Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Says State Can't Force Photographer to Take Part in Gay Wedding
Creative Minority Report ^ | 8/3/17 | Matthew Archbold

Posted on 08/04/2017 6:58:23 PM PDT by marshmallow

Let's take a moment to celebrate a religious liberty victory. It doesn't happen often so let's cherish it.

In the most unexpected news of the day, the state of Wisconsin cannot legally force Christian photographer Amy Lynn to photograph same-sex weddings, a court has said.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said, “The court’s announcement has important implications for everyone in Wisconsin who values artistic freedom. It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote. The court found—and the city and state have now agreed—that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them. No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.”

(Excerpt) Read more at creativeminorityreport.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; infringed; religiousliberty; storefronts

1 posted on 08/04/2017 6:58:23 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Since they’re not a public accommodation, it’s very difficult to see how a court could come to any other conclusion — religious affiliation or not.


2 posted on 08/04/2017 7:00:07 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come 'round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I hope this helps the appeal of Baronelle Stuzman.


3 posted on 08/04/2017 7:05:49 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote. The court found—and the city and state have now agreed—that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them.

Does this mean that having a storefront isn't similarly protected?

4 posted on 08/04/2017 7:46:06 PM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

Good question. This may have serious consequences - in a good way.


5 posted on 08/04/2017 8:31:34 PM PDT by posterchild (Science makes the Dr. see what is not, and prevents him from seeing what is clear to everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Our WI supreme court has been 4-3 conservative for a good while now. No signs of going back, and if anything, hopefully will be 5-2 in the near future.


6 posted on 08/04/2017 8:48:25 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

yes, it appears to me that that’s what it means- the ruling basically states in so many words that if you own a storefront- you are not allowed to have religious or personal objections, and that you must agree to participate (in the capacity of your profession) in gay weddings even if it violates your religious beliefs- Apparently constitutional rights do not apply to people who own storefronts


7 posted on 08/04/2017 8:59:47 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I can just imagine what the pictures would have looked like. “Oh my, I didn’t realize the camera was pointed down. So sorry I did not get your head in the picture.”


8 posted on 08/04/2017 9:16:43 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Good news bump.


9 posted on 08/04/2017 9:19:24 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Let's take a moment to celebrate a religious liberty victory. It doesn't happen often so let's cherish it.

That's a little narrow minded isn't it. It is a more far reaching victory against human bondage. Along the lines of any free individual forced by government to work for others against his own will.

10 posted on 08/04/2017 9:49:49 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

I interpreted the phrase in a different way. I thought the judges were saying regardless of whether or not you operate your business from a storefront location. I was wondering if the plaintiffs tried to say that because the photographer didn’t have an actual store front location, they didn’t have grounds to refuse the photography.

It’s strange wording for sure.


11 posted on 08/04/2017 10:12:08 PM PDT by Catsrus (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

If they want to buy cupcakes,light bulbs,flowers you are a business and can’t discriminate...Buuuuut,you are asking people to be slaves and forced to give their talents,artistry etc to something they don’t agree with..Forcing people to use their talent for what you like...Isn’t that what Nazis did to their film industry? Are liberals going to follow the Nazi agenda to its final solution????


12 posted on 08/04/2017 10:46:05 PM PDT by Hambone 1934
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hambone 1934

Buuuuut,you are asking people to be slaves and forced to give their talents,artistry etc to something they don’t agree with


I think the guy missed an opportunity. When asked to photo the gay wedding, the guy should have said that he would rather not, but would do so if they threatened to invoke the discrimination law. He should have required them to pay up front, with a contract with a penalty clause for cancellation. Then he should have shown up with his camera but covered in chains, telling all present, that the gay couple and the discrimination laws had made him into a slave, and he was demonstrating his condition.

When they refuse him entry, he invokes the penalty clause of his contract to keep the money.

Of course, Channel 5 news would be recording the whole thing.

Same thing for the wedding cake, and the wedding flowers.

You gotta think outside the box, folks. If they want to turn you into a slave, demonstrate it. Someone only needs to do it once, and the public accommodation discrimination law will be laughed out of the law books and into the trash heap of other liberal bad ideas.


13 posted on 08/04/2017 11:17:12 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife

since maggots are allowed to protest soldier burials and disrupt those services- I wonder if the photographer could show up with a couple dozen of his friends and protest the wedding- calling it a sham- immoral etc- then give a refund-


14 posted on 08/04/2017 11:55:13 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

i htink the key phrase was “It means that government officials must allow creative professionals —without storefronts anywhere in the city and state— the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote.”

It —seems to indicate— that if they have a storefront- then they aren’t allowed the ‘freedom to make their own decisions about’ what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’

It seems to me that the ruling allows people without storefronts the ability to pick and choose what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’, but not those who own storefronts

I dunno- liberals are masters at twisting legal definitions around until they are no longer recognizable as objective truths


15 posted on 08/05/2017 12:00:30 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: posterchild; Bob434

Let’s pray that equal protection under the law will soon mean what it says.


16 posted on 08/05/2017 1:19:23 AM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

17 posted on 08/05/2017 12:05:52 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

18 posted on 08/05/2017 12:05:53 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
I can just imagine what the pictures would have looked like. “Oh my, I didn’t realize the camera was pointed down. So sorry I did not get your head in the picture.”

I was thinking the same thing. lol. What??? I thought 107 pictures of flowers and birds would be perfect for your wedding album!
19 posted on 08/06/2017 7:03:31 AM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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