Skip to comments.
Court Rules it’s Illegal for Christians to Refuse to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremonies [New Mexico]
Catholic Culture ^
| 6/5/12
Posted on 06/05/2012 7:21:34 AM PDT by marshmallow
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: marshmallow
Next step is churches who refuse to do ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies lose their IRS tax exempt status.
That’s on the way soon.
2
posted on
06/05/2012 7:23:36 AM PDT
by
TigerClaws
(He)
To: marshmallow
Any business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. PERIOD.
3
posted on
06/05/2012 7:23:52 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: marshmallow
Government is now telling private business what to do.
We’ve crossed the Rubicon, folks.
4
posted on
06/05/2012 7:23:52 AM PDT
by
rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
To: marshmallow
CW-II is coming.
Sooner or later, someone has to tell the court to shove it up its liberal smelly Obama.
Sooner would be better than later.
5
posted on
06/05/2012 7:24:13 AM PDT
by
Da Coyote
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: marshmallow
Mass civil disobedience is right around the corner. These judicial activists are crapping in their own nests.
7
posted on
06/05/2012 7:26:52 AM PDT
by
skeeter
To: marshmallow
Fine. It's not illegal to make BAD photographs. Even if you don't get paid for a client or two, word will get around the gay community and you will stop getting hired...
To: marshmallow
Does this mean if someone wanted to force a Christian photographer to shoot pornography, they could? Also, can the photographers do a bad job on the photos and say they will give all the money they receive for it to Focus on the Family or some other conservative organization the lesbonazis hate?
To: marshmallow
Do they have to do a good job? Sorry, left my thousands of dollars of cameras and lenses at the shop. How about a couple of Polaroids and a roll of 110 negatives?
10
posted on
06/05/2012 7:28:45 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
To: Da Coyote
It’s already started. The other side hasn’t fired on Ft Sumter yet.
11
posted on
06/05/2012 7:31:05 AM PDT
by
NoKoolAidforMe
(I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
To: marshmallow
They have to take photos, nothing said about them being good.
12
posted on
06/05/2012 7:31:21 AM PDT
by
razorback-bert
(I'm in shape. Round is a shape isn't it?)
To: Da Coyote; skeeter; rarestia
Somewhere, a certain “Tree Needs Refreshing”...
13
posted on
06/05/2012 7:31:33 AM PDT
by
Carriage Hill
(All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: cripplecreek
It was considered more important to derail racial prejudice than to respect the right of freedom of association (or non-association). Now we’re where we are today, with people forced to associate or not, do business or not, based on whatever the government tells them they should do today.
15
posted on
06/05/2012 7:33:38 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
To: rarestia
Government has been doing it for decades. It began in the civil rights era when racist business owners were forced to serve blacks.
Personally I think those business owners should be able to make that decision for themselves. Smart business owners care only about the color of their customer’s money. (Capitalism is the worlds most non biased economic system)
Here in Michigan, bar owners were forced to ban smoking in their businesses. If I were a bar owner and wanted my business to be non smoking, I would have done so and promoted it to non smokers.
16
posted on
06/05/2012 7:33:46 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: cripplecreek
What about blacks? Can you refuse services because you just don’t like them? You said anyone for any reason after all
To: ReformationFan
"Does this mean if someone wanted to force a Christian photographer to shoot pornography, they could?"
They just did.
18
posted on
06/05/2012 7:34:51 AM PDT
by
Truth29
To: marshmallow
“Here are your beautiful photos, now pay me $20,000 please. Thank you.”
19
posted on
06/05/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT
by
Mashood
To: cripplecreek
A photography business is a “public accomodation?”
20
posted on
06/05/2012 7:35:44 AM PDT
by
p. henry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson