Freedom of Speech was intended to be “weighed”.
Gay people feel the need to bully back after years of bullying in school. Of course the silly savages don’t have the stones to do it without a lawyer and fag politicians to instigate.
Had they stood up to bullies as kids, perhaps they would be normal today.
just do the photography service but catch the ugliest images
In America, you only lose you’re rights if your work for a living; well, except whether or not you work, you have to buy Obamacare. And, in America, the government monitors all of your conversations and financial transactions.
FORWARD!
“accept the job but do it poorly”
The 2 depraved women desire to have the photographer use her artistic talent to ‘celebrate’ their confusion of natural law, and by default, give her approval to such. The photographer could use her talent to not “do the job poorly”, but to express her POV by photographing them in a negative context, through camera angles, editing, picking their nose, etc. The photo shoot could be used as an opportunity to express her views of sodomite behavior. Then again, the whole situation is classic libtard in your face “you are GOING to support this depravity or else”.
The photographer turned down the job to photograph the "homosexual activists!" It is pure and simple that these two homos who most likely promote "equality" were intent on having a Christian photographer bow to their homo god!
What if it were a black photographer not wanting to shoot a KKK wedding?
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.
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?
Maybe this is too simplistic of an answer, but...
I photograph WEDDINGS, not commitment ceremonies.
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?”
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
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.