Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub
USA Today | 4-7-14

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/


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; denialofstanding; godsinblackdresses; homosexualagenda; photography; righttorefuseservice; samesexmarriage; scotus; sodomy; supremacistcourt; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: markomalley; P-Marlowe

What does it say about the Hobby Lobby case that the justices wouldn’t take this case?

First, it says they think the lower courts got it right, I suppose. Otherwise, this case would be constrained by whatever they rule on Hobby Lobby. By not telling the lower courts to at least relook this, they are assuming their position on Hobby Lobby won’t affect this case.

So, since Hobby Lobby is about a business being permitted to have a set of principles by which their business is guided, this doesn’t sound promising to me regarding Hobby Lobby.


41 posted on 04/07/2014 8:31:57 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
No one should be compelled to do ANYTHING of the sort against their will. Whatever happened to Freedom Of Association?

The concept died when the government reclassified basically every business as a "place of public accommodation".

42 posted on 04/07/2014 8:33:16 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

“If MSNBC can refuse a prolife ad then a photographer, baker etc should be able to refuse to provide service for a gay wedding.”

You’re absolutely right, but it’s time to jettison the idea that the left, who controls the media, courts, schools, governments, both political parties, and entertainment, wants fairness. We need to put away the idea that fairness and reason is an argument we can win, or that we can win any argument. Then we can go from there: figure out how to regain our liberty.


43 posted on 04/07/2014 8:34:37 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Good point, but if SCOTUS was about to go in the opposite direction, issuing a broad ruling protecting the religious rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their moral beliefs, wouldn’t that make sense in chucking the case as well?

I mean, the Justices certainly know how the HobbyLobby case will go. I don’t think they’d remand a case back to the lower courts based on a ruling that hasn’t been issued yet ... They’d just drop the case completely (as they have apparantly done) and let any future action by the plaintiff or defendent wait for the ruling.


44 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:06 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

BTTT!


45 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:40 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

No. Why would they do that? They’d say the photographer in that case had the right to refuse. The left, who own every institution, is not trying to emancipate gun owners. They’re trying to marginalize, criminalize, then exterminate us.


46 posted on 04/07/2014 8:49:56 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Spot on. This is bad case law.


47 posted on 04/07/2014 8:53:07 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Now, try to think of a politically feasible way to undo the VRA.


48 posted on 04/07/2014 8:55:20 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It’s interesting how the FoxNews website shut down the comments section of their website for this article. This ruling and the fact that the SC won’t take it is just further evidence that the tide has turned against decent law abiding Americans. The Homosexual Gestapo will get us.


49 posted on 04/07/2014 8:56:45 AM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Wouldn’t it be cool if the court was “highly protective” of the Constitution as well?


50 posted on 04/07/2014 8:59:14 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

All part of the deconstruction of our once cherished Republic.


51 posted on 04/07/2014 8:59:15 AM PDT by Amish with an attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else at any time. The tricky part is when you tell the person WHY you are refusing to do business with them. That is what gives them the opportunity to claim “discrimination”.

Just don’t tell them why, and you can do whatever you want.


52 posted on 04/07/2014 9:00:07 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

How many justices are likely closet homos? What’s the count these days? Clambake Roberts, Kagan, and I bet some Ginsburg, and isn’t one of the others suspect too?


53 posted on 04/07/2014 9:01:14 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; P-Marlowe

Apparently, the last ruling was from the New Mexico state Supreme Court. I don’t know the process and how they went immediately to the US Supreme Court.

Perhaps Scotus reason was that it hadn’t gone through the process of appeal. The article didn’t list any reason from the Scotus other than that they declined the case.


54 posted on 04/07/2014 9:01:55 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That is the “excuse” the court gave. But they had the ability to accept it, especially since it is harming people right now. Same with the NSA domestic spying case.

They avoid doing their job where it counts most.


55 posted on 04/07/2014 9:04:06 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Actually, I’d argue that one of the BIG problems we’ve faced in recent years is different institutions surrendering their jurisdictions and perrogatives. Case in point being that Harry Reid’s Senate is now functioning as a wholey owned subsidiary of the Obama White House.

So I’m not going to be all that critical of SCOTUS if they do things like remand cases for lack of standing, or otherwise dispose of them on technical procedure grounds.


56 posted on 04/07/2014 9:05:30 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Unlike the baker a photographer must observe (and document) the wedding (including closeups of the “kiss”). No one should be ordered to document such things against his or he will.

If forced to perform such a task, I would have a difficult choice: dress appropriately for work as a slave and produce a level of quality consistent with involuntary servitude, swallow a bottle of ipecac at the start of the ceremony and go home for medical reasons after it took effect, or go to prison rather than pay a fine over an evil and unconstitutional demand from a court that lost its presumption of legitimacy when it issued an illegal order.

As for avoiding such situations, I think those in service occupations have to agree to accept such contracts and only later cancel due to unforeseen conflicts. The gay mafia does not deserve the respect of honest responses to their demands - when they crossed the line into evil litigation, they forfeited the right to be treated with integrity.

57 posted on 04/07/2014 9:06:17 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Photography isn't a “service industry”. It is an artistic endeavor. Can a tattoo artist decline work?
58 posted on 04/07/2014 9:08:27 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: “Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I’ll state my simple and elegant solution to this sort of thing:

Take the pictures. Bake the cake. Do it to your usual standards (this avoiding further lawsuits)

By state clearly and upfront that all profits from the work will be donated to a Christian organization that offers gay conversion therapy.

And watch as the legal threat to your business suddenly vanishes.


59 posted on 04/07/2014 9:13:31 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Can a tattoo artist decline work?

Everyone should be able to decline work for any reason or with no reason at all. Sadly, that freedom has faded as FedGov has expanded.

60 posted on 04/07/2014 9:18:57 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson