Carl and Angel Larsen, the couple who owns the Minnesota-based Telescope Media Group. In Dec. 2016, the Larsens filed suit against a state law that would compel them to film same-sex wedding ceremonies despite their religious objections.
Or anything else against their religion. Muzzies get away with it all the time like not allowing seeing eye dogs in their cab or someone carrying liquor in a bag.
when I was in college, I had a “rule” that I wouldn’t date a girl with shorter hair than mine.
Looks like he has the same standards.
;’}
Yes. Anti-discrimination laws, *by their nature* violate freedom of association.
Anti-discrimination laws should only apply to government agencies.
#Sanitywins.
“… when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video's messages to the videographer,” wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that “the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.”
This is a totally irrelevant point. The judge either lacks basic logical thought capability or is deliberately confusing the issue. Probably the latter but who knows.
Well, yeah.
“antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.”
What many people don’t understand is that the constitutional “rights” are actually constitutionally “protected rights”. And their protection involves what rights the GOVERNMENT can’t take away, not private citizens.
So, as a private citizen, I have the right to discriminate all I want, as long as you are on my property. The only thing I can’t do while you are there is prevent you from leaving, rob you, rape you, kill you, etc. And once you are in a public place or a place not owned by me, I can’t touch your rights.
In fact, when the government tells a person they HAVE TO provide a service or product to another person, they are violating the product/service provider’s constitutional rights. It’s quite clear.
“What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others.”
And if they can’t, solely because they gain their income through owning a business, does that mean they are only entitled to full constitutional freedom if they earn their income via wages? That seems to violate their constitutional rights.
This is all so very simple. According to the US constitution, you can do business with anyone you want, or refused to do business with anyone you want, for whatever reason.
Funny how in Hollywood directors and crew can turn down work because the project doesn’t appeal to them or they are politically opposed to the message or investors.
Of course the stupid female judge whines about it. Why do women so easily bow to state fascism?
Unfortunately, there are still cases similar to htis one that are still i nthe courts- Wish the SC woudl step in and state that states can NOT force peopel to violate their religious beliefs despite beign public busiensses once and for all
“Free Speech or Forced Speech? Christian T-Shirt Printer’s LGBT Case Heads to KY Supreme Court”
Nearly three years later. The left, if they cannot win individual battles, will make life miserable for those who are not lock-step with them.
If anti-discrimination laws violate the Constitution then how can they be critically important?
There is a huge difference between this case and a bakery for instance. Being forced to bake a cake glorifying homosexuality is outrageous but at least the baker has limited personal contact with the deviancy. But if you’re a photographer, you actually have to participate in the proceeding and you even have to orchestrate some of it. To force someone to do that against his wishes is absolutely beyond the pale, it’s absolutely disgusting, and is unconstitutional for any number of reasons.
So can they force Halal food upon the Christian?
What if someone was just so disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, holding hands and frolicking around, that they refused to perform a service at a gay wedding? Why does there need to be a religious backstop to someone's rights (freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, etc.)?
BRAVO!