Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Unfortunately, this was a UNANIMOUS decision by the full Supreme Court of New Mexico.


45 posted on 08/22/2013 2:50:16 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: discostu

That’s been tried before. What comes next is (drum roll, please)...the quota system. Wedding photogs, florists, bakers, and, yes, even ministers, will be required to prove that at least 15% of their business comes from the gay community. Otherwise, it will be prima facie evidence of discrimination.


46 posted on 08/22/2013 2:50:35 PM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

+1


47 posted on 08/22/2013 2:51:29 PM PDT by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bboop

.... But since I am offended by the very sight of you, I shall be taking all of the photographs with a blindfold on.


48 posted on 08/22/2013 2:52:09 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

““A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths...”

No, that is arguably America’s great weakness.”


ABSOLUTELY correct!

Diversity such as in a garden is good until weeds are considered diversity and we have way too many cultural weeds in this society to survive.

The citizens MUST remove this judge from the bench otherwise they are saying Ok you can do that to us and render the Constitution moot.


49 posted on 08/22/2013 2:53:48 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
TThis is bullshirt. The judge says the can practice their faith in their "private" life --- within the confines of their church, their closet, or their skull --- but not in their work or their business, i.e. their "real" life.

That's not what the First Amendment says about the free exercise of religion.

Plus, they're not refusing service to gay customers. If the same customers came in and wanted photographers for a birthday party or a graduation, I don't think they'd be turned down.

Likewise, if skinheads or KKK came in and wanted photographs for an offensive anti-gay bash (a "F**k the gays" parade), these same Christian photographers would almost certainly turn them down.

TThis is because photography is not just another product. It's expressive. It's a form of expressing a value or sentiment or conveying a message, just as is creating a drawing or painting, or planing an event, or decorating a cake, or writing and performing a song.

You wouldn't force ANY photographers to create positive photographs for a Neo-Nazi event, would you?

The judge is wrong.

50 posted on 08/22/2013 2:53:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson