One clear and workable solution is to take the patented “White House Felon Approach”.
Simply, you do what you want to do.
When questioned, you are 1) unaware of the action, 2) were too busy at the time to take the job, 3) did the job but lost the work, 4) dropped the product before delivery....on and on.
For a good list of lies and felonies which are not prosecuted, see any compilation of Clinton/Obamadork/Reid/Pelosi/Bloomberg/(any democrat politician) actions.
If I was ordered by a court to take those photos they would turn out really nice.
So can you be forced to take photos of anything that someone demands then?
I’d photo it. Then have an ‘accident’ with the film.................
“the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”
Too bad the judge doesn’t agree that he and the lesbians need “to leave space for other Americans who believe something different”.
But to their way of thinking, tolerance and diversity only apply when the end result is favorable to the homosexuals.
but claimed that the court was advancing a greater good.
Its not the Court’s job to advance anything.
Their reasoning is ridiculous: the State of NM doesn’t recognize homosexual matrimony. What is there then to photograph.
While it is true that in our culture we should at least endure other beliefs, we should not have to be forced to participate in them.
So if Muslims want this lady to come photgraph a goat killing, she has to accomodate them?
Really?
This is not about getting wedding photos.
It is about forcing their beliefs on others.
What a slippery slope we went down with the first Civil Right laws of the 1960s.
Once the government determines they have the right to demand private citizens think and act a certain way, we get to where we are today.
The Civil Right laws should have only applied to government agency, not private citizens. We are all worse off today then we were before there was such things as “Civil Rights”, where one class of people are favored over another.
Over the years the members of that favored class has grown. Homosexuals are just the latest to jump on that bandwagon.
Much of our social problems today can be traced back to the 1960s when the courts began social engineering.
I seem to have heard this “it is the price of citizenship” riff before, but that time it was burning incense to the Imperial Standard, not photographing homosexuals purporting to get married.
“The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
The definition of the “United States” being used here, then, is limited to its territories:
1) The District of Columbia
2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
3) U.S. Virgin Islands
4) Guam
5) American Samoa 6) Northern Mariana Islands
7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
8) Military bases within the several states
9) Federal agencies within the several states
It does not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:
“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”
Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
“THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE.”
Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287.
16“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:16-23
This outrageous and unjust decision needs to be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. I realize that the poor victimized photographer won’t have the resources to do that, but hopefully one of the following organizations can:
Advocates For Faith & Freedom
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
National Legal and Policy Center
Alliance Defense Fund
Judicial Watch
Liberty Counsel
Republican National Lawyers Association
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
American Civil Rights Union
Institute for Justice
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Pacific Justice Institute
Pacific Legal Foundation
Cato Institute
Texas Justice Foundation
Independent Women’s Forum
Center for Individual Rights
Landmark Legal Foundation
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund
American Center for Law & Justice
Thomas More Law Center
Thomas More Society
Americans United for Life
Christian Legal Society
Christian Legal Association
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
National Legal Foundation
Foundation for Moral Law
Citizens United Foundation
Home School Legal Defense Association
Fidelis Center for Law and Policy
Gun Owners Foundation
Virginia Citizens Defense League
The Tax Foundation
Goldwater Institute
Washington Legal Foundation
English First Foundation
The Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
Catholic Lawyers Guild
Claremont Institute[1]
American Legion[2]
Individual Rights Foundation[2]
Liberty Legal Institute[2]
If the state of NM doesn’t recognize same sex marriage, why does it’s court rule a private citizen must?
If you can’t decide as a photographer what you’ll take pictures of, you ain’t working for yourself anymore.
Utterly ridiculous. Yet another reason for RESET.
Freedom of association. It’s a social event. She could just take really bad pictures, but that would end up in a lawsuit.
She could explain that the quality of her work depends greatly on how it is inspired and, well, what do you expect...
I really feel for Elaine. This has got to be devastating. I’d sell my equipment and do something else. About the only thing she can do is “with everything you do, do it as if you were doing it for the Lord”. In this case, it would mean doing a VERY bad job.
1. Take the pictures.
2. Charge $6,666.00 for the work as a standard fee.
3. Establish a suitable rebate for heterosexual couples.
I wonder what law school New Mexico’s judges got indoctrinated at?
Simply put, not only have the states amended the Constitution to expressly protect freedom of religious expression as evidenced by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which New Mexico judges are wrongly ignoring, but the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights.
So New Mexico’s is actually in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which prohibits the states from making laws, like this pro-gay law, which abridge constitutionally enumerated freedoms like religious expression.
"A Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." [198 U.S. 75-6 (1905).
In short, the photographer had every right to not take on the job.
I’d close my business then open it again later. The court is saying that this photographer is the only one in that town? The gay couple was just looking for incitement.