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 ...
I have stated this before. There is a civil-diobedience solution to this:
Let me first state that I video-tape weddings as a side gig, so I know of what I speak.
Weddings, are by definiton PRIVATE events. Where the wedding party can invite who they want, and that invitee cannot and will not be stopped from performing whatever service is asked of them by the wedding party while they are in attendance.
I have made it clear that I only video-tape private events in which I accept the invatation as a guest. Get it?
The bride invited me... and asked me to take pictures.
The groom invited me; I sent back an RSVP, and they called and asked me to bake a cake.
The mother of the groom invited my spouse, and asked if her spouse could bring flower from my flower shop for the event.
Oh, and I’m ALWAYS booked, or my plates full. Period.
The main rule is NOT TO SUBMIT. The sodiites know damn well there are people in the wedding business catering almost exclusively to them. These court cases are mere intimidation. If we surrender, it’ll only get worse.
No one can say anything if you do your task as a GUEST of the wedding party.
Ill conclude with this: they wouldn’t think of doing this to a muslim business. There’s a reason. Think about it.
It will be a shame when Christian ministers are forced to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies. But I can’t see why they would be exempt in New Mexico. This is what tolerance earns you.
precedentto the Judiciary playing the children's game 'telephone' with our legal rights… I've yet to hear a rebuttal to that assertion.
The solution is easy...any time a photographer is called upon to shoot a pervert “wedding” they can just do an abysmal job and,on receipt of a complaint,refund their money.Word will get around the pervert community and no more orders will be forthcoming.
Idiot Marxist judge.
Very good and important post.
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.
Oh, yeah? How come these so-called "others" never have to compromise?
You see, I am a bit ashamed of myself to admit it, but... well... I think I really like women. I mean, there is something about them that is just special. Maybe it's how they smell or dress or that they have body parts that are different from guys? I think I am secretly a sexist because I like girls.
Worse, though, I think I am a racist too because while women that are Negros, Hispanic, or Asians might smell good or have differerent body parts than me, those women just don't appeal to me the way White girls do... especially tall ones with long legs and green eyes and straight light brown or dirty blonde hair. Oh, wait, I think I am lying... I sometimes like Asian women too, so I guess you can keep posting those pictures of Korean girl bands, ok?
Thanks in advance.
I dunno, it's just so hard to make up my mind.
I just hope that I don't get in trouble with Dear Leader if I don't marry a Negro man. As it is, I fear I am perpetuating Thoughtcrimes here. Any else have these anxieties?
They’re on their way for you now. Get under the bed.
But does that mean to take great photographs or to do a great job of resisting the evil of the far left? I'd incline toward the second option - decent people do not celebrate perversion.
Here’s a sure bet. A religion of peace member refuses to serve a normal person. No judge will ever force them to violate their ‘religious’ beliefs.
You can bet on it.
So the courts say they must take pictures. Did the court also say what quality level these pictures must be?
Put two extra zeroes on the dollar amount charged. "Sure I'll photograph you homos for $100,000 PER HOUR.
Any business/person should be able to make up their own mind as to what customers or clients they do or don’t want. I certainly don’t want to put up with abuse from an overbearing asshat -so I don’t. My choice, nobody else’s business.
So how about the sodomites compromising and not try to force someone who has an objection to their behavior to not work for them?
I hope the Christian photographer appeals this. Or refuses to obey the judge.
We are called to disobey the government when it ORDERS us to behave immorally, or when it ORDERS us to NOT behave morally.
Looks like New Mexico has reached that rubicon. (I think that is the term.)
It means what it says: if you're going to do something, then pursue excellence — as befitting doing something for God.
All of which I would refuse to do if I so chose. However, I don't recall any biblical injunctions against being black or muslime (especially since the latter wasn't even concocted when it was written).
It is not like they are the only photographers out there. Why the hell do these evil homosexual activists feel that we all must accept their lifestyles. Which in this case violates Christian beliefs and laws.
Really it is ridiculous that they feel the need to cram their sex lives down the rest of the country’s throat like their some sort of holier than though societal contribution. Well, you are not!
Your lifestyle is evil and my God does not condone comporting with those who sin and do not repent.
They should. But thanks to a litigious society and some poorly defined laws you have to be careful how you inform them you don’t want anything to do with them. There are certain word and phrases you can’t use, any sentence that starts with “because you’re” is high on that list because the next words are almost certainly going to tie to a protected minority (even “overbearing asshat”, could be the result of a mental condition, can’t discriminate against the insane). Nothing new about this, it’s why in right to work states where you can fire someone for “cause” you ALWAYS do, never list a reason that could be challenged in court. It’s a messed up system out there and the path to survival is to know the dance and never deviate.
I’m not an attorney, I’d like to hear some lawyer weigh in, but you seem to make a solid argument, one which should stand up in court.
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.