Posted on 08/04/2017 6:58:23 PM PDT by marshmallow
Let's take a moment to celebrate a religious liberty victory. It doesn't happen often so let's cherish it.
In the most unexpected news of the day, the state of Wisconsin cannot legally force Christian photographer Amy Lynn to photograph same-sex weddings, a court has said.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said, “The court’s announcement has important implications for everyone in Wisconsin who values artistic freedom. It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote. The court found—and the city and state have now agreed—that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them. No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.”
(Excerpt) Read more at creativeminorityreport.com ...
Since they’re not a public accommodation, it’s very difficult to see how a court could come to any other conclusion — religious affiliation or not.
I hope this helps the appeal of Baronelle Stuzman.
Does this mean that having a storefront isn't similarly protected?
Good question. This may have serious consequences - in a good way.
Our WI supreme court has been 4-3 conservative for a good while now. No signs of going back, and if anything, hopefully will be 5-2 in the near future.
yes, it appears to me that that’s what it means- the ruling basically states in so many words that if you own a storefront- you are not allowed to have religious or personal objections, and that you must agree to participate (in the capacity of your profession) in gay weddings even if it violates your religious beliefs- Apparently constitutional rights do not apply to people who own storefronts
I can just imagine what the pictures would have looked like. “Oh my, I didn’t realize the camera was pointed down. So sorry I did not get your head in the picture.”
Good news bump.
That's a little narrow minded isn't it. It is a more far reaching victory against human bondage. Along the lines of any free individual forced by government to work for others against his own will.
I interpreted the phrase in a different way. I thought the judges were saying regardless of whether or not you operate your business from a storefront location. I was wondering if the plaintiffs tried to say that because the photographer didn’t have an actual store front location, they didn’t have grounds to refuse the photography.
It’s strange wording for sure.
If they want to buy cupcakes,light bulbs,flowers you are a business and can’t discriminate...Buuuuut,you are asking people to be slaves and forced to give their talents,artistry etc to something they don’t agree with..Forcing people to use their talent for what you like...Isn’t that what Nazis did to their film industry? Are liberals going to follow the Nazi agenda to its final solution????
Buuuuut,you are asking people to be slaves and forced to give their talents,artistry etc to something they don’t agree with
When they refuse him entry, he invokes the penalty clause of his contract to keep the money.
Of course, Channel 5 news would be recording the whole thing.
Same thing for the wedding cake, and the wedding flowers.
You gotta think outside the box, folks. If they want to turn you into a slave, demonstrate it. Someone only needs to do it once, and the public accommodation discrimination law will be laughed out of the law books and into the trash heap of other liberal bad ideas.
since maggots are allowed to protest soldier burials and disrupt those services- I wonder if the photographer could show up with a couple dozen of his friends and protest the wedding- calling it a sham- immoral etc- then give a refund-
i htink the key phrase was “It means that government officials must allow creative professionals —without storefronts anywhere in the city and state— the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote.”
It —seems to indicate— that if they have a storefront- then they aren’t allowed the ‘freedom to make their own decisions about’ what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’
It seems to me that the ruling allows people without storefronts the ability to pick and choose what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’, but not those who own storefronts
I dunno- liberals are masters at twisting legal definitions around until they are no longer recognizable as objective truths
Let’s pray that equal protection under the law will soon mean what it says.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
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.