Posted on 01/09/2022 5:48:50 PM PST by marshmallow
An Upstate New York wedding photographer has lost her bid to refuse service to same-sex couples after a federal judge dismissed with prejudice her lawsuit against the state.
Emilee Carpenter, a photographer and blogger based in the Southern Tier, sued the state in April, alleging that the state’s human rights law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and free religious expression. She also said the law violated the establishment clause and her right to due process.
Carpenter named New York Attorney General Letitia James and Interim Human Rights Commissioner Jonathan Smith as defendants.
Carpenter said that the law violates her First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion because she uses her wedding photography business to exercise and express her religious beliefs about marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawandcrime.com ...
The courts have been infiltrated. They are communist and corrupt.
Brilliant idea
No they will then sue for deliberately screwing up the photos
Gotta be a photographer that also does other projects
And thatallows you to pick and choose
Not available that day, sorry
But you may refuse service to photograph Trump rallies and RNC events. That is fine and good.
Just tell the gay couple you’re booked up or going on vacation.
This gives an idea of just how SICK the Democrats are. In Europe last week, their top court told the gays to take a hike when they tried to force a private business to do something along the same lines.
But in the US, under Democrat judges, that is JUST FINE.
Venue is pertinent here. Compulsory appeal, it seems.
Then they would sue you because you screwed up the photos.
“nor prohibit the free exercise thereof...”
Boy, that is pretty difficult to understand, not.
Someone try using a gay photographer for a wedding and have the bride and groom holding AK’s or something for their wedding photos. Let the photographer say they won’t photograph guns and violate the couples 2A rights.
Aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
My first thought.
When the wedding cake controversy was going on, I wondered why the gay people didn’t go to bakeries run by Muslims, and ask THEM to do same-sex wedding cakes; and I wondered how that would go down in the courts if the Muslim bakery objected.
On the other hand, if I were a baker or photographer, I’d consider baking and photography to be what I was selling - not my personal beliefs.
I’d object to rendering some blatantly obscene image; but I wouldn’t have a problem with anything dignified.
Somehow Facebook, etc. can refuse services to people based upon their expressed ideological views (which FR also can and should be able to do) - including what constituted “hate speech” and |fake news” but a baker cannot refuse to create a custom expressive work for a ideological cause they disagree with.
Just as a patriotic military veteran song writer, or sign maker, or baker should not have to create a special custom expressive work for the expressed purpose of celebrating the fall of Saigon, nor a black or Jewish baker a KKK event, or even a Muslim the anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel, neither should they have to do so for a homosexual event.
Such are not essential services, and refusal by one song writer or other expressive artist to provide a special work opens the door for another to do so. But the problem is when the courts have essentially required every state to salute the flag of Sodom, which is akin to having to salute a Communist flag.
Thus such cases of non-essential services engaging in the creation of custom expressive works should be treated like as a song writer being forced to create a work contrary to his beliefs. However, if such is a commercial artist offering song writing then they need to state a right of refusal to create custom expressive works contrary to their beliefs, whether it be a patriot writing a song about the glories of Communism or a Communist about the glories of capitalism, etc., etc. This is not the same as a Uber driver refusing services to a synagogue, church or mosque, but that of custom non-essential expressive works.
Appeal the decision.
Being able to force someone to perform a service is slavery. They have no “right” to her services and force her to go places she does not wish to go.
Remember how they said tolerating them wouldn’t have any effect on your life? Yeah, well....
It’s going to be a complicated issue to a jurist.
Do you think a restaurant or delicatessen run by, say, a devout Jewish or fundamentalist Christian family, should be allowed to deny service to a Muslim who walks through the door?
I do. I don’t want to get food from anyone who hates me.
In the 1970s middle school kids were being taught Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as part of contemporary American literature. One of the driving points of the story was that the "insane" in the asylum were mislabeled and truly belonged outside with everyone else. One of the asylum inmates was a homosexual man.
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.