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.
“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!
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.
“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.
Even if the photos stank, they would get to waste his time.
The message is clear: accept the work with a smile, then call in sick the day before.
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?
I’m disappointed it took six posts to make that point. I’m also disappointed in SCOTUS, but I’m used to that.
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.
At least 5 crooked lawyers with a black robe. The SC is FUBAR.
That would hurt your business and they would sue you for destroying their day.
I understand the sentiment but IMO its not the answer.
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”.
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.
Just as the Founding Fathers intended - four branches of government:
The legislative branch
The executive branch
The judicial branch
The Gay Mafia branch
By inaction the SC supported the case.
They only needed four justices to review the case. Guess Roberts didn’t want to have a review.
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.
Ah yes, the media. The "check and balance" against the "other 3".
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.
It is called the porn industry.
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 ...
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.
The concept died when the government reclassified basically every business as a "place of public accommodation".
“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.
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.
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.
Spot on. This is bad case law.
Now, try to think of a politically feasible way to undo the VRA.
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.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the court was “highly protective” of the Constitution as well?