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