Supreme Court rejects appeal over gay bias case

Associated Press ^ | Apr 7, 2014 2:13 PM EDT | Jeri Clausing

[Olog-hai]

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a studio that refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony, letting stand a New Mexico high court ruling that helped spur a national debate over gay rights and religious freedom.

The justices left in place a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling last year that said Elane Photography violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.” …

[Jeff Chandler]

That state is supposedly largely Catholic.

Thou Shalt Not Catholics, or Who Am I To Judge Catholics?

[mulligan]

Evil is in control of our government and the nation will suffer and is suffering. Evil is also in control of many of our citizens.

[cuban leaf]

The core principle here is that an American citizen can not choose who to do business with based on his own conscience. This violates not only religious freedom but freedom of association. It abandons the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of a group.

The foundation upon which the constitution is built is the rights of the individual.

You should not have to give up your constitutional rights to own a business. This is really a war on small business more than anything else.

This is not a free country. Not even close. It is only free in the “Me and Bobby McGee” sense.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Pope Francis might or might not have been taken out of context, but Rome politics for “better or worse” has a lot to do with how the faith gets practiced. We can be wrong about parts of the bible but at least it isn’t driven by intrigue.

[Viennacon]

Very sick.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)

[HiTech RedNeck]

And now Bobby is the same sex as “me.”

Well the ball has been thrown back to the political branches of government. Maybe in the long run that is good.

[Pollster1]

Elane Photography violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

As with the rest of the left's agenda, this statement is centered on a lie. Most mainstream religions specifically condemn homosexual relationships, so the refusal to provide service in this case was a direct exercise of freedom of religion. No mainstream religion mentions interracial relationships, so refusal to provide service would not be an obvious and natural exercise of religious freedom. The difference is fundamental and means that Elane Photography should have won as an open and shut case. The fundamental difference and the importance of freedom of religion also mean that resistance to this evil order from the court is an absolute moral imperative - the court has no legitimacy when acting lawlessly and cannot ethically be obeyed.

[MNDude]

I’m sure wedding photos generate a lot more revenue that birthday parties though.

[HiTech RedNeck]

As had been pointed out, nobody’d dare try this with Muslims. Not if they didn’t want to get jihaded.

[MNDude]

There are countless examples of how forcing someone to photograph or support a function could violate their values... think of the different scenarios...anti-gun - NRA, Vegan- Pig Roast, Muslim- Pole dancers and pig party.

[cloudmountain]

They may be able to order that they take pictures, but they cannot force them to do a good job.
Use throw away cameras and take all of the pictures of just one of the couple. Make them out of focus.

Excellent thinking.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Why yes it could. It looks like Pandora’s box has gotten opened here.

In the meantime, Christian photographers could do a lot to be “obnoxious to sin.” OK, we’ll photo your sinful thing, but you’re going to get the result packed with a lot of Dutch Uncle literature concerning your sins.

[SpaceBar]

The upshot is that the Supremes are standing behind lower court rulings that business owners can be forced by the State to enter into contractual agreements. That should scare the hell out of anyone with a respect for “traditional” law, and not this orwellian monstrosity foisted apon us.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Or just get them in such a way as to highlight their foolishness and ugliness.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So maybe it wasn’t the “right case” with the “right arguments”?

[Jack Hydrazine]

Nazification of America rages on!

[Kazan]

SO in other words you cannot say “ I can’t provide that service to you because it would violate my religious freedom” but you can say “I’m too busy” or the price is “$1 million”. right?

Then, there will be a discrimination lawsuit filed for charging different prices for different customers. If the photos or service ends up being poor, the homosexual activists will sue in civil court, claiming their wedding was ruin and demand punitive damages.

The only alternative is civil disobedience, armed resistance or refusing to provide wedding services.

[Cementjungle]

I would have told them that I don’t have any experience in shooting gay weddings, have never shot a gay wedding, and am not prepared to shoot a gay wedding. I shoot hetero weddings, and other things... but gay weddings is simply not a service I provide.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well, look at that old Constitution. Whose name is written at the top? “WE THE PEOPLE.”

We can’t outsource righteousness. We can’t let princes and courts do for us before God what we ought to be doing ourselves before God.