Posted on 04/07/2014 11:31:56 AM PDT by Olog-hai
So those Freepers that run skydive or scuba business that think this nonsense won't affect them may get a big surprise some day when they are asked to provide equipment and/or services for gay weddings.
If you are someone that believes you shouldn't be forced to participate in any part of a wedding, wedding reception, or bachelor/bachelorette party, and you provide any type of product or service that could in someone's imagination be used at one of these events then it's only a matter of time before the limp-wristed knock on your door.
It’s already going on, these specialty weddings. For homos to follow in those footsteps, is something obvious now that they’ve managed to bully photographers.
America has embraced wickedness. Well surprise, it has gotten what it embraced.
But hey. Some Christians would welcome encounters of this kind. Gives them a chance to preach.
Okay.
“in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”
It also was done in the same way as if has refused to photograph a wedding because of religious principle. Here the first amendment has been abandoned due to competing values.
Throwing in the racial angle can be used endlessly for any purpose. Our legal minds have become fools.
Simple solution (but not 100% foolproof) is that the cake decorator or photographer posts a sign CLEARLY stating that any and all wedding related profits be donated to the Family Research Council (or some other organization that pushes HETEROsexual marriages). So, say Bob and Bill come in for hiring a photographer that they know to be Christian to shoot their “wedding”. They gleefully wait to be told “no”, but instead they get a big ‘ol “SURE, we would be glad to do your wedding!” and then they are promptly told that any and all profits from said wedding pictures will be donated to FRC. The photographer starts asking them how much of a budget they have and how much they want to spend. At that point, the fun begins, because while they may be able to force a business to do something they don’t want to, they still cannot force them to NOT donate to whatever charity they want.
To make it even more fun, suppose Bob and Bill ONLY want them to take pictures of their “engagement” whatever. Photographer says “Well, I am sorry, we only contract out for everything. If you want us to just do one element, we can’t do that.” As long as they have the same policy for everyone, there is no issue. So, Bob and Bill HAVE to hire them for the entire shoot or nothing.
Not sure they could donate the profits in the gay guys’ names or not, but who cares? So long as the sodomites know they will help funnel money to organizations that fight against them, it doesn’t matter. I suspect not too many would be willing to do that.
Again, not a perfect solution and I am sure someone, someday will sue to try to force them not to donate money to these organizations, but you gotta fight with whatever means you can. And since the black robed gaystapo enforcers have already signed off on loosening political funding, make THEM have to go against their own rulings.
Oh, and some Christians need to start turning the tables on the homos and REAL soon. Like have a “One man, one woman” fundraising event that they hire some known homo bakery or photographer to have to work at. When they refuse, sue them using the same laws. File the same complaints.
So you agree with the ruling then, and religious freedom be damned.
What the hell? Pissing all over the first amendment?
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx
Elane Photography should take thousands of photos of the fags every move and see how they like it.
Sue the homosexuals for violating your constitutional/civil rights
No mainstream religion mentions interracial relationships, so refusal to provide service would not be an obvious and natural exercise of religious freedom.The Christian Identity people would disagree with you, but regardless...
The difference is fundamental and means that Elane Photography should have won as an open and shut case.I don't think so. The problem is the New Mexico’s Human Rights Act; unless that is declared to be unConstitutional, then it was correct under the Act. The only relief is under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - and the federal RFRA doesn't cover state law, only federal. And there is no state RFRA in New Mexico.
Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said “no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.
“The New Mexico Supreme Court applied settled law when it rejected the company’s argument in this case, and the Supreme Court of the United States was correct to deny certiorari review. The time had come for this case to be over, and we are very happy with the result.”
Hope he remembers his own words when big brother forces him to act against his will.
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.