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 ...
Forgot to add this: of course doing this necessarily lessens the honesty of the transaction, but I think that is fallout that cannot be avoided. Unfortunate, but a societal consequence of the feds regulating everything in sight...
Think outside the box.
What the homosexuals are doing is bullying and using the law to blackmail the photographer into taking pictures.
So ... get some friends and picket the event with signs that say “bully” and “blackmailers inside”. If they have a “just married” signed car, take water soluble paint and spray pain “bullys” and “blackmailers” onto their car.
You are not picketing them for being “gay”, but for their bullying behavior. Looks legal to me.
America is going down the drain. The perverted agenda has infested all branches of government. These perverts demand far more than pervert marriage. They demand approval for their sick behavior by all, and if someone dares not approve, they will be sued and sued and sued until they are ruined.
“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.”
That’s not what the Constitution says. It says “No Law” shall abridge the right of free speech. As Justice black said many years ago: “No law means no law.”
who hired another photographer
Problem solved. Where's the crime?
This isn’t a Freedom of Speech case, but a Freedom of Religion (belief/thought) case. The homosexual couple weren’t harmed in any way. They hired another photographer and life went on. Let’s not let them set the narrative here.
Bingo.
The government gets to decide right and wrong, not the individual.
Liberty and equality are antonyms.
The Constitution was written to preserve the blessings of liberty. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more antithetical to liberty than forcing a business to take custom they don’t want.
Government must recognize marriage for these various reasons, and therefore, must have a working definition of the institution. This is fundamental and cannot be avoided. Otherwise, it would be like saying the governmnent cannot be involved in the concept of "ownership" and is, thus, unable to enforce against thefts, burglaries or robberys.
Ska-rew that!
Let the state photograph the whacks. And do the flowers, cake, provide the hall, the band...all of it.
Businesses may be "open to the public" but they are still private entities.
Or a vegetarian not wanting to shoot a hot-dog eating contest.
And here I thought homosexuals didn't want "special" rights. Turns out their rights are more special than everyone else's.
Can I hire Oliver Stone to direct a remake of Passion of the Christ and sue him if he turns down the offer?
“So if you own a business you lose your right to choose who you want to service?”
Yep - under what most people would think was a good idea - the Civil Rights Act. I thought it was a good idea too for the longest time. The vote is one thing that I think was obviously needed. But forcing businesses to serve people they didn’t want to serve was dumb. If they wanted to lose business because they discriminated, so be it. But don’t force them to serve people.
If they can force the businesses to sell things, the next thing you know they’ll be forcing the customer to BUY things! (Naw - that could never happen. /s)
Hmmm. There are now incentives to hire minority subcontractors, etc. I imagine at some point in time companies will be forced to hire minority subcontractors. Although I suppose it might be forced now, as I think your percentage of minority subcontractors goes towards your ranking on some bids.
“...go to McDonald’s and demand pizza?”
A good point. Although if one needed a gluten free meal, that might be the way to go to sue a restaurant. It would be interesting to do it, lose, and prove the point against forcing companies to serve gays. Then again - one just might win the case.
Hannity had on an audience of “millennials” (twenty-somethings?) on Friday, made up of the talking heads who usually appear on FOX. He asked them a bunch of opinion questions and when he asked who supported same-sex marriage, 90% of them raised their hands, including many of the conservative commentators who I’ve only seen on there railing against Obama otherwise. I don’t think there was a question asked that came as close to unanimous support as the one about supporting same-sex marriage.
I don’t know how you undo this kind of mass brainwashing. And it is scary to think how, if liberals are able to engineer that kind of brainwashing within a span of 10-15 years, what other issues they’ll be able to reeducate the youth of the country on using the same techniques.
I'm a photographer, and I know how to take pictures of beautiful women (brides), and romantic scenes and all that. But, a gay wedding has to be very different... with the normal roles being not defined in the same way, and with the lack of a normal couple.
If I were to shoot weddings, I would specialize in normal hetero weddings. If you want to marry a tree, or marry someone of your own gender, than I'm not your best pick, and I'll be honest enough to decline the job. Heck, I'll even be happy to hit the web to get you a dozen or so other choices better suited to your special requirement.
If they can force this business to photograph a same-sex wedding, why can’t they force the boy scouts to accept a girl? Can a boy sue because he wasn’t allowed to be in the vote for prom queen? Do all mens and womens restrooms need to be outlawed for unisex restrooms?
What about plastic surgeons? Will they be mandated to provide breast implants to men?
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.