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 ...
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 nation’s 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 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?
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.