Posted on 04/07/2014 6:49:39 AM PDT by markomalley
Link only: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/07/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage-photographer/7304157/
“This is the case of the photographer who refused to shoot the sodomite “ marriage” “
Hell, I’d shoot their sodomite wedding for free, and throw in the guests for good measure!
The reason many conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act is that it gave up, apparently forever, a fundamental freedom - freedom of association. And now many states have added homosexuality to the list of protected people, without making any attempt to resolve the conflict between the freedom to be a homosexual and the freedom to be a Muslim or Baptist...but the courts are making it clear:
In modern America, you have NO RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN PUBLIC!
This refusal by the SCOTUS is simply a middle finger salute to the First Amendment. And apparently, we don’t even have 4 members on the Supreme Court who will honor the First Amendment, or admit that religious freedom trumps the right to be a public homosexual.
“There were no gay photographers listed in the phone book?”
I think this is about forced acceptance, this guy was probably targeted specifically to make their point.
Even if the photos stank, they would get to waste his time.
The message is clear: accept the work with a smile, then call in sick the day before.
I wonder what the result would be if an anti-gun photographer was asked to take photos of live fire at a gun range? Would those same courts/judges find that he/she had no right to refuse?
I’m disappointed it took six posts to make that point. I’m also disappointed in SCOTUS, but I’m used to that.
Someone explain the *amn case for those who aren’t 24/7 news junkies...I don’t remember who was the plaintiff and vica versa.
At least 5 crooked lawyers with a black robe. The SC is FUBAR.
That would hurt your business and they would sue you for destroying their day.
I understand the sentiment but IMO its not the answer.
As I’ve been telling people that I know, at some point during our lifetimes, we will be going to jail for our faith, as some already have.
You don’t hear about it a lot in the MSM, but many people have already been fined, fired, kept from graduating from college, and jailed for refusing to go along with the homosexual agenda. I gave a speech on this at a convention a number of years ago. I don’t think that a lot of folks really believed me. One of the points of the speech was “They are coming”. Over the last few years I think that can accurately be changed to “They are here”.
In today’s liberal politically correct world, it doesn’t matter whether homosexual marriage is even legal in a state in which these incidents happen. Because homosexuals are apparently at the top of the pyramid of grievance groups, they get their way in any legal dispute of any kind.
Just as the Founding Fathers intended - four branches of government:
The legislative branch
The executive branch
The judicial branch
The Gay Mafia branch
By inaction the SC supported the case.
They only needed four justices to review the case. Guess Roberts didn’t want to have a review.
Nothing in the Constitution or amendment affords protection to sexual preference. Some STATES may have language to grant that but the US Constitution has not been so amended.
And as I stated earlier (possibly on another thread), at least one of these cases was brought in a state that itself did not recognize same sex marriage.
So much for “standing” being a basic requirement.
The gods in black dresses have shrugged their acceptance of this.
Ah yes, the media. The "check and balance" against the "other 3".
The obvious solution to this would be to create a sectarian, Christian oriented business that operates as a club, so that only club members are entitled to its services.
This means the business affiliates with a conservative church, and only caters to those authorized by that church. Even if they are not church members, they can be club members. That is, the church vets them to insure they are acceptable to its faith practices.
And the church can legally discriminate, so they act as a screen for the business. Or a bunch of businesses that do not wish to cater to sodomites. You want to do business with us? Go to church first. This also benefits the church because the businesses pay it a small service fee.
Oddly enough, a vaguely similar trick existed during the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone with wealth was vulnerable to scoundrels who wanted to rob them by claiming they were heretics. The defense was for them to hire a clergyman, often a non-cloistered monk, to attest that they were indeed righteous. So bugger off, scoundrel.
It is called the porn industry.
I can’t get the article to open on my phone. Did SCOTUS flat out refuse to hear it, or rather decide not to hear it *now* based on a technical (like standing, or expedited review) point?
The Court is highly protective of itself when it comes to technical procedures. Refusing to hear the case may not mean that it’s all settled ...
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.