Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Rules itís Illegal for Christians to Refuse to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremonies [New Mexico]
Catholic Culture ^ | 6/5/12

Posted on 06/05/2012 7:21:34 AM PDT by marshmallow

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that it is illegal for a photography business owned by Christians to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony—even though New Mexico law does not permit same-sex marriage.

The court based its judgment on the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which makes it illegal “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”

Elane Photography’s owners are Christians who believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman,” the court noted in its opinion. “Elane Photography denied Willock’s request to photograph the ceremony based upon its policy of refusing to photograph images that convey the message that marriage can be defined to include combinations of people other than the union of one man and one woman … They also believe that photography is an artistically expressive form of communication and photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony would disobey God and the teachings of the Bible by communicating a message contrary to their religious and personal beliefs.”

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; nm; religiouspersecution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 06/05/2012 7:21:39 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Next step is churches who refuse to do ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies lose their IRS tax exempt status.

That’s on the way soon.


2 posted on 06/05/2012 7:23:36 AM PDT by TigerClaws (He)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Any business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. PERIOD.


3 posted on 06/05/2012 7:23:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Government is now telling private business what to do.

We’ve crossed the Rubicon, folks.


4 posted on 06/05/2012 7:23:52 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

CW-II is coming.

Sooner or later, someone has to tell the court to shove it up its liberal smelly Obama.

Sooner would be better than later.


5 posted on 06/05/2012 7:24:13 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: marshmallow

Mass civil disobedience is right around the corner. These judicial activists are crapping in their own nests.


7 posted on 06/05/2012 7:26:52 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Fine. It's not illegal to make BAD photographs. Even if you don't get paid for a client or two, word will get around the gay community and you will stop getting hired...
8 posted on 06/05/2012 7:28:00 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Does this mean if someone wanted to force a Christian photographer to shoot pornography, they could? Also, can the photographers do a bad job on the photos and say they will give all the money they receive for it to Focus on the Family or some other conservative organization the lesbonazis hate?


9 posted on 06/05/2012 7:28:11 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Do they have to do a good job? Sorry, left my thousands of dollars of cameras and lenses at the shop. How about a couple of Polaroids and a roll of 110 negatives?
10 posted on 06/05/2012 7:28:45 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

It’s already started. The other side hasn’t fired on Ft Sumter yet.


11 posted on 06/05/2012 7:31:05 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

They have to take photos, nothing said about them being good.


12 posted on 06/05/2012 7:31:21 AM PDT by razorback-bert (I'm in shape. Round is a shape isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote; skeeter; rarestia

Somewhere, a certain “Tree Needs Refreshing”...


13 posted on 06/05/2012 7:31:33 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: cripplecreek

It was considered more important to derail racial prejudice than to respect the right of freedom of association (or non-association). Now we’re where we are today, with people forced to associate or not, do business or not, based on whatever the government tells them they should do today.


15 posted on 06/05/2012 7:33:38 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Government has been doing it for decades. It began in the civil rights era when racist business owners were forced to serve blacks.

Personally I think those business owners should be able to make that decision for themselves. Smart business owners care only about the color of their customer’s money. (Capitalism is the worlds most non biased economic system)

Here in Michigan, bar owners were forced to ban smoking in their businesses. If I were a bar owner and wanted my business to be non smoking, I would have done so and promoted it to non smokers.


16 posted on 06/05/2012 7:33:46 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

What about blacks? Can you refuse services because you just don’t like them? You said anyone for any reason after all


17 posted on 06/05/2012 7:34:44 AM PDT by strider44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
"Does this mean if someone wanted to force a Christian photographer to shoot pornography, they could?"

They just did.

18 posted on 06/05/2012 7:34:51 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“Here are your beautiful photos, now pay me $20,000 please. Thank you.”


19 posted on 06/05/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

A photography business is a “public accomodation?”


20 posted on 06/05/2012 7:35:44 AM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: strider44
What about blacks? Can you refuse services because you just don’t like them? You said anyone for any reason after all.

Yes a business owner should be able to refuse service in all but life and death situations. I personally wouldn't refuse service to blacks but that's because I'm a true capitalist. On the other hand, I would refuse service to illegal aliens.

22 posted on 06/05/2012 7:39:05 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“New Mexico” yet ANOTHER mistake of the 20th Century. Some places(NM,UT,AZ,OK,HI and AK should have NEVER been admitted into our union!


23 posted on 06/05/2012 7:40:17 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strider44

Ok. I’ll bite. Are we supposed to be free people or not? So yes, that includes choosing not to serve anyone for any reason.


24 posted on 06/05/2012 7:40:52 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: strider44
What about blacks? Can you refuse services because you just don’t like them

Yes, certainly you should be able to refuse service for any reason at all. Any respectable blacks, whites, etc., however, would be welcome in my business.

25 posted on 06/05/2012 7:41:18 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This is the kind of fight I’d fully take to arms before buckling under.


26 posted on 06/05/2012 7:41:34 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
Or “Can I help it if my photographer accidentally barfed all over the lens?”
27 posted on 06/05/2012 7:42:04 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

The SCOTUS already ruled that Freedom of Association is precluded by the freedom NOT to associate.


28 posted on 06/05/2012 7:42:19 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Read “The Harbinger” and you’ll see that we (America) are on the road to destruction. Our “tolerance” means less adherence to our own faith and values, hence the increased attack on anything Christian or moral. Photographers now, bakers, caterers, florists, bridal wear, etc.: all these and other businesses subject to the same stupid interpretation. And, I agree that churches’ IRS status is under attack. We are so doomed...


29 posted on 06/05/2012 7:43:05 AM PDT by sassy steel magnolia (USAF life and Navy wife...God Bless the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

fer later


30 posted on 06/05/2012 7:43:15 AM PDT by Rightly Biased (How do you say Arkanicide in Kenyan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I forget who it was that said, “Judge Marbury has made his ruling. Let him enforce it.”


31 posted on 06/05/2012 7:43:54 AM PDT by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
On all of these issues, Christians (NOT just churches, but individual Christians) need to be flooding their elected representatives' offices with letters ; representatives' email boxes should be chock-full ; the representatives' phone banks should remain tied up.

But Christians won't do it ; they just won't take the time to write an intelligent letter, or make an intelligent phone call, or make a visit to an office. But they will spend considerable time on Facebook and playing computer games.

Christians : your representatives really do NOT know what you believe ; they never will unless YOU tell them.

Posting on Free Republic is just not enough.

32 posted on 06/05/2012 7:45:48 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve86
Yes, certainly you should be able to refuse service for any reason at all. Any respectable blacks, whites, etc., however, would be welcome in my business.

Exactly. When it comes to business, the only color I care about is green.
33 posted on 06/05/2012 7:45:55 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: strider44

Yes. If you own the business you should be able to refuse service for ANY reason. Your customer base will decide your success or failure.


34 posted on 06/05/2012 7:46:07 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

I believe you are thinking of Andrew Jackson, with reference to a decision handed down by John Marshall in favor of the Indians.


35 posted on 06/05/2012 7:46:47 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Why didn’t they just say they were closed that day or already booked up?

Stupid waste of taxpayers money to make such a big thing of this and have to go to court over it.


36 posted on 06/05/2012 7:48:47 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

I agree wholeheartedly. Charge them outrageous fees for the service and take crappy photos.


37 posted on 06/05/2012 7:49:44 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hair stylists come to mind... A stylist very well simply not be very good at cutting hair that has a different texture than what they are used to.


38 posted on 06/05/2012 7:50:17 AM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The beauty of the free market is on display in this case.

Sounds like a marketing opportunity for hundreds of photography businesses.

I wouldn't base my business plan on providing photograhy services for same sex marriages, though.

39 posted on 06/05/2012 7:53:22 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (My dream ticket for 2012 is John Galt & Dagny Taggart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; Salvation; TheOldLady; COUNTrecount; 21stCenturion; Lurking Libertarian; ...
State Supreme Court ping

The NM Court of Appeals is an intermediate-level court, but I'll ping this because it is of significant interest.

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the 50-State Supreme Court ping list.

40 posted on 06/05/2012 7:54:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This is sort of like the thread from yesterday about the lady that didn’t want to rent to a soldier.


41 posted on 06/05/2012 7:56:14 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Another reflection of the up and coming communists America. It's here just a question when Government will run all businesses.
42 posted on 06/05/2012 7:56:37 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Exactly.

I’m a photographer, and you do NOT want to force me to photograph your immoral relationship. You do NOT.

I’ll take your money ! you won’t like the images.

GUARANTEED !


43 posted on 06/05/2012 7:58:05 AM PDT by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Iirc, this situation was a setup in hopes of getting the court to rule exactly this way. It’s certainly not, now, after all the time that has passed, about the photographs for the original plaintiffs.

Unlike many such situations, this ruling is completely legitimate based on the text of the statute. If New Mexico residents don’t like what’s happening, they need to go after their state legislators to get the law changed.


44 posted on 06/05/2012 8:03:53 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21; strider44

Yes.

The beauty of free-market capitalism is that it is self-correcting.

Any business that refuses service to individuals or groups runs the risk of loosing business to someone who will serve those individuals.

The fundamental problem with the Jim-crow laws was that it was the GOVT deciding who could serve whom.

So yes - everyone should be able to make the choice about with whom they associate or with whom they do business. And if they want to discriminate they do so at their own risk; the risk of loosing money, the risk of looking like a jerk - or even the “risk” of simply looking like a Christian who stands on their principals...


45 posted on 06/05/2012 8:05:49 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia
"IRS status is under attack. We are so doomed...

It is becoming more and more clear to more and more people that giving up IRS privileges is just what Bible-belieivng churches are going to have to do.

Incorporation and IRS status are NOT what makes a church a church to begin with. In fact, it will soon make a church less of a church, if it hasn't already, or not a church at all.

I am writing after many years of direct work with underground churches in, let's just say, "anti-Christian," and anti-missionary" countries. The underground churches are not registered, not incorporated, and without tax privileges. Some of them are still entirely unknown to officialdom. Are they legitimate churches ? By the definitions of many Americans, NO! They would be considered illegitimate to Americans who believe that to be legitimate, it must have a stamp of governmental approval and recognition.

There have always been unregistered (unincorporated, non-501(c)(3)) churches in the United States. In fact, there were NO 501(c)(3) churches before 1951, because such status didn't exist before 1951. All churches in the USA must have been phony before 1951 !! (sarc.)

The unregistered church movements that already exist in the USA (they DO exist and have been growing exponentially since 1980), will soon be the model for church organization. Currently they are not necessarily "underground," but they soon will be.

46 posted on 06/05/2012 8:06:20 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

That would be Jackson, although the statement probably was never uttered.


47 posted on 06/05/2012 8:07:32 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

But you must reserve your rights.

UCC 1-308


How the UCC 1-308 works

. Compare that the constitution for the US establishes for the court’s jurisdiction at common law, equity and admiralty under article 3. As opposed to this, the Federal corporation establishes a similar jurisdiction except as principles under the Uniform commercial code. See... UCC § 1-103. Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable. Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchantand the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, Bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

Anytime ya see law by itself as in the foregoing, it means the common law. Except that they are taking the common law jurisdiction from the contract the UCC. The remedy of course is UCC 1-308. So the UCC is a deceptive criminal contractual constitution of sorts to those who uses it against us.

UCC 1-308 is the remedy for any legal process under commercial law in the U.S.
.
UCC § 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
.
Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those that contract with it. Also see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation and also to the states in their new commercial capacities.

• The Uniform Commercial code creates a corporate State of the United States,the federal corporation. As opposed to one of the dejure several States of the union.

See… UCC 1-201. General Definitions.(38) “State” means a State of the United States,…
As opposed to being one of the several states of the union…
USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States,…

• Because the states have passed the Uniform Commercial code, it has made its Citizens persons (which are legal entities and articles of commerce) and the State to be vesselsof the United States placing the State and its Citizens under maritime law. See the brilliant word smithing in the following.

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 9. Vessel of the United States defined
The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

Therefore all of the laws (color of law) are contractual commercial laws and the remedy is UCC 1-308. The Uniform Commercial Code makes all crimes commercial only by contract as per 27 CFR 72.11. The problem is that you have to get into higher courts before they will recognize the remedy. The remedy however should legally and always be give without delay on demand or claim. This of course is the problem. The misdemeanor courts do not have a clue as to where their jurisdiction comes from and neither do magistrates. You have to get in front of a court with a real judge that tries felonies. The courts try to string ya along under duress of threat hoping that you can be scared into a plea. But they in the end have to honor the remedy.
.
27 CFR 72.11 PART 72_DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY—Table of Contents

Subpart B_Definitions Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

Last note: The 14th amendment actually creates a lower class of “citizen of the United States” rather than the higher Citizenship of one of the several states of the union. The remedy provided to the 14th amendment, is an act by congress known as 15 United States Statute at Large, July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect and also known as the “Expatriation Statute.” This is your remedy to claim to be a natural Citizen of your state. This makes you a higher Citizen and no longer subject to the Article 4 loophole that also deprives you of your rights.


The District of Columbia Act of 1871What did it do?

Initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only sets up a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation? If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present looking to the past, imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, by doing that you will never understand what happened; therefore, to best understand what really happened we follow our:

Standard for Review
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:First understand who the parties are; Always know yourself first Discover the true nature of all other parties second

Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.

Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.

Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act. We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The popular names for this “Charter Act” are the, “District of Columbia Organization Act” and the “District of Columbia Act “, which Act the Supreme Court has recognized was the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal municipal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.

That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, know the parties. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.

The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time and space in this response we will move on.

The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which follows:

Congress wrote:That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation

Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government” and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 60 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.

When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the “municipal corporation” that was created is a private corporation owned by the existent municipality. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit to both govern the municipality as if it were the municipal government and to use it to do things the Constitution did not grant them the privilege of doing.

http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkauG6qE8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmUuKd6ucM&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpMMnJWExNU&feature=relmfu


48 posted on 06/05/2012 8:14:10 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
These people are evil; they want slavery. We have not yet found a way to fight back effectively without descending to their level. We need to speak up, stand up, and make it impossible for these thugs to single out and personalize one person as a target.

If they want to compel a Christian to photograph a "ceremony" that violates his deeply held beliefs, the photographer might as well make a production of it. Demand payment in advance. Bring a swarm of protesters with signs objecting not to the "wedding" but to the forced servitude of the photographer. Dress in an ostentatious manner, perhaps as a slave (queers would like that!). Make the pictures adequate in the sense that they don't show malicious intent - focused and of the "ceremony" - but sort through perhaps 2000 digital pictures and delete all but the worst 200 of the pictures before showing them to the entitled couple so that those compelling slave labor get what they deserve. Make portfolios with the results to show other gay activists who demand slave labor: "Yes, at the point of a gun we will photograph the events that gays pretend are weddings, but due to the photographer's efforts to combat nausea we cannot guarantee any better quality than this."

The problem is that we let the far left set the agenda and choose the language of the debate. This is about individual freedom, the only meaningful form of freedom, and we need to argue in favor of freedom and stand with those who refuse to bow to political correctness.

49 posted on 06/05/2012 8:16:23 AM PDT by Pollster1 (A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
This shows you that libs are all over the place, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything!

This is mind blowing, how can a state say that "it's illegal" to to have a same-sex ceremony and go after Christians for not taking pictures at an "illegal" same-sex ceremony?!

Madness! "Our house, in the middle of the street".......
50 posted on 06/05/2012 8:16:23 AM PDT by ForAmerica (Texas Conservative Christian Black Man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson