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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub
USA Today | 4-7-14

Posted on 04/07/2014 6:49:39 AM PDT by markomalley

Link only: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/07/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage-photographer/7304157/


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; denialofstanding; godsinblackdresses; homosexualagenda; photography; righttorefuseservice; samesexmarriage; scotus; sodomy; supremacistcourt; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
This is the case of the photographer who refused to shoot the sodomite " marriage"
1 posted on 04/07/2014 6:49:39 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Unlike the baker a photographer must observe (and document) the wedding (including closeups of the “kiss”).

No one should be ordered to document such things against his or he will.


2 posted on 04/07/2014 6:53:38 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Apparently the Justices don’t want their scalps added to the trophy wall of the fascist Gay Mafia.


3 posted on 04/07/2014 6:54:56 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"No one should be ordered to document such things against his or he will."

No one should be compelled to do ANYTHING of the sort against their will. Whatever happened to Freedom Of Association?

4 posted on 04/07/2014 6:56:57 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And like the baker. What guarantee is there that the product will be good enough?

I know if I’m forced to take the pictures, i would ‘accidentally’ delete the best ones.


5 posted on 04/07/2014 6:59:27 AM PDT by proudpapa (Scott Walker - 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Key point: The denial leaves standing a decision by the state's highest court that went against the photo studio
6 posted on 04/07/2014 6:59:34 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Kickstarter said the Gosnell horror film crowdsourcing campaign “went against community standards”. This was not called “censorship” and their civil rights weren’t “violated”.

Maybe the photographer should say it goes against his religious community’s standards.

Dennis Prager said that just because he is a lawyer, he doesn’t have to accept every client (especially those who’s action items run counter to his beliefs, such as litigating to legalize same sex marriage).


7 posted on 04/07/2014 7:01:50 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

So basically if they ask the photographer to take a close up of the inside of their poopy butt hole, they’ll have to do it.


8 posted on 04/07/2014 7:01:57 AM PDT by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

There were no gay photographers listed in the phone book?


9 posted on 04/07/2014 7:01:59 AM PDT by Slyfox (When Jesus sees a momma holding her little baby, it reminds him of his own momma.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

10 posted on 04/07/2014 7:02:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I find this no different that if a news station refuses to air an ad they disagree with. If MSNBC can refuse a prolife ad then a photographer, baker etc should be able to refuse to provide service for a gay wedding. This is simply a matter of individuals being able to exercise their conscience and not be compelled into involuntary servitude by the state.


11 posted on 04/07/2014 7:02:52 AM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

If I recall in the baker’s case, the state didn’t even recognize same sex marriage. How can it be criminal to deny a cake for a “wedding” in a state that doesn’t even legally recognize the marriage? The customers were free to buy a cake, just not a wedding cake. There was no denial of service.

A book publisher can reject a manuscript and a printer can deny your book/magazine publication on the basis of personal objection.


12 posted on 04/07/2014 7:03:55 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

“Whatever happened to Freedom Of Association?”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It’s still around, it’s just that there is no freedom to disassociate.

Seriously, we have now reached the point forecast by Orwell, freedom is slavery, war is peace, up is down, etc. etc. madness is recognized as “progressive”, sanity is called “extremism”.


13 posted on 04/07/2014 7:04:20 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

In the wake of the Mozilla CEO’s termination, a political purge is coming. You may legally be able to deny them exposure, but they will come after your livelihood (and don’t expect the Injustice Department to go after them for racketeering and political shakedown activity).


14 posted on 04/07/2014 7:05:21 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
There were no gay photographers listed in the phone book?

And actually there ARE photographers who specialize in same sex ceremonies. I don't know if any have been approached about a traditional service (opposite sex couple at a "conservative" church).

An article I saw in a photography publication highlighted some of the differences between photographing a traditional wedding and one with a same sex couple. Some of the standard/stock poses don't work if both are wearing suits (garter, etc.). Often the extended family (who would pose around the couple) don't attend (because they are "discriminating" by not attending).

15 posted on 04/07/2014 7:09:23 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

There is no reason to “hide” behind bad work.

If we don’t face this evil head on, we are part of the problem.


16 posted on 04/07/2014 7:09:57 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa
I know if I’m forced to take the pictures, i would ‘accidentally’ delete the best ones.

I would make sure they were ALL out of focus. Oh well, my camera must have had a problem. So sorry.

17 posted on 04/07/2014 7:14:10 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

We lost it in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


18 posted on 04/07/2014 7:14:21 AM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Yeah, of course. They should all be impeached. We need term limits on the federal benches too. All of them. Not just the supremes.


19 posted on 04/07/2014 7:16:36 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Progressive is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78

Here’s an acid test for Mr. Liberties, e.g. Ron Paul.

Will he stand up for such whittled-away rights. He ought to or he’s being empty.


20 posted on 04/07/2014 7:19:51 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“This is the case of the photographer who refused to shoot the sodomite “ marriage” “

Hell, I’d shoot their sodomite wedding for free, and throw in the guests for good measure!


21 posted on 04/07/2014 7:23:39 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78; KoRn

The reason many conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act is that it gave up, apparently forever, a fundamental freedom - freedom of association. And now many states have added homosexuality to the list of protected people, without making any attempt to resolve the conflict between the freedom to be a homosexual and the freedom to be a Muslim or Baptist...but the courts are making it clear:

In modern America, you have NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN PUBLIC!

This refusal by the SCOTUS is simply a middle finger salute to the First Amendment. And apparently, we don’t even have 4 members on the Supreme Court who will honor the First Amendment, or admit that religious freedom trumps the right to be a public homosexual.


22 posted on 04/07/2014 7:27:43 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

“There were no gay photographers listed in the phone book?”

I think this is about forced acceptance, this guy was probably targeted specifically to make their point.


23 posted on 04/07/2014 7:28:40 AM PDT by V_TWIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

Even if the photos stank, they would get to waste his time.


24 posted on 04/07/2014 7:29:39 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The message is clear: accept the work with a smile, then call in sick the day before.


25 posted on 04/07/2014 7:30:12 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I wonder what the result would be if an anti-gun photographer was asked to take photos of live fire at a gun range? Would those same courts/judges find that he/she had no right to refuse?


26 posted on 04/07/2014 7:30:49 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I’m disappointed it took six posts to make that point. I’m also disappointed in SCOTUS, but I’m used to that.


27 posted on 04/07/2014 7:31:28 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Someone explain the *amn case for those who aren’t 24/7 news junkies...I don’t remember who was the plaintiff and vica versa.


28 posted on 04/07/2014 7:39:14 AM PDT by CincyRichieRich (A government of the people and by the people...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

At least 5 crooked lawyers with a black robe. The SC is FUBAR.


29 posted on 04/07/2014 7:53:06 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

That would hurt your business and they would sue you for destroying their day.

I understand the sentiment but IMO its not the answer.


30 posted on 04/07/2014 7:58:08 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

As I’ve been telling people that I know, at some point during our lifetimes, we will be going to jail for our faith, as some already have.

You don’t hear about it a lot in the MSM, but many people have already been fined, fired, kept from graduating from college, and jailed for refusing to go along with the homosexual agenda. I gave a speech on this at a convention a number of years ago. I don’t think that a lot of folks really believed me. One of the points of the speech was “They are coming”. Over the last few years I think that can accurately be changed to “They are here”.


31 posted on 04/07/2014 8:00:10 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

In today’s liberal politically correct world, it doesn’t matter whether homosexual marriage is even legal in a state in which these incidents happen. Because homosexuals are apparently at the top of the pyramid of grievance groups, they get their way in any legal dispute of any kind.


32 posted on 04/07/2014 8:07:08 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (as)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Apparently the Justices don’t want their scalps added to the trophy wall of the fascist Gay Mafia.

Just as the Founding Fathers intended - four branches of government:

The legislative branch
The executive branch
The judicial branch
The Gay Mafia branch

33 posted on 04/07/2014 8:10:59 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

By inaction the SC supported the case.


34 posted on 04/07/2014 8:11:32 AM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

They only needed four justices to review the case. Guess Roberts didn’t want to have a review.


35 posted on 04/07/2014 8:13:52 AM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Nothing in the Constitution or amendment affords protection to sexual preference. Some STATES may have language to grant that but the US Constitution has not been so amended.

And as I stated earlier (possibly on another thread), at least one of these cases was brought in a state that itself did not recognize same sex marriage.

So much for “standing” being a basic requirement.

The gods in black dresses have shrugged their acceptance of this.


36 posted on 04/07/2014 8:20:04 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
The Gay Mafia branch

Ah yes, the media. The "check and balance" against the "other 3".

37 posted on 04/07/2014 8:21:47 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The obvious solution to this would be to create a sectarian, Christian oriented business that operates as a club, so that only club members are entitled to its services.

This means the business affiliates with a conservative church, and only caters to those authorized by that church. Even if they are not church members, they can be club members. That is, the church vets them to insure they are acceptable to its faith practices.

And the church can legally discriminate, so they act as a screen for the business. Or a bunch of businesses that do not wish to cater to sodomites. You want to do business with us? Go to church first. This also benefits the church because the businesses pay it a small service fee.

Oddly enough, a vaguely similar trick existed during the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone with wealth was vulnerable to scoundrels who wanted to rob them by claiming they were heretics. The defense was for them to hire a clergyman, often a non-cloistered monk, to attest that they were indeed righteous. So bugger off, scoundrel.


38 posted on 04/07/2014 8:23:16 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
And actually there ARE photographers who specialize in same sex ceremonies.

It is called the porn industry.

39 posted on 04/07/2014 8:23:42 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

I can’t get the article to open on my phone. Did SCOTUS flat out refuse to hear it, or rather decide not to hear it *now* based on a technical (like standing, or expedited review) point?

The Court is highly protective of itself when it comes to technical procedures. Refusing to hear the case may not mean that it’s all settled ...


40 posted on 04/07/2014 8:31:25 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; P-Marlowe

What does it say about the Hobby Lobby case that the justices wouldn’t take this case?

First, it says they think the lower courts got it right, I suppose. Otherwise, this case would be constrained by whatever they rule on Hobby Lobby. By not telling the lower courts to at least relook this, they are assuming their position on Hobby Lobby won’t affect this case.

So, since Hobby Lobby is about a business being permitted to have a set of principles by which their business is guided, this doesn’t sound promising to me regarding Hobby Lobby.


41 posted on 04/07/2014 8:31:57 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
No one should be compelled to do ANYTHING of the sort against their will. Whatever happened to Freedom Of Association?

The concept died when the government reclassified basically every business as a "place of public accommodation".

42 posted on 04/07/2014 8:33:16 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

“If MSNBC can refuse a prolife ad then a photographer, baker etc should be able to refuse to provide service for a gay wedding.”

You’re absolutely right, but it’s time to jettison the idea that the left, who controls the media, courts, schools, governments, both political parties, and entertainment, wants fairness. We need to put away the idea that fairness and reason is an argument we can win, or that we can win any argument. Then we can go from there: figure out how to regain our liberty.


43 posted on 04/07/2014 8:34:37 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Good point, but if SCOTUS was about to go in the opposite direction, issuing a broad ruling protecting the religious rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their moral beliefs, wouldn’t that make sense in chucking the case as well?

I mean, the Justices certainly know how the HobbyLobby case will go. I don’t think they’d remand a case back to the lower courts based on a ruling that hasn’t been issued yet ... They’d just drop the case completely (as they have apparantly done) and let any future action by the plaintiff or defendent wait for the ruling.


44 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:06 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

BTTT!


45 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:40 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

No. Why would they do that? They’d say the photographer in that case had the right to refuse. The left, who own every institution, is not trying to emancipate gun owners. They’re trying to marginalize, criminalize, then exterminate us.


46 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:56 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Spot on. This is bad case law.


47 posted on 04/07/2014 8:53:07 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Now, try to think of a politically feasible way to undo the VRA.


48 posted on 04/07/2014 8:55:20 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It’s interesting how the FoxNews website shut down the comments section of their website for this article. This ruling and the fact that the SC won’t take it is just further evidence that the tide has turned against decent law abiding Americans. The Homosexual Gestapo will get us.


49 posted on 04/07/2014 8:56:45 AM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Wouldn’t it be cool if the court was “highly protective” of the Constitution as well?


50 posted on 04/07/2014 8:59:14 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 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