Skip to comments.Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub
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/
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.
Apparently the Justices don’t want their scalps added to the trophy wall of the fascist Gay Mafia.
No one should be compelled to do ANYTHING of the sort against their will. Whatever happened to Freedom Of Association?
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.
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).
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.
There were no gay photographers listed in the phone book?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
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.
“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”.
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).
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).
There is no reason to “hide” behind bad work.
If we don’t face this evil head on, we are part of the problem.
I would make sure they were ALL out of focus. Oh well, my camera must have had a problem. So sorry.
We lost it in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Yeah, of course. They should all be impeached. We need term limits on the federal benches too. All of them. Not just the supremes.
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.