I hate Illinois Nazi's ...........
Posted on 04/09/2008 5:40:53 PM PDT by Jay777
Where was the ACLU on this one you may ask?
LOL, I don't think so!
The ACLU has no interest in the second clause of the First Amendment (or the entire Second Amendment, for that matter) and as an arm of the Democrat party, the ACLU picks and chooses only those causes which please the Party although once in awhile they defend the Illinois Nazis, just for a laugh.
Should’ve taken the photos and f*#&ed them up big-time, then sued the queers for payment even though the photos were awful
They shouldn’t have to. They should be allowed to say: “we don’t do same-sex marriages as it against our religion and our morals.”
Absolutely ludicrous. It’s a shame that something like this would even be investigated.
I would grant the lesbian couple a case had they booked a photographer who showed up and then left them high and dry with no time to find a replacement, but this did no more harm than finding a photographer who happened to be booked that day.
The problem there is obvious. It would be unethical. If you're willing to toss ethics out the window, you wouldn't have a problem taking the pictures in the first place.
I would!
Unfortunately that no longer holds legal water. It’s a sad state out there.
Hey look at my screen name. That’s what I would have said. Or better yet a service charge would be in order to fill the date. How does a hundred thousand sound for one hour!
The problem with that is that a truly moral person is not going to want to lie, ie sin. Muslims might think it's ok to lie to non-believers but genuine Christians do not.
For some reason I don’t understand, you don’t have rights when you are engaging in commerce. Advertising, for example, doesn’t fall under free speech
I think an amendment should guarantee that too.
Or, even better yet. The couple is male-female, but they both had undergone sex change operation. (Don’t laugh, don’t cry, sooner or later it is bound to happen.) Can a photographer decline the job?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322
Australian government officials have accused the National Rifle Association of using inaccurate statistics in a new television ad about gun crime down under.
The NRA ad, which claims Australia’s recent passage of draconian gun control laws has increased gun crime significantly, is presented as a television news story and claims crimes involving guns have increased in Australia since the laws were introduced in 1996.
Specifically, Australian law now bans private ownership of all semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns.
On Tuesday, Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the gun-rights organization to “remove any reference to Australia” from its website.
NRA’s Wayne LaPierre
“I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States,” Williams said.
The top Australian prosecutor also said he sent a letter to NRA president and actor Charleton Heston asking for an immediate withdrawal of the information.
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
February, 2000
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia’s state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
“There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998.”
— Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia’s firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing “a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997.” This is the period in which most of the country’s new gun laws came into force.
Gun-Related Death by Any Cause
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
“We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia.”
— Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a “crime wave” as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
“Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low.”
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
They'll want you to leave so fast.....
They took LAWFULLY OWNED firearms away after Hurricane Katrina. We are NOT protected from the jackbooted thugs if martial law is declared here. What’re you gonna do, shoot a cop or soldier? Our so called protections have become a mockery. Judges get to make law now, even. In spite of the fact that most Americans are against gay marriage, we keep inching closer to it for the whole country. It’s all about money and who’s got it to throw around. The average family man doesn’t.
I would.
If it had been me, I would have said thanks and moved on to another photographer, or friend of the family. People are so litigious now, flamed by unethical lawyers. They are either after the big bucks, or out to make an ideological point. Makes you sick.
Everybody wants a photographer at their wedding who cares (in a positive way).
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/09/free-speech-fund-raiser-the-canadian-conservative-blogosphere-under-attack/
This is the nany-state-liberal-anti-conservative-sharia-creep coming here to suppress freedom of [conservative] speech and expression, from a unaccountable guvmint agency near you.
BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID!!!
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.