no problem, here's your grainy, under exposed/overdeveloped, poor color balanced, out of focus, pictures with the heads partly cut off... NOW PAY ME!!!
Posted on 11/24/2013 5:08:56 AM PST by reaganaut1
WASHINGTON — A New Mexico law forbids businesses open to the public to discriminate against gay people. Elaine Huguenin, a photographer, says she has no problem with that — so long as it does not force her to say something she does not believe.
In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.
So she turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography. So far, the studio has lost in the courts.
There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech. I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.
Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices. Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said, and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”
But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.
“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day, it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’ ”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Regarding freedom of association, the government decides how to balance one freedom against another. The government has decided that the freedom of some people in some ways is more important than the freedom of other people in other ways.
>To be serious for a moment, according to the negative definition of freedom, the role of the government is to determine the bounds of privacy and of property. Hence, each person is free within the scope of what is theirs and nobody’s freedom imposes upon the freedom of another. Necessarily, a tension arises as to what are the bounds of freedom in public places; e.g., while on public property. While we might suppose that good manners would be sufficient, from time to time we have to deal with those who, often deliberately, offend the sensibilities of others. An example of this would be laws regarding public nudity. The contrast is the positive definition of freedom. In this case, government decide what are people’s rights, and many of these impose obligations onto others. So, a right to health care imposes an obligation onto others to provide that health care. Furthermore, those who hold to the positive theory of freedom tend to expand the definition of the public space and to oppose privacy and property. For example, if the majority wants to be free from anybody thinking forbidden thoughts, then the majority can decide how to monitor people’s thoughts so as to attain that freedom. The positive definition of freedom is totalitarianism. In a democracy, you initially need a majority. But, once you attain a majority, activists within the majority work to gain control, using power over education and the media, as well as rewards and punishments to control “the majority.” Democracy then soon gives way to a ruling elite. Political opposition is either outlawed or elections become shams. As you can see, it is not a good thing to dwell long on where this country is going, especially if you think we are now past the turning point.
My defense would be that it actually makes me a little sick to my stomach being in the company of openly homosexual people. You can’t take good pictures when you feel you might throw up.
An obvious setup.
OTOH, would you want your wedding photos taken by someone that deplores what you are doing?
Could have ‘forgotten’ the SD card. Corrupted jpg’s . Overexposed film. Poor posing .
If I was the photographer I’d make them sign some kind of release or disclaimer.
Pose the blushing couple in front of a Snap-on tool truck. :)
Public businesses should not be force to serve customers they don’t like except in cases of food, shelter, or emergency services. Other than that...no. At some point the freaks will legalize bestiality or other unnatural acts. Should someone be forced to take photos of those kinds of unions?
“But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.”
Stack ranking the protected rights of Americans...a job only for the socialist dhimmicraps.
And ‘equal treatment of gay couples’ is hardly a “right”. No one should be forced, coerced, or cajoled into engaging in activities that run afoul our their foundational beliefs. Surely, as noted in the article, there are OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS willing to take on the commission of this couple.
Finding against the photographer is akin to telling a bakery they must provide the cake (ooops...) or telling the American people they must buy government approved health insurance (OOOOPS...).
Well, I guess that’s a wrap. Say ‘good night’, Gracie.
Maybe this is too simplistic of an answer, but...
I photograph WEDDINGS, not commitment ceremonies.
Well, why not? Afterall, we are now forced to buy a healthcare insurance product approved by ObamaFed. It's for our own good. /s
no problem, here's your grainy, under exposed/overdeveloped, poor color balanced, out of focus, pictures with the heads partly cut off... NOW PAY ME!!!
I have some potentially good arguments that can be used on her behalf.
“As a condition of private employment, can an employee be compelled to swear that they are not now, nor have ever been a member of the communist party?”
“As a condition of private employment, can a Muslim employee be required to sell alcohol and pork products to the public?”
“As a condition of private employment, can an avowed atheist artist be required to paint a commissioned, creative, artistic picture honoring Jesus?”
Your post suggests calling what was once considered marriage (only between a man and a woman) a “natural marriage.” I had the same thought, only to call it “holy matrimony.” It’s the concept of not allowing homosexuals to claim equal footing by using the same term as used for heterosexual marriage.
I fear society is not going to swing back to normalcy, but instead, it's going to crack to pieces. That's why I wrote the Babylon piece.
What????????????
Does this mean that if I give my son a spanking I can give Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth a spanking too?
if you don’t like the services, go to another company
if a private company has no choice who they perform their services for, how are they not slaves?
of course, the fag community will search out any companies not 100% compliant and target them. they will demand services then use the courts to run them out of business... thereby helping the fag-friendly businesses.
it goes without saying... welcome to fascism
I caught it as sarcasm... still conveyed the message.
either way, a good response to these ‘judges’
How can a business NOT be open to “the public?” This in an untenable position. It’s like saying you can stay alive, but you can’t breath?
Just say no and give no details why one is saying that.
I don’t find a clause in the Constitution that allows me to commandeer the labor of another person, except through the legitimate function of taxation. This is doubly true since the passage of the 13th Amendment that forbids slavery.
At its core a commercial transaction must be voluntary or it is a “taking” or a tax by government. To hold otherwise stands the 10th Amendment on its head.
It is for this reason that it is time to return marriage to the private sphere and remove government from being involved in it.
“Just say no and give no details why one is saying that.”
Yeah, that is what I was thinking also.
Never give a commitment until you check things out, and then check your schedule, etc.
If you don’t want the job, you don’t have to do it. Just don’t tell them why. They don’t have any “right” to know why you refused.
Could be you wanted to catch a new movie at that time.
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.