NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

Christian Post ^ | 08/24/2013 | Napp Nazworth

[X-spurt]

Simple solution, more than one way to skin a cat. Require full cash in advance and take the worst possible pix. Next time the queers will not force you.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I’d ask for the date, and tell them I was already booked for that day.

[szweig]

Not just a bigot — anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone. Let the marketplace prevail.

If I were these photographers I’d call in sick the day of the event. Screw that judge!!

[Up Yours Marxists]

"Here’s a theoretical question ... should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?"

No.

Many Freepers get this wrong. The Bible is clear on this. It's Godly to treat others equally when it's something they are born with. Examples:

• Skin color
• Birthplace
• Deformities and disabilities
• Diseases or ailments

It's also Godly to have righteous discrimination against bad or unhealthy behaviors. So, any business who wants to be Godly and legal must make business rules based on disallowed behaviors. Like:

• No girl kissy girl
• No boy kissy boy
• No stinky customers
• No ugly handbags
• No baseball caps that say "DAWG"

Then there's the "flip side" to this argument. "But we were born this way". Even if that were true (uh huh), marriage is a choice. Holding hands in public is a choice. Choosing a partner is a choice.

What the photographers should have said was, "We didn't accept their business because our policy says we don't allow the photographing of men kissing men, women kissing women, men or women kissing animals, or any acts of a sexual nature."

That would have set them in the clear right there. You're not discriminating against the people. You're discriminating against the ACT. And now you can claim hardship when courts ask why you have the policy. You say, "Our customers are traditional and if word got out we were photographing devious filthy behavior we'd go out of business. These acts are considered by our staff to be pornography. Even though pornography is legal, we choose not to partake in it."

They have a choice to display their "love" for each other. You have a right to tell them to pound sand.

[pallis]

Go take the pictures, and throw up at the wedding. It would make me violently sick.

[pallis]

Go take the pictures, and throw up at the wedding. It would make me violently sick.

[Don Corleone]

Just don’t show up. Take crappy pictures. Charge exorbitant fees. Demand the cash up front. Lots of ways.

[reg45]

“Sorry! I left the lens cap on.”

[rawhide]

Just say you have other plans and you cannot help them. Nothing else needs to be said,

[Mrs. Don-o]

What if somebody wanted you to create a photo essay on their "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" parade?

Or their Muslim "Behead the Gays" Rally?

This is so obviously not "discrimination" against gays as individual customers. I am sure they could go through their files --- assuming they don't "just" do weddings --- and find lots of gay customers they happily photographed for school graduations and other occasions.

They are not discriminating against a class of customers. They are choosing what kind of events they will or will not provide a service for. It involves a contract, does it not? Can the State really coerce entering into a contract?

[dsrtsage]

Yes, yes, absolutely yes... And he is free to reap the consequences of his business decisions

[Last Dakotan]

I think we delude ourselves if we believe that the churches themselves will not be sued over refusal of same sex weddings.

We are 15-20 years tops from jailing Evangelical ministers and Catholic Priests for their refusal to preside over these abominations.

[sten]

so... violate your religious beliefs or go out of business

gee, sounds like the fedgov and stategov is doing everything they can to help homo businesses... including taking out the competition

[vette6387]

“Ok, then they should just do a REALLY crappy job (blurry, out of focus images, etc), and charge them up the wazoo.”

Nah, the fags would be back in court faster than you can say “dildoe.” This needs to go to the SCOTUS. If they fail to honor the Constitution ( which sadly is a distinct possibility now that we have three Marxist women on the court) then it will be time enough for “independent business actions.”

[LaRueLaDue]

“We are 15-20 years tops from jailing Evangelical ministers and Catholic Priests for their refusal to preside over these abominations.”

I think it might be sooner than that. Remember, obambi only has three years left...

[puppypusher]

If that’s the case then I would just refuse to work.The Court cannot force you to work.Thats slavery.

[SaintDismas]

Good morning Mrs. Dono that is a great question and seems to have been answered by this moreso every day lawless govt. Which brings me back to my point I’ve been trying to make and that is we can’t depend on them anymore. We should keep going at it on that front too, yes as citizens with a constitution (largely ignored or deformed to obtain results conforming with a desired outcome by popular vote) we do have that right. Sadly as we all are seeing and, getting a sinking feeling now, that road is now inaccessible to us as faithful Christians who just wanting to live the gospel, so what else can we do? We are on our own now I’m afraid or very close to it in regards to our so called representative government.

So let’s see,

Every Christian photographer be ordained in a 3rd Oder ministry? Ha ha Seriously as funny as that sounds, I actually thunk that up this morning. This is so distressing. Definitely praying for Elaine’s Photography down there in NM. New ground, old ground these aren’t really new problems for us. The bible and history shows us what God’s people should do. Jut gonna be really really really tough for those poor soiuls just trying to make a living for their family in this short brutish life until we meet the King

[Arthur McGowan]

I notice that a hospital in Florida won’t hire smokers.

I’d like to see a photographer refuse to do any work for smokers. I’ll bet they would be upheld by the courts.

[DUMBGRUNT]

And what morons would want to FORCE someone to work for them? I would not expect the best work.

The very same morons that expect your personal physician to work for next to nothing.

You get what you pay for.

[Nea Wood]

should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?

YES. It would be a dumb thing to do, since a black person's money is as good as a white person's money and vice-versa. And I don't think too many businesses would do it, since they're out to make a buck. But if a private business owner wants to refuse service to green-eyed, left-handed midgets of the astrological sign of Aquarius, he should be able to do so, in a free country. Then another business will open nearby and advertise that they welcome green-eyed, left-handed midget Aquarians and then they'll steal business away from the first guy.

If we can't do that, then we are not a free country.