Posted on 04/11/2021 7:34:28 AM PDT by fwdude
A wedding photographer in New York is fighting the state's "non-discrimination" law, alleging it violates her right to express her religious beliefs.
In a lawsuit profiled by the Washington Free Beacon, Emilee Carpenter is taking Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his administration to court because they are threatening her with fines and jail time for her belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“‘The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings. Violating the laws could result in tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the state taking away her business license, or even jail time,’ the Free Beacon said.”
How is that even remotely constitutional?
Maybe Democratic websites should be forced to support voter ID?
>>Emilee Carpenter filed a lawsuit against New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) over state nondiscrimination statutes that Carpenter said compel her to violate her religious beliefs about traditional marriage by making her publicize photos of same-sex weddings on her website. The laws require her to create photograph collections on her website celebrating same-sex weddings because she celebrates opposite-sex weddings.
Big Corp no longer advertises white heterosexual couples, or at least without making “dad” the butt of all jokes and failings in the family. Sounds discriminatory to me.
And what about Google?
https://www.google.com/search?q=white+couples
Can you be forced to attend a Satanic wedding ceremony and photograph it?
How about a nudist ceremony (where everyone including the photographer must be naked)?
Simple answer, you DO have the right to refuse work.
Leftists deny their services to conservatives (especially at political functions) all the time.
Apparently not in all circumstances.
Those are good examples..Let’s hope she brings them up....
Apparently.
How about a nudist ceremony (where everyone including the photographer must be naked)?
Probably not.
Simple answer, you DO have the right to refuse work.
So long as your reason for refusing the work does not violate state anti-discrimination laws. Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in and issue a definitive decision one way or the other.
Leftists deny their services to conservatives (especially at political functions) all the time.
Political leanings are not a protected class.
She is basically an artist and shouldn’t be forced to “creatively” depict anything.
Why not make her photograph Bull fights
Lawyers decline clients all the time. Then again, lawyers right and decide the laws.
Funny how lawyers are the only ones with that freedom.
I still don’t get how the original cake case even came to trial.
The STATE itself did not recognize pretend same sex marriage at the time.
How can a business operating in the state be in violation of not recgonizing same sex marriage when the state itself did not recognize same sex marriage?
But they don't do it because the client is black, gay, Muslim, disabled, or any of the other protected classes. This photographer can refuse to take child porn pictures, or Halloween party pictures, or pictures of an auto show or things like that because it isn't illegal. Refusing to serve a customer because they're black or gay is. The courts need to finally determine where someone's rights to practice their religion ends and the rights of the protected class client begins.
Sure they do.
Probably some do. But they're smart enough to come up with an excuse not related to the proposed customer's race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc., etc.
The cake baker was willing to sell the couple premade cakes.
A wedding cake requires decorating and sometimes delivering/attending.
He refused them because of their sexual orientation, thus falling afoul of the state anti-discrimination laws. Until the courts rule definitively one way or the other on the Constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws we're going to continue to get cases like this.
So a photographer can be required to photograph two people kissing?
If a satantic wedding couple have exhibitions of “antichrist/antichristian” iconography/music is a Christian photographer still required to attend/participate?
The couple hiring can be obnoxious and inflamatory but it isn’t “discrimination” because they hired a Christian to be there to document it?
There is no sexual orientation
There is sex and there is perversion
Biology rules
I suspect such a wedding would fall under religious grounds and refusing to provide services would likely get them in trouble in many states.
The couple hiring can be obnoxious and inflamatory but it isn’t “discrimination” because they hired a Christian to be there to document it?
'Obnoxious' and 'inflammatory' are not protected classes.
Off the shelf is different from commission.
People need to realize how dangerous this idea that you can be forced to take a commission is.
It has little to with freedom of religion and everything to do with freedom, period.
Once you say people can force you to do something against your will and it is ok as long as they give you money after, you are a slave. No, less then a slave, you are an object. And there is no limit to how deep this hole can get.
Rape is ok as long as they leave a dollar.
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.