(Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)Amy Lawson poses for a photo while taking pictures of a bride in this undated photo.Posted on 08/02/2017 10:55:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
(Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)Amy Lawson poses for a photo while taking pictures of a bride in this undated photo.
The state of Wisconsin and its capital city of Madison cannot legally force a Christian photographer to photograph same-sex weddings, a court has said.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal group defending evangelical Christian photographer Amy Lawson, announced that Dane County Circuit Court vowed in a hearing Tuesday to issue an order declaring that Lawson is exempt from city and state laws that could force her to photograph same-sex weddings or face crippling punishments.
ADF explained in a press release that although the court has not yet officially issued a preliminary injunction in the case, it is expected to do so in the coming weeks.
According to the press release, the court stated that the 25-year-old Lawson, who runs her own photography business, is not subject to state and city ordinances that prevent places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The court reportedly reasoned that Lawson is exempt from that law because she does not have a physical storefront and such laws would have control over her artistic freedom.
"The court's announcement has important implications for everyone in Wisconsin who values artistic freedom," ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said in a statement. "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."
Scruggs continued by stating that the city and state have agreed with the court's finding 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," Scruggs continued.
Lawson's troubles began in 2016, when she put a statement on her website explaining that she could not promote same-sex marriage through her photography and blog and that she would not serve same-sex weddings.
Like many other Christian business owners who have declared they won't participate in same-sex weddings, Lawson's decisions to post the statement on her website caused some backlash. One wedding client that saw her statement canceled her services because of her belief in marriage.
According to ADF, news reports about how Christians can face crippling fines for not serving same-sex weddings drove Lawson to remove the statement from her website.
ADF reports that under Madison law, it is illegal for a place of public accommodation to publish communication that explains that a person's business is "unwelcome" because of their sexual orientation. Meanwhile, the state law also prevents places of public accommodation from discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
As seen in other cases involving Christian wedding vendors in other states, punishment for violating state nondiscrimination laws can be very severe and financially crippling.
Considering that the state and city law made Lawson vulnerable to being sued, she took a proactive step and filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the laws. She also stopped accepting requests for weddings until a court order has been officially produced.
"Amy is happy to take photographs of anyone; she simply objects to being forced to participate in events, or promote messages or causes, that she can't support," Scruggs said in another statement. "Photography and writing are quintessential examples of protected artistic expression and free speech."
Now we need to push back against the Gaystapo so that such laws as they have been using exist no where in this country.
Amazing. A little sanity from the courts.
Good win. We need more wins like this one.
Glad she won but in an area as liberal as Madison there is bound to be fallout to her business.
Why would you want someone who doesn’t want to work for you to work for you? I have never understood this. Do you really want to eat a cake that was baked under duress? Do you really want a doctor doing something under a threat?
Pffftt...It shouldn't even be up for discussion!
Shouldn’t but is. And now we need a series of wins in the courts to role it back. Or impeachments of judges.
I’ll stick with stock submissions.
What few weddings I clicked the shutter for was enough.
I prefer video but I could never seem to break into weddings.
Of course, this is a state/local court, which generally tend to be sane. Even California’s version of their supreme court authorized Prop 8 as a properly enacted amendment by voters to define marriage as it had always been.
The federal courts, though....
More winning every day.
I thought every other court in the country decided the opposite? More to the point, why would you want to? If some photographer did not approve of, say, my religion, I would have no interest in forcing that person to do it.
Remember The Godfather.
Either your Signature or your Brains will be on that Contract.
On Wisconsin! A great and good surprise.
This ruling appears to be unique to Madison law, but it is a step in the right direction.
No kidding. It's like having to officially declare water wet.
50 years ago a “gay wedding” was considered desirable.
According to the story once that client cancelled, the photographer took the statement that she doesn't photograph gay weddings off her website and then filed the pre-enforcement challenge. Since the state has ruled that the law doesn't apply to her then she's free to put that disclaimer back up. If/when she does then I'm sure it will cost her some potential business, this being Madison and all, and it may help her attract other business.
They simply want to punish and exact revenge upon anyone that objects to their rule, or dares to exhibit any morality.
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.