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.
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.
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.
“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 message is clear: accept the work with a smile, then call in sick the day before.
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.
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”.
They only needed four justices to review the case. Guess Roberts didn’t want to have a review.
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.
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.
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.
All part of the deconstruction of our once cherished Republic.
How many justices are likely closet homos? What’s the count these days? Clambake Roberts, Kagan, and I bet some Ginsburg, and isn’t one of the others suspect too?