Skip to comments.Judges order Christians to work for 'gays' [photographers]
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 nations 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 ...
Fine. Take me to jail. You really won’t get your pictures then. The homosexual mafia is always seeking to extort others.
I moved out of CT seven years ago just because of this.
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.
Freedom of religion = dead.
This is not really a First Amendment case, but, a Thirteenth Amendment case.....
A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nations strengths, demands no less.”
I like how they cite the constitution here....
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?
This court is invalidating the 1st Amendment.
Definitely time for civil disobedience, at the very least.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just go in there and take pictures of the ceiling and sky.
freedom of thought and freedom of association are such old fashion notions I guess
Those who blaspheme homosexuality, refusing the mark of the beast, will be made to starve
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.
“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nations 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?
What ever happened to this sign that was in most stores 50 years ago?
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The photographers should show up at the wedding wearing Bible verses on their clothing.
Wonder what the court would have ruled if the photogs would have said they were muzzies?
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.
There is a solution. The business can say that they don’t do weddings, and then just do them when they want to.
I guess that in the spirit of this ruling Muslims should accept non-halal food when in jail.
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. ;)
Two can play this game!
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.
I guess it is too much to ask the homosexuals to “comprise” and go to a pro-homosexual photographer.
Well they can be vocal during work expressing their legally protected speech and see how that goes for them.
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.
“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nations 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.
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.
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?
It isn’t about getting their photos. It is about FORCING people with religious objections to bow to the homosexual agenda.
Unfortunately, this was a UNANIMOUS decision by the full Supreme Court of New Mexico.
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.
.... But since I am offended by the very sight of you, I shall be taking all of the photographs with a blindfold on.
“A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nations strengths...
No, that is arguably Americas great weakness.”
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.
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.