The New Mexico Supreme Court decision that will “send a chill down your spine”

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued a ruling that could have national implications. The court decided a Christian wedding photographer violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

“Interesting that happened in court in New Mexico,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “The New Mexico Supreme Court on Friday handed down a decision against a Christian couple who simply wanted to live their faith. That’s it. The language that the Supreme Court handed down should send a chill down your spine.”

In his concurring opinion, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson said photographers Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,” but they “must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” Bosson explained that this is “the price of citizenship.”

According to TheBlaze:

The Albuquerque-based photography studio Elane Photography did not want to photograph the ceremony between Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth because studio co-owner Elaine Huguenin said it would violate her Christian beliefs and that the company only photographs traditional marriages.

The majority opinion for the court stated that the studio violated the rights of the lesbian couple “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of two different races.”

The state of New Mexico does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, hence the couple was having a “commitment ceremony.”

The opinion further stated that the New Mexico Human Rights Act does not violate the photographer’s First Amendment because it “does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.”

“What is this story about,” Glenn asked. “Well, they decide that their right to have this couple photograph their wedding trumps this couple’s right to disagree…. It is the price of citizenship according to New Mexico Supreme Court now.”

This ruling will, more than likely, end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Sadly, Glenn, Pat, and Stu were not convinced Chief Justice John Roberts would draw a different conclusion.

“This goes to the Supreme Court. Do you know that they will decide otherwise,” Glenn asked. “You know you’ll have John Roberts come out, he’s been crying himself to sleep all night. ‘I don’t want to be called names. I don’t to go down as a guy who was a bad guy of the Supreme Court. I don’t want that.’ He’ll come out with red eyes and he’ll be like, ‘Yeah, I guess there’s no religious liberty anymore.’ That is exactly how it will turn out.”

“Think how insane that is, to not be able to choose what job you go on? To be able to choose, as you would think as a photographer, essentially choosing the subject of your art,” Stu reasoned. “You’re not now allowed to choose the subject of your art? These are liberals advocating this? Let me make sure I understand.”

“I guess now the signs that say we reserve the right to refuse anyone at restaurants are completely out the window because you can’t refuse service to anyone,” Pat added. “This is a private business being forced to do something against their religious liberties.”

Americans often have the attitude that if it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, what difference does it make to me. But this ruling has implications far beyond New Mexico that should frighten any American who believes in religious freedom.

“That’s what we came here for: religious freedom,” Glenn said emphatically. “And now the Supreme Court of New Mexico has just said, ‘there’s a price to your citizenship.’ Look out. You don’t want to pay for abortions? You’re going to be soon, if this stands.”

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Conformity enforced through legislation, coercion and the usage of the judiciary system and activist justices. Our freedom of expression, religious belief and much else has fallen, for the Supreme Court will ratify the New Mexico state Supreme Court decision hands down.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Oh liberals and their witch hunts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kenneth.randolph1 Kenneth Randolph

    They’re going to force us to take matters in our own hands and when people start getting killed because of this the libs will be over there wringing their hands crying about the hatefull intolerant bigots.When they were the biggest bigots of all I’m sorry but I only see blood and alot of it to fix this nation to where it was once.

  • Anonymous

    This isn’t restricting anyone’s private behavior or beliefs. The court’s comparison to a hypothetical situation involving racial discrimination is spot on. 

    Would you have agreed with a southern restaurant owner in the 1960s if they had argued that serving black customers was against their religion and thus forcing them to do so would be a violation of their first amendment rights?

    Say what you want about this being an infringement of private property or not, but the religious argument is weak. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/rigoberto.serrano.39 Pachy Serrano

    Oh religious right and their witch hunts are here again. DO NOT mix business with religion or viceversa . . . always things end up bad. Now, why the married couple hitred this guy . . . if he that good??

  • http://www.facebook.com/rigoberto.serrano.39 Pachy Serrano

    Force you to do what? Killings. U should be in lock up if you think that way. No one is doing nothing to anyone. Its all in the mind of your lovely conservatives. Spread fear and more fear and people will come to our side for protection and leadership. U guys are a bunch of looneys and cry babies. But if you want another Civil War, I believe independents and liberals are more than you guys. No even your guns will save u from that one. However, we all Americans and peace and prosperity should be the goal, not war between us. Amen!

  • Kanak Attack

    See this is where this entire country has been brainwashed and taught a complete lie.  The Civil Rights movement was not as great of a thing as we were all taught it was when we were in school.  There was a lot of un-Constitutional powers and laws given because of that movement and now we’re seeing what it was leading up to.

    Socialists hid their agenda inside the Civil Rights movement the moment
    they realized how big it was going to become and how many politicians
    were going to back it.

    People need to actually study American history during that time and the time leading up to it.  What the Civil Rights movement was about was fighting against GOVERNMENT PROTECTED SEGREGATION; the infamous Jim Crow Laws.  Those laws were un-Constitutional in the first place but guess who had instituted and protected them up until that time???  The southern democrats!  For crying out loud people go look it up!

    It was at this moment that the socialist-engineers decided to hijack the politics of the movement and use it as a vehicle to distribute moral decay, social slavery, and communistic control over society.  It was at that point that hatred of white people and the American way was injected into the black communities.  It was all too easy for socialists to grab complete control over this group of people and have kept it for over 50 years.

    Do people actually think that it was coincidence that the Cold War, communist movement, “hippie” culture, drug culture, porn industry, abortion legalization, birth control, forced sterilization, and black “civil rights” all came into existence in the same decade???

    Government sponsored discrimination was and always has been un-Constitutional.  However, a business inside the free market system should ALWAYS have the right to discriminate if they so choose.  If we had abolished an un-Constitutional law of segregation and allowed free will to prevail we would have seen segregation willfully abandoned and probably would have seen much of the white supremacy movements never come into fruition.  The invisible hand would have done its purpose to bring about more freedom as the Founders always knew it would.

  • Kanak Attack

    I’d also like to add that had we taken this course we would have never seen the entitlement generations of our day, the welfare-addicted, poverty-plagued black communities over the following five decades, and the environmental movement that has destroyed our economy.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, please. Conservatives have been trying to “fix this nation to where it once was” since day one. But to no avail. This country does NOT go backwards. It never has.

    Did the Civil Rights Movement for blacks get reversed? Did the Women’s Liberation Movement get turned back? Has the gay rights movement been turned back?
    No, no, and no.

    Your type can try the street violence all you want—you certainly did against the Civil Rights Movement–but it’s not going to work. Besides, this time you’ve waited too late for that: your side is too old and feeble to present a threat. We’ve seen your Tea Party rallies, and clearly they’re more bingo players than street fighters. 

    America progresses…it evolves…and there’s not a da*n thing you can do about it. 

  • Dmac73

    Stripping independent, private business’ of their right to choose. Force them to participate in something they do NOT believe in and goes against their religion. Yes tell me just where is a business’s right to choose. There is a right to choose abortion or partial/live birth (murder) abortion but a proprietor of a business  can’t choose who he wants to do business with. What is wrong with this picture? Really screwed up IMO

  • Anonymous

    Any business can refuse to sell anything to anybody, but HOW they phrase the reason is VERY important.
    Discrimination happens when you exclude someone for the Type of Person they are.
    This business was Grade A stupid for giving the reasons that they did…if they had just said NO, and nothing else, then there would be nothing to base a lawsuit on.
    It not only is it possible to say No, in an unoffensive way, common courtesy dictates that you are polite to others.
    WHAT did this business expect would happen? That the lesbians would fall on the floor begging for forgiveness and promise to change their evil, wicked lifestyle?
    I agree with the Judges on this matter
    NOT because it “punished” the business for their Christian ideals, but because those people were rude, completely unnecessarily.
    RUDE people SHOULD be punished.
    One of you devout Christians please explain to me how it’s okay for Christians to be RUDE to other people.
    People tell “social lies” all the time
    Somebody asks us to go do something with them, and we tell them we already have plans. We DON’T TELL them we think they are boring, uninteresting, border-line stupid and ugly.
    It is ALWAYS wrong to be rude to other people
    ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS……..

  • Anonymous

    So are restaurants owned by Islamists going to be forced to serve pork?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, and put me some bacon on that bbq sandwich, Abdul!

  • Anonymous

    First of all, it was Democrats who fought tooth and nail against civil rights.

    Second, when the government strips away a freedom you actually value, you’ll be singing a different tune…but there won’t be anyone left to help you.

  • Anonymous

    It is ALWAYS wrong to be rude or insulting to another person.
    The biz could have just said NO…….and nothing else
    Giving the reason was Grade A stupid.
    Discrimination is when you exclude a Type of Person
    It seems obvious to me that Christians feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to be rude to people.

  • Anonymous

    They didn’t have to sue.  All they would have to do was go to another photographer.  Let these people have their way, the same way restaurants run by Muslims can refuse to serve pork.  Give someone who thinks like you do your business, don’t force them to comply with your beliefs.  It will hurt them in the pocketbook in the long run.  And if not, small loss.  Why is it always Christians the gays get hateful with?  Islam says to kill gays, yet not a peep against them.

  • Anonymous

    you are walking a very slippery slope if you want the GOVERNMENT to decide what is RUDE or not.  By the way, typing in all caps is RUDE-so perhaps you should be punished.!

  • Anonymous

    OK one better that b.s. you now know you have to do it lead them on then the day of there wedding you’ve suddenly got the flu ,or whatever sickness that works to you’re advantage and unbenounced  to you’re feeling absolutely horrible but theres just no way you can make it.
    some chicken’s don’t mean all chicken’s get skinned the same way (don’t twist my arm theres a surprise in every situation )

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Todd/1424651317 Scott Todd

    Does anyone remember the story about a month or two ago where some judge in neighboring AZ, IIRC, said that  religious freedom would have to take a back seat to gay rights?

  • JohnDale49

     You’re a statist freak. Where is the separation of religion and PRIVATE industry in the constitution you snake?

  • JohnDale49

     Homosexuals are defined by their ACTIVITY. Blacks are defined by their RACE. You really are a sick, stupid individual.

  • Anonymous

    There is no seperation of religion and anything within our Constitution. The clause states that government cannot institute a religion. The whole wall of seperation thing is taken from a private letter and mostly out of context. Religious liberty stands in the way of absolute statism and is probably a big reason why the Founders made certain that it was first in the Bill of Rights. Second was the force necessary to make certain that the rest remained intact.

  • Anonymous

    As an American artist and photographer… no one will ever tell me what to photograph or paint… I’ll fight it with my last ounce of strength. This is crap!

  • Doc Savage

    Yes I will photograph your same sex nuptials. The prices is $45,000

  • Doc Savage

    A photographer does not want to take a job.  The court forces him.  The court can FORCE you to take a picture.  Just how far away are we from blood running in the streets? Not blacks killing whites but a civil war.  I am afraid that I will see it in my life time

  • Cynic

    Sounds like the same sex couple went to that photographer with the express purpose of getting them in trouble.

  • Nov111805 .

    WOW!  That was quite a statement.  Now, I am going to “assume” you were there and observed the ENTIRE transaction?  And can I just address this statement:  One of you devout Christians please explain to me how it’s okay for Christians to be RUDE to other people. 
    Again……we are ASSUMING you were there and witnessed what happened and as a “devout Christian” I have stood up for my belief against homosexuality and have been called all kinds of lovely names by people who are homosexual or those who support the homosexual lifestyle.  As a matter of fact I would say the other side has been quite rude….but, I also believe one wrong does not make a right.  I have NEVER shoved my beliefs down someone’s throat.  (there is a huge difference between disagreeing with something and shoving your agenda down someone’s throat)  I am sick of the “homosexual” community shoving their beliefs down MY throat…..every darn chance they get.  I will say it again…..I do not believe in the homosexual lifestyle/agenda as it goes against God’s laws and quite frankly that’s enough for me…..I do NOT “hate” any homosexual and have never been “rude” to one……but has the other “side” given me the same treatment?  Not so much…….so whom can I sue? 

  • drC

    Judge Bosson wrote “[people] are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,” [but they] “must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” People of faith and morality are always forced to “compromise…’ their values.

    Had the photographer told the couple ‘I have never photographed a lesbian wedding, but I’ll do my best’ and did the best his belief’s allowed him to do so they may have wished they had chosen another photographer– which they did. The photographer would have saved himself a lot of grief and money, the intolerant lesbians would have pictures that may have been a bit out of focus. 

    The gay community is the most intolerant, spiteful group I know. Do it their way or they will stick it to you as these two women did.  

  • Max Black

    So, if a restaurant doesn’t offer islamic food will it be FORCED to put it on the menu? Where is the line of OUR freedom from things that offend US?

  • Max Black

    Forcing the photographer into servitude is NOT the right of anyone. That’s subjugation, and we are no longer free to live by our own moral dictates 

  • Anonymous

    If it is a condition of citizenship…….what does it mean if you still refuse to do the photo job? Does it mean the government will throw you out of your home state.   Gosh, if they will let me choose which state and pay for my move I must open a photo business soon because I can’t afford to move right now.

  • Nov111805 .

    I love you drC!  RIGHT ON!  AND….speak out against the SIN of homosexuality and really watch the fur fly!  You see……they don’t understand…..God does NOT hate homosexuals……it’s the sin.  Homosexuality is a sin…..you can’t candy coat that.  God loves all his children but hates all sin but calls homosexuality an “abomination”……now, at last check that was not a good thing.  AND…..let me be perfectly clear here:  There IS one, true, LIVING God and I can bet he’s about getting sick of what’s going on down here.  And, lest we forget…..He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality……heck, we have that in spades and abortion and killing and lying…..shall I go on?  

  • Anonymous

    Absolutly correct.

  • http://www.obamasucks.tv/ John – Atlanta

     I would not have agreed, but, that does not mean I would be forced to eat at their restaurant. I could avoid it.

    Example: Even though I would love to go visit a WWII aircraft carrier, it is in a Sodom state (aka NYC) that violates the 2nd (YHVH given amendment Luke 22:36) amendment so I refuse to set foot in the state.

    Homosexual couples are not forced to use a Christian business, there are plenty of homos with cameras. If enough people disagree with that Christian business and their policy and most important God disagrees with it, the business will fail, and they will most likely die poor.

    If it pleases God then there is a good chance they will become rich like Job.

  • Anonymous

    I demand that the photographer take photos of the orgy I’m going to be having. If they refuse, they will have violated my rights. rme

  • Anonymous

    Self employed Christians could avoid this by simply saying, “Let me check my Calendar to see if I am available that date”   and then say, “Gee, I’m sorry, but I’m booked on that date.”

  • mtman2

    Does anyone think if it was a Muslim photographer ANYONE would say squat let alone do anything?
    Article-1  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Wing-nut Haymrkt[below] claims the “religious” rights of individuals “is weak”. Try reading the purpose of settling and forming America. Sure wasn’t to promote sodomy or ‘ whatnot’.  And ‘that’ shouldn’t be be forced on normal people of moral conviction no matter how people wish to twist the  ‘optional choices’  of folks as WHERE WOULD IT END?

  • Anonymous

    Bullshit. We still hold to the right to refuse service TO ANYONE!!!

  • Anonymous

    There’s no law that says you can’t discriminate on who you work for regardless of laws against discriminating while hiring

  • Anonymous

    WRONG!! The judge infringed on the civil rights act.

  • Anonymous

     Oh shut the —- up!! Since when does ANYONE have to do business with ANYONE if they don’t want to??!!?? These fringe groups are hollering and this Adm. in particular have gone along with THEM instead of the MAJORITY!!
    The MAJORITY of Americans ARE NOT gay and I for one am tired of everybody ELSE gets their way instead of the MAJORITY!! MAJORITY RULES!! These two LADIES? could have UNDERSTOOD AND BEEN TOLERANT OF OTHER PEOPLE FOR A —- ING CHANGE!!
    WE’RE TIRED OF THE BOOTS ON THE THROATS OF “NORMAL” PEOPLE AND IF WE PUT UP WITH WE ARE FOOLS!! 

  • Anonymous

    To put it mildly

  • Anonymous

    It seems atheists think it’s ok to be rude to Christians just for being Christians so what’s the problem?

  • Anonymous

    I guess those of us who do not want to so business with the gay community–and you know they are gay–then we will just need to say SORRY WE ARE BOOKED so we don’t get sued!
    The 2 ladies? who made a fuss might have been paid to make a fuss just so the rest of have to make them feel “normal”!!! Enough of the INTIMIDATION–ENOUGH!! They are taking away OUR RIGHTS for THEIR RIGHTS SO FROM NOW ON —SORRY WE ARE BOOKED–WHETHER IT’S TAKING PHOTOS OR BAKING A CAKE—SORRY BUT WE ARE BOOKED!!!
    After awhile–when they can’t sue–they will take their business to their own kind!!!  

  • mtman2

    Oh, so this “couple” wasn’t rude[to-sue] when a person was honest to EXPRESS as to why they do or don’t something as their religion won’t allow them to cross certain lines. Which IS their prerogative as American citizens. The ‘queer community’, has a great business opportunity to cater to the new market. Nobody is forcing ‘them’ to be Christian…it should go to the U.S. Supreme Court where the rights of the shop owners would be upheld. I’d sponsor them if I could.

  • Anonymous

    1st off, you need to learn English. 2nd, you’re being hypocritical. If religion shouldn’t mix with business why is it ok for the gay couple & the judge to mix activism with business? As long as leftists & gov’t think it (gov’t) should mix with EVERY aspect of our lives, I’ll mix whatever the hell I want.

  • Anonymous

    the same way restaurants run by Muslims can refuse to serve pork.
    That’s where there is misunderstanding
    a business can refuse to sell Every customer pork
    a discrimination suit is about who you exclude and why
    This is a Legal matter as are all Law suits.
    Refusing to sell a product or a service to a particular Type of Person IS discrimination. 
    Read the Laws. I didn’t write them or could I change them.
    Businesses can’t “discriminate” against a Type of Person.
    I am no fan or supporter of Gays.
    I was a business owner for 28 years and I DID understand the laws under which I had to conduct my 16 businesses.
    How many times would my businesses have been sued IF I stated I wouldn’t sell to fat people, because I believe gluttony is a sin.
    The very utterance of  the label fat people…as a TYPE OF PERSON…is what would make my refusal Legally Actionable.
    The shop owners could have simply said that they weren’t interested in handling the lesbians’ photos business…….and said nothing more
    AND then there couldn’t have been a lawsuit
    To win a lawsuit you MUST prove monetary damages.
    I don’t see any way that the couple can claim they were financially damaged

  • Anonymous

    Let’s hope so

  • mtman2

    And this IS and WAS a choice however in their estimation it was what they felt comfortable doing. A person very strong in the Faith and Spirit filled could have been the last person they might have wished they’d have hired as they won converts and turned the wedding into an alter call for Christ.
    Then they’d have’m arrested!  So,  the Apostle Paul would have shaken their hand in the next dimension!

  • Anonymous

    The next president should request the resignation of ALLLLLLLL federal judges!

    We need to start at square one with all fresh faces…with CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS!

  • mtman2

    It won’t help to waste time reasoning with selfish and childish adults even if they got ambitious and actually took time to learn more than selfish perverted gratification. Everything they see as ‘real’ , is skewed and is WHY they are that way.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t care what you think about Gays. To me, they are a biological mutation, as every living creature’s  highest priority is to make more of itself. Same genders can’t make more of themselves, and therefore are a biological mutation
    I wasn’t there, and just took what was reportedly said to the couple.
    The discrimination Laws DO exist.
    I didn’t write them
    If you are a business operator you must know and understand the Laws, like them or not
    You are wanting to defend your Faith, and I’m not attacking your faith, or the business owners faith.
    My point is a Legal Point
    This a Legal matter, or else there wouldn’t have been a Ruling or a suit filed
    As a business owner, you can’t refuse to sell a product or service to a Type of Person
    A discrimination suit is about who you exclude and WHY.
    How many lawsuits do you think my businesses would have gotten if I told customers I would not sell my products to fat people, because I believe gluttony is a sin.
    Once I said the Labeling Term of ……Fat People…..is when I would have been  discriminating.
    The Laws that govern the conduct of your personal life are different than what a business has to adhere to.
    Why not take the time to read the discrimination laws, so you will understand.
    If you are ever going to run a business, you better read the laws that you will have to comply with.
    What the owners did was absolutely against the discrimination laws.BUT, to win a lawsuit, you MUST prove financial damages. I don’t see any way the lesbian couple can prove they were financially damaged.
    The Gay faction has the public’s attention right now, and I think they are abusing their new new status, but that will settle down and go out of the public’s thoughts.
    I remember 30 years ago when the ADA group were the new Public Darlings and I had to spend over $190,000 to re-work all my businesses bathrooms so people in wheelchairs had “access”.
    In the following 8 years after that, i personally was in every one of my businesses and not even ONCE did I ever see anyone in a whellchair used the restrooms. And, during that time i also asked all of my managers if THEY had ever seen anyone in a wheelchair using the restrooms. 
    NOPE!
    Not even once.
    The Gays are the Left’s current darlings, like the ADA was 30 years ago.
    The gays will get knocked off as the Liberal’s Darlings soon, and some NEW oppressed group will ascend the moral high ground and hallowed halls of the Left

  • Anonymous

    If it would come to being forced to cook Islamic food,( or any other  such), then serve ( or make ) bad Islamic (or any other) food. 

  • mtman2

    Like all the Empires that fell as they became debauched? The “Silent-Majority” has not yet opened their eyes fully. The 20% of independents -center to left of center[their not sure until they are]you mentioned are the sheep that watched the OUR Revolution and will go along with the winners. Real Lib/Progs are about 20%left to way left-,  that leaves a 60% mix of -center to center right, Repubs, Conservatives and Libertarians. In 79 + 83 Ronald Reagan evidently appealed to all but the -left of way left- as he landslided America twice w/49 states twice. WE aren’t the “looneys and crybabies”. WE are the Americans; you all are the -great pretenders- led to believe you can pretend the real people away, but are only pawns["useful idiots"-commie idiom] for the statist oligarchy. Queers are the first to go, esp in Islam. Christians ARE tolerant but won’t ‘bend-over’.

  • Anonymous

    “… I can bet he’s about getting sick of what’s going on down here..”  and now thanks to Nov111805, we  all know exactly what God is  thinking.  

  • Anonymous

    Take a very poor focus picture(s) and sue for damages if they refuse to pay.

  • Anonymous

    Love that solution.  The couple should have chosen another photographer instead of  spite.

  • mtman2

    The “Silent-Majority” better get themselves unsilenced quickly to prove WE are a majority that does really care of where America is heading and how!

  • Anonymous

    I think you kind of missed the point.
    It’s wrong for anyone to be rude to others.
    It’ wrong for Gays to be rude.
    It’s wrong for Christians to be rude
    It’s wrong for atheists to be rude
    It’s wrong to be rude to anyone.
    There are countless ways of saying “NO” to someone without being rude.
    Two Rudes don’t make a Right.

  • Kay

    What about the right to refuse service? If you can hang a sign on your store window saying “no shoes, no shirt, no service”… Surely there are other photographers out there. I wouldn’t want my ceremony done by someone who didn’t want to do it. 

  • Anonymous

    Nope. If you refuse to sell the SAME thing to all of your customers, it isn’t discrimination.
    You only violate the Discrimination Laws when you refuse to sell to a TYPE OF PERSON…..a labeled group of people…a Type or Grouping of people.
    Think maybe actually reading the Discrimination laws would help you?
    it’s really handy to have knowledge of what you are talking about
    If you have any intentions of being a business owner, you very well BETTER read the laws you must comply with.
    hate the Laws?…okay……just don’t open and operate a business
    The Laws that citizens must comply with are different than what businesses must comply with

  • http://www.facebook.com/warriorgal777 Desiree Bernstein

    This is getting out of hand.  How dare this court DECIDE that “same-sex” is the SAME as Black Civil Rights?  Homosexuality or Lesbianism is CHOICE.  The same way, ABORTION is CHOICE. This judge should be impeached for bad behavior. The REAL RIGHTS being denied is this photographer.  There is only 1.8% of counter-culture lifestyle people.  Why in God’s name must the rest of us be subjected to their behavior?  This is infringing on MY “unalienable rights” because I have respect for the absolute laws given to us by Almighty God.  There is no fear for holy God.  One day this judge will answer to the Judge of judges. Where is the Church of New Mexico?  This is beyond comprehension. Wake up Americans cry aloud to Almighty God for our nation.  By the way, do you know any EX-Hispanics or Ex-Blacks?   I don’t, but I DO know Ex-homosexuals and lesbians. (NOT genetic).   The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was VERY clear concerning his stand of homosexuality and abortion.  He was against both.  And for any liberals reading this, Dr. King was NOT a socialist, he IS a man of God, Christian.  I’m so sick of all the revisionist drive-by media.

  • http://www.facebook.com/warriorgal777 Desiree Bernstein

     So when another calamity strikes our nation, people need NOT blame the God of Nature.  As we continue to sow to the wind we shall reap the whirlwind. It is time for Americans to humble ourselves yet again, cry aloud unto Almighty God for our glorious nation.  This September 11th millions will humble themselves for the sake of our children and grandchildren.  May Almighty God, our “So Great Friend” have mercy on us and send REVIVAL to America.  Be a part of 9/11/13 A NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER FOR AMERICA.  God is our ONLY HOPE.

  • Anonymous

    you are exactly correct.
    There are countless ways to say “NO” without insulting anyone.
    All humans tell countless little “social lies” all of their lives.
    Someone asks you to go somewhere, and you tell them you have already made plans.
    There’s no reason to hurt their feelings and tell them that “H*** No I don’t want to go anywhere with a boring, uninteresting, borderline stupid, and slightly ugly person like you!”

    “Thanks, but I have already made plans”
    Hurts NO ONE
    Offends NO ONE
    is rude to NO ONE

  • Anonymous

    to win any lawsuit you MUST prove monetary damages.
    I don’t see any way that the couple can prove they were financially damaged.

  • Anonymous

    going to butt-in here as a lifelong Independent
    You Pachy are being just as vile as you are accusing ALL of the Conservatives as being.
    The business owners were Grade A stupid for SAYING WHY they refused the job.
    By refusing a Group of people or a Type of Person is how the owners violated the Discrimination laws. READ the actual laws and you’ll understand.
    There are countless ways of telling anyone “NO” without offending them and being rude.
    It’s wrong for gays to be rude
    It’s wrong for Christians to be rude
    It’s wrong for atheists to be rude

  • http://www.facebook.com/warriorgal777 Desiree Bernstein

     Hell no!   This is NOT a RACIAL issue.  It has NOTHING to do with the color of someone’s skin.  This is about a  BEHAVIOR which is a CHOICE just like ABORTION.  A southern owner who claims to be Christian but refuses to serve a customer because of the color of his skin is NOT a Christian.  God looks at the heart, not the color of skin.  However, the Bible is very clear on one man, one woman.  Homosexuals were not lynched, set on fire, denied access to restaurants, called property, so don’t even go there.  Stop attempting the hi-jacking of the Black Civil Rights Movement. Have you no decency?  We are presently celebrating 50 Years since Dr. King Marched on Washington.  Dr. King was VERY clear on where he stood on homosexuality and abortion.  He was a Reverend and stood on the side of God’s Holy Word.  I’m so sick of people twisting the truth of  Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.  They think if they just keep telling their lies people are going to believe them.  WELL, WE DON’T AND WE WON’T!   

  • Anonymous

    There are countless ways of saying “NO” to anyone, without being rude, condescending, and hurtful.
    The couple went into the business to “purchase” a photographer’s work.
    They didn’t go in there seeking spiritual guidance, and lifestyle approval.
    The business discriminated against them by not saying “NO”, but because of the reasons they said noThere are far different laws that apply to personal behavior, then what laws businesses must comply with.Read the discrimination laws yourself and then you’ll know.Discrimination happens when a business refuses to sell to a Type of Person(s)

  • http://www.facebook.com/mikelori.gravespetrick MikeLori GravesPetrick

    I wish I could go there, just to support them & have that business take ALL my pictures! This is still free America & we have the right to refuse to work for anyone!! I print shirts….but would never do an order for someone with “bad” words, pictures, beer or such….I have the right s a business owner!! Take your business somewhere else……I am soooooooo tired of these groups wanting special rights & making a big deal just to be in the news!! God will take care of the business owners & we better stand up for what is right & stand behind them. God will also take care of the “couple”…..His Word is true & someday the whole world will see!  “let God be true & every man a liar”!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/warriorgal777 Desiree Bernstein

     America is a Republic which believes in transcendent law.  If we are to have the blessings  “unalienable rights” of the God of Nature, we must honor his absolutes given to us in the Bible.  This 1.8% of people are forcing 97.2% of Americans to LOSE our blessings “unalienable rights” so they can practice their behavior.  IT’S NOT FAIR.  The media, courts, and President Obama are removing the divine protection that has always been with America. 

    My fellow Americans, we cannot fight this Leviathan in the natural.  Our fight is NOT with flesh and blood.  Let us join together on bent knees this September 11, 2013 and CRY ALOUD for DIVINE INTERVENTION. Almighty God will not be silent forever.  He will hear us when we pray and he will send help from Heaven.  I rather respect Holy God than fear man.  This is insanity.  I am a 9/11 Family and I cannot believe after 9/11, after Ft. Hood, after Benghazi, After Boston WE STILL DON’T GET IT.  Let’s take 9/11/13 and stand in the gap for our glorious nation.  It is not time for wickedness to rule.  God is Faithful!  “We have prayed before let us pray again.”  America is worth defending!  We are not perfect but we were founded by the values of the Perfect One!

  • Anonymous

    1st off, it wasn’t rude, they have every right to express themselves. 2nd your attack on their values is obvious. 3rd, THE COUPLE ASKED WHY!! Try paying attention to the video.

  • Anonymous

    A business cannot have a belief.  Only a person can have a belief.  A person cannot be forced to act against their beliefs, but a business has no beliefs.  The simple answer the photographers should have given was something along the lines of, “as a business engaged in interstate commerce, we of course agree in principle, as a business, to undertake to take your wedding photos.  However, our employees and partners are all believing Christians, and all have personally chosen to exercise their personal religious rights not to take your photos, so we have no one on staff to send to the wedding.  Should we happen to hire someone between now and your wedding who does not have these moral scruples, then of course, we will assign them to handle it.”

    Another solution would be to schedule a personal religious activity for all of the organization’s photographers to occur on the date-time of the wedding, then say, “as a business engaged in interstate commerce, of course we agree in principle to take your wedding photos.  However, all of our photographers are committed to an activity that will conflict, in terms of scheduling, with your wedding plans.  Should you wish to reschedule your wedding to a time when one of our photographers is available, then of course we will take your photos.”

    This all gets back to a simple fact – people have beliefs, but businesses have no beliefs.  So make sure that the people who work for the company have their beliefs protected, and you solve the problem.  Period.

    The photographers are either not very smart or they were looking for a legal fight to make a legal point, just as the couple getting married was looking for a legal fight to make a legal point.  But it takes two to fight – if one of them refuses to “play” then there is no issue.  Period.

  • HBK73

    Obviously not a Christian.
    God doesn’t say being black is wrong.
    If the God of the universe says its wrong to participate in homosexual activity then it safe to reason that He doesn’t want his people supporting it.
    Who are you to argue w God? When u sit down w Him at the end of your life, how do u think this goes over? Will you argue with Him that it was acceptable to everybody, “every body else was doing it!”
    Please think of more than your rights…God, won’t care about your rights…He’s kind of a Puritan “)

  • Jeremy Armour

    I’ve been making this exact same argument for years!  Under the Constitution you can not force someone to attend a religious ceremony they believe to be wrong!  What happens when a couple from the Satanic Church show up a devout Christian’s photography business and wants their ceremony photographed?  Can they be ‘discriminated’ against?  Or will the photographers be forced under threat of prosecution to attend the Satanic ritual?  What about a wedding at a nudist camp?

  • Jeremy Armour

    Your analogy if fatally flawed.  Eating lunch in a restaurant is not a religious ceremony.  A wedding is a religious ceremony. That’s why they are conducted in churches by members of the clergy!  Regardless of what the idiots in the New Mexico Supreme Court, or even the United States Supreme Court, say about it, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, TO FORCE SOMEONE TO ATTEND A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY THEY BELIEVE TO BE SINFUL!

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    government inserts itself into every aspect of our lives because it’s lucrative and only because they make out big.  how do we get people to understand that most of our government is a thief and only some government is needed?  this is our burden.

  • Anonymous

    It is amazing how many people forget that and ignore that fact.

  • http://www.praxacademy.com Rothbardian

    How ridiculous.  They must be forced to photograph the ‘wedding’ even when the state of NM doesn’t recognize gay weddings!  If you support gay weddings, isn’t the state infinitely more in the wrong than these photographers?  Typical government, do as I say, not as I do.

  • http://www.praxacademy.com Rothbardian

    This is about forced labor.  The government forces business owners to serve other people in a capacity that they do not want.  Essentially government mandated slavery.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, there are plenty of examples of people having to do business with people “they don’t want to.” Look at private businesses in the South after the civil rights era, look at the history of the real estate industry, look at the affirmative action policies that we once had as well as those we still have. 

    I don’t really know what you mean by ‘normal’ people and that “a majority of Americans are not gay.” What does that have to do with anything? A majority aren’t black or Asian. A majority aren’t mentally challenged. A majority aren’t afflicted with debilitating diseases. Soon, a majority won’t even be ‘white.’ Do we not have protections for minority groups? 

  • Anonymous

    Homosexuality is an orientation, much more than an ‘activity.’ It’s kind of like being a Christian, actually. 

  • Anonymous

    sorry, but you don’t.

  • Anonymous

    this is what happens when you ‘tolerate’ people.  give the radicals an inch, they’ll take a mile.  none of you seem to get it, this is all going to end in massive amounts of blood being spilled, think 1861-1865 but much more violent and much less organized.  you can’t avoid it, other than by surrendering to radical left, because they will never stop until you put the hammer down.  it’s up to you, you can continue to talk and whine, or you can organize and act.  such is life.

  • Anonymous

     not exactly, race is a physical state of being, homosexuality is a behavior.  no major religion automatically rejects people by race, but they do shun many based on behaviors.  race and sexual orientation are two totally different dances, and frankly gay rights activists constantly insult and degrade those who fought for racial equality by arrogantly assuming moral equivalence.  not even close.  no religious argument for refusal should even be necessary, restaurants routinely refuse to serve people for not having the appropriate attire, for crying out loud!

  • Bruce Stark

    Wow some out there are a little out there (HayMrkt) not to name names. “harrumph” you are very much missing the point. our country is supposed to be founded on equal justice for all. where a business owner had the right to refuse service for what ever reason the would like just as you the consumer has the right not to use the service provided if you disagree with the business. I have grown up in a country that promises (sorry Promised) that I had freedoms that were mine and could not be taken as long as i lived by the rules of society. (I do)
    recently I have take the cause that there is no such thing as equal justice for all just justice for the one with the bigger wallet or larger group. this is not fair to the country.

    We were a colony and we were told what we could do by the crown of England we stood up an said no we came here to be free and we took our freedom it would seem by a different form of tyranny this time although not that much different we have an imperial ruling class in our nations capitol that has forgotten that they are there for us not there own interests. no one person has the right to tell you that there rights are superior and that is what was done here.

    as a business owner you have always had the right to refuse service just because you feel slighted there are many other places that offer the same service go there we have become so litigious that we sue for every little thing without penalty or consequence we are starting to be oppressed by  a ruling class that needs to stop.

    let me illustrate for you an extreme example. you own a bar and a person of different ethnicity or sexual orientation  comes into the bar and orders a drink there speech is slurred and there clothing disheveled you refuse service as they are intoxicated. you are then sued for refusing to serve them based on prejudice is that fair I thought not

  • Bruce Stark

     please read my post

  • Anonymous

    If the couple decided to hire the photographer then it’s their right to have that person take the wedding photos. A job is a job. No matter who the people are who want to get married the money is the same color and gender as anyone else’s is.

  • Island Boy

    The fact is simple. This supreme court is the legal voice of New Mexico, and each justice was appointed into that position. These appointments happened in broad daylight, while New Mexicans were stoned, drunk or didn’t care.
    Wake up freaks.

  • Island Boy

    Your thought process is incredibly slanted to the left my awkward friend…

  • melissa

    It would not be against their religion or freedom of, but against their freedom of association

  • Anonymous

    Back in the 80′s a friend wanted me to work for an “agency”–  they needed an RN to do what ever.  I did not have a grasp on what they needed– it was “reproductive health”   so I said no– I was busy enough with my regular job as an RN.  Shortly after that — I realized it was an abortion clinic in a poor area “serving” women.  I had a choice then.   Now— especially with the photographer issue—  do we not have a choice in what we do– but we are told you have to do this as a price of our citizenship??????  Scarey indeed.

  • Anonymous

    No one ever said this was a racial issue. No one is twisting King’s words. Clearly you know very little to nothing about the civil rights movement. MLK was not the civil rights movement. He was a prominent leader of a prominent organization. But only one organization. Where he stood on homosexuality and abortion means nothing. What about where he stood on the Vietnam War, wealth redistribution, open housing, and job access. Moreover, King had nothing to do with the decades of legal struggle that resulted in the Brown decision, among other things. Across the country in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, from Florida to California to Texas to Illinois to Pennsylvania,  local civil rights movements fought for the racial integration of public and private spaces, but also for access to the voting booth, an end to extralegal violence perpetrated with impunity by whites, and, most importantly, jobs. Local organizations may have had names like SNCC or CORE (you probably have no idea who or what those groups are or were) and some affiliation with the national organizations, but many of them were localized struggles, led by locals, and addressed local issues. All over the country civil rights leaders and participants in the movement were communists, socialists, pacifists, liberal democrats, conservative radicals, gay, straight, male, female, transgendered (Pauly Murray, for example), black, white, brown, jewish, christian, muslim, and combos of all of them and more. Actually, the modern civil rights movement was borne out of the labor organizing by communists and socialists in the 1930s. 

    It wasn’t MLK’s “march on Washington.” At the time, few people, few news outlets if any, reported on the “I have a dream” part of his speech. The march and the movement were much bigger than King. Are you aware that the full title of the march was “The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” That’s right, jobs. Listen to A. Phillip Randolph’s speech from that day. And then go listen to or read the work of Bayard Rustin, Jim Farmer, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Robert Williams, Bob Moses, Fannie Lou Hamer, Pauli Murray, etc. There’s no doubt that Christianity, especially a tradition of prophetic Christianity rooted in the black churches and borne out of slavery and segregation, was an inspirational and prominent force within the struggle’s movement culture. But it is also rooted in secular humanism, the protestant social gospel, socialism, pacifism, satyagraha, and liberalism, as well as more radical ideas regarding separatism, black nationalism, etc.  You’re right that gay people have not and do not suffer the same kind of extreme oppression and violence that black Americans experienced historically, and, in many ways, currently (By the way, black people weren’t “called” property, they were property). But that is not an argument for treating gay Americans unequally. 

  • Anonymous

    So if I hired a gay photographer film my straight wedding or other straight pro-Christian function and that gay photographer refused, I could sue that photographer for religious discrimination?

  • Anonymous

    YES I DO!! , and I am not mowing your lawn! you can do it yourself!

  • greywolfrs

    That is B S. If they have a business license and do this professionally, they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE. This will NOT stand. If I were one of this couple, I would NOT follow this order. Put me in jail and do your worst, I WILL NOT COMPLY.

  • greywolfrs

    They should not have to do that. As a business, they have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, that is good enough.

  • greywolfrs

    $450,000.00

  • greywolfrs

    Hey fudgepacker, you actually think Independents are going to fight for you? You are a bigger fool than anyone could have imagined.

  • Anonymous

    For me grey jail is NOT an option did it once when I was younger only a week ,made a promise to myself there is only one other way let them do as they will .
    Jail not for me always keep one extra .

  • Anonymous

    Matthew 6:24        mammon it isn’t worth it

  • americanathlete

    Oh…what’s next–let me guess: Pretty soon we’re all gonna be forced to be gay. No wonder God is unhappy with this world! We’re losing more and more rights with every passing day:-( Is it coincidental that all these atrocities have started happening since the anti-Christ took office??? IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

  • Anonymous

    Glenn I’m so glad you said this.  I’ve been saying for years that marriage is none of the government’s business.  They should neither compel pastors to perform gay marriages nor forbid them from doing so.  They should get out of the marriage business altogether.

    As far as the wedding photographers go, would they force a vegan catering company to provide veal at the reception?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Ok so I am going to demand the Muslim that owns the local gas station to serve me some pork oh wait you liberals will call that bigoted and racist.

  • Anonymous

    Twisted

  • Anonymous

    First of all, race doesn’t really exist in a biological sense. And clearly we are not going to agree that homosexuality is a natural state of existence. “Race” as a social construct is about more than the color of skin, it’s about what “blackness” means culturally. Historically, black skin has signified many things, including but not limited to biological and cultural inferiority. The subhumaness of blacks was written into our constitution. And the fact that “one-drop” laws classified people–even people with light skin that often passed as white–as black is just one example of how ideas of and about race go way beyond skin color. (The modern stereotypes of Jews are analogous)
    In a similar vein, homosexuality is more than just sodomy, especially among its detractors. For them it has implications for the family, child-rearing, the proper and “natural” social roles of men and women, and on and on and on. It’s about who gets to implement their vision of what society should or shouldn’t be. Even if it was as simple as you say, why would who someone chooses to have sex with be grounds for denying them equal protection under the law?

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the worst analogy ever.

  • Lorraine

    While I don’t care if you are homosexual or not, I do care when you start an organized effort to bait small businesses and attack them for refusing you their services. If you visit the NM site for the homosexual movement you will find their agenda and goal. It’s a shame small businesses can’t be left alone to prosper. It’s as if……gee……they’re doing their fair share promoting obummer’s agenda — destroying small business in this country.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    It is the same damn argument you liberals are making and dammit I was born to eat pork bigot!

  • Anonymous

    Wrong. Homosexuals are NOT defined by their activity. 
    Even if a homosexual has no sex at all, he’s still gay because that’s what his natural inclinations and desires are.

    if you’re wife cuts you off from sex,and you’re getting no sex at all, do you cease to be heterosexual? Of course not. 

    Our orientation is defined by our natural inclinations and desires, NOT by what we actually do or don’t do.

  • Anonymous

    I see several people here saying that homosexuality is a behavior. To say that is so breathtakingly ignorant and simpleminded.

    Your sexual orientation is defined by your innate inclinations and desires— NOT your behavior.

    If your spouse cuts you off from sex, and you’re not getting laid at all, do you cease to be heterosexual? Of course not. Because you’d still have heterosexual desires and inclinations. You’re still straight regardless of what you are doing or not doing.

    You could even go out and have sex with ten members of the same sex, and you still wouldn’t be gay. You’d simply be a heterosexual committing homosexual acts. 

    I know most here won’t get that…you’d prefer to see the world in much more simple black and white terms, but occasionally try to THINK rather than merely react. 

  • Anonymous

    Twice, you guys counted on the so called “independents” to help you beat Obama…

    How did that work out for you?

  • Anonymous

    Southern democrats representing southern constituents in the 1960′s. 
    What do you expect?

    And in case you haven’t noticed, both the country and the parties have changed a lot in fifty years. No thanks to people like yourself. :)

  • Anonymous

    Sweetie, if there were a “god” he would’ve come during far harsher times….to save far more deserving people. 

  • Anonymous

    Religion is not being eliminated, it is merely being corralled and marginalized. It is being put in its proper place. 

    In response to these efforts the religious will pray, but if there were a god he would’ve came a long time ago, during far harsher times, to save far more deserving people. 
    If hundreds of years of slavery didn’t bring him…or the Holocaust…or the numerous genocides committed….then he sure as heck ain’t going to come to save you from gay rights and a liberal president. So get over yourselves. 

  • Anonymous

    Diversity does not create unity,,,,,,and it never will.  

  • Anonymous

     I don’t buy the logic, but that was clearly the best rejoinder you’ve ever had. I laughed so hard I literally spit my wheet-grass smoothie all over the dashboard of my prius.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry but we do. Your opinion doesn’t change anything.

  • tdd

    Glenn Beck speaks of the Constitution no giving us the “right”….  The Constitution does not give any rights. The Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do. even the Bill of Rights DOES NOT give us any rights, they merely acknowledge rights we already have and explicitly deny the government the right to interfere in these areas.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, religious freedom.  Just so many words, now.  So it seems.  Until someone objects to the

    religious freedom another chooses and has an opposing point of view.

  • greywolfrs

    You actually think they will fight for you? You are a fool.

  • Anonymous

    dink, don’t count on it.  Didn’t you know that the minority is the new

    majority, these days?  Check it out.  Look around.

  • Anonymous

    Seems there was a gay couple who wanted a bakery to bake them a wedding cake.

    This took place some months back.  The bakery said no, and when asked, gave the

    answer the couple here gave—for religious reasons.  There was a big hullabaloo over

    that, as well.  Don’t remember how it turned out.  (Hey!  I’m old!)  Maybe someone here

    remembers.

  • Anonymous

    Well, yeah, Marji, a gay couple will not identify themselves to Muslims as gay

    (if they are smart), because of what Muslims are taught about gays.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand how the supreme court can issue a ruling on the running of a company. The couple invested their own money into that enterprise and should have a say on their company by-laws. The supreme court is not invested in that company and should allow free enterprise to make or break the company. If were me I would make the pictures hideous and when the word got around that my gay shots were distorted then the word would get out to not hire me, a little passive aggressive behavior can be effective. The supreme court cannot tell me where to point my camera, yet!!!!! 

  • Anonymous

    That is the problem, being anti-gay is not a bias over a diverse issue, therefore it doesn’t follow the discrimination laws. When speaking about diversity it has to be a discrimination against people issues that cannot change, race, ethnicity, and gender; sexual orientation can change on a whim. The liberals would so like to categorize a new type of gender to add the gays to that diversity list.

  • Anonymous

     The point was that homosexuality is a choice while a person is black because of genetic code.

    http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147530161

  • Anonymous

     But that is making their thoughts illegal, rather than actions. It is their very REASONS (i.e. their thoughts and intentions) that were being called illegal.

  • Anonymous

     The independents helped immensely in 2012; it was the 15% of the voting block that self-identified has knowing jack$H!+ about what was going on, but “liked Obama” personally. A voter block that had never turned out in force before.

  • Anonymous

     Well, for now being forced to provide a good or service to someone, in a manner that violates their religious beliefs. Read up on meat sacrificed to idols and conscience in the Pauline Epistles.

  • Anonymous

     It used to “evolve” via the amendment process of the Constitution (Article 5), but after Oliver Wendel Holmes the Constitution became a scrap of paper that judges and politicians freely wipe their rear end with.

  • Anonymous

    Science would disagree with you about that, sonny.

    http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147530161

  • Anonymous

    Deserving in whose eyes, yours? Your view is myopic; God deals with all of creation throughout all time/eternity. He deals with and sees factors you don’t even know exist, while preserving our precious freewill.

  • Anonymous

     I agree; Government has turned the concept of marriage in our society, into legal contracts, rather than the precious union before God, that it is.

  • Anonymous

     I agree with your principle, but the way those two lesbians got around that there’s no SSM in NM, is by calling it a “commitment ceremony”, rather than a wedding.

  • Anonymous

     You would have to show “substantial compliance’ with the contract in most states, in order to be able to collect.

  • Robert Joyce

    Dead Wrong !
    A restaurant is a ‘public’establishment…you can not restrict who can go in. Those photogs are hired by individual clients and can choose who their clients are. As another example….I play in a band…I can choose who I work for and who I don’t. If I play in a club I cannot dictate who enters the club but I can decide what club I want to play at or what event I get hired for. NO ONE can force me to take a job I do not want.

  • Mes Yous

    You don’t understand the intent of freedom.  You may think that all people should be able to be photographed if they wish by any company, but what about the companies right to decline service?  Why do they have to do business with someone they don’t want to?  They are not denying the person their right to live, they are just saying I don’t want you as a client.  If you don’t like the fact that they are “discriminating” against someone then don’t take your business there.  You have the right to not got to that business as much as they SHOULD have the right to refuse you.  Would you really wanting the Government telling you that you MUST go to this photographer for all your wedding needs?  It is the same as the Government telling this company they MUST do business with someone they don’t want to.  Where does it stop?  When Government has 100% control over your an my life will you then wake up?

  • http://www.aletheia.org.uk/ SoZo

    I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.

    For a considered explanation of the issues, read the article ‘Gay Is Not the New Black’, by Voddie Baucham (who, by the way, is black):

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

  • Anonymous

    Exactly, and those so called sexual acts with the same sex is abnormal sexual behavior. A “gay” person’s sex identifier is still male or female and now they have elevated their status over a “straight” person. Everybody still has the same rights as defined by their gender. A marriage without consummation is nothing.

  • MarsBarsTru7

    Atheists have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY when it comes to freedom of religion.

  • Anonymous

    Actuallty science DOES agree with me.

    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/33

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

    Which is why you have to resort to posting nonsense from right wing blogs. The AFA?! THAT’S your source?! lol!
    I’m sure a site like that would also quote “science” that denies evolution and global warming.

  • Anonymous

    We know how GWB got elected twice. It was by the trickery in Florida. Everyone knows that. He lost the popular vote the second time around.

    But I suppose the real difference is that we don’t NEED anyone to fight for us. Of course your side is in a desperate scramble to find allies, to find help…

    but on the left we seem to be doing OK on our own.

  • Thomas L. Stafford

    I’d argue that it would be a private business’ right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. It would probably be a mistake for a business to turn down a large number of clients, but it is still their right to do so. Many of us are very uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. We should have the right to refuse to participate in them. The original force driving these unconstitutional laws (Freedom of Association) were the Jim Crow laws. These laws (also unconstitutional) forbade a business serving everyone.

    The religious argument is quite strong, even if it should be unnecessary. Most western religions canons oppose these unions.

  • Thomas L. Stafford

    Read the whole history about he three-fifths rule. It was for the apportionment of the House of Representatives, taxation, and the Electoral College based on the census. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention that opposed slavery wished to reduce the effect of slaves (who were not allowed to vote) on the representation accorded to each state. By the way it applied to immigrants who were not yet citizens of all ethnicities, national origins, etc.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously you weren’t paying attention in class. That’s detention for you!
    Your first link is from 2006; mine is recent.
    Your second link reinforces what my link said, that it is NOT GENETIC, but rather a factor outside of genetics. If you honestly compare your second one with the link gave, they effectively say the same thing, i.e. that homosexuality is not in your DNA, but rather comes from outside factors. In addition, the “suggestion” or “theory” that they postulated about it being a trait passed from mother (for boys) or father (for girls) is just that, a postulation that they couldn’t prove.
    Even openly gay researchers in the field acknowledge the lack of bio link.
    http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html
    Its’ more likely the broken homes and societal influence that contributes to a person’s decision to become a homosexual.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158671/Love-father-contributes-childs-development-mother-study-claims.html
    But, what do you know, the children of same-sex couples are affected by their “parents’” orientation as well.
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/science_myths_and_same_sex_parenting/
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/
    I can play the Wikipedia game too.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
    Wiki is only as good as its cited sources, and now we’re dealing with scientists giving up on the genetic (read DNA) link to homosexuality. You may think my source is right wing, but they aren’t citing a right wing study, bucko.
    Be honest.
    You can agree with homosexuality all you want, but the feverish attempts to find a genetic link over the last few decades, have failed.

  • Anonymous

    Also, I do find it interesting the hysteria over whether or not a penguin in a zoo in San Fran “became” straight again.
    http://cnsnews.com/blog/j-matt-barber/gay-penguin-flies-straight
    The ones in the NY zoo did too.
    Well, whether or not you agree, the following was an interesting study.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1
    What a “choice”, I tell ya!
    But alas, without empirical data, all we have are anecdotes.

  • Anonymous

    And yet again most of your “science” is coming from bias souces: 
    NARTH?! Are you kidding me?! 
    And yes–right wing sources will cite whatever “science” backs up their view. Thanks to the wonders of the Net, anyone can find “proof” to back up ANY claim. For example, the Flat Earth Society.
     Oh, you think I’m joking: 
    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
    They quote “scientific data” as well. LOL

    Alas, we could sling links back and forth all day, but we’re not going to change each others minds.
     

    There will always be some people who believe sexual orientation is a choice, or “unnatural”, just as there will always be people who believe the earth is flat. But I’m content with knowing that more people have accepted the real science and thus our gay and lesbian allies have been winning battles on the political, judicial, and cultural fronts. Enough battles in fact that it’s no longer necessary to have lengthy arguments with the shrinking minority against them. Believe what you wish to believe studpuppy, but the world–be it round or flat–continues to move forward.

  • Anonymous

    Pot.Kettle.Black….
    Same could be said about your “science”. You don’t think that openly gay researchers are bias free?
    If you didn’t think it necessary to have an argument with someone who actually has moral standards, then you wouldn’t have typed such a lengthy reply.
    I think it more dangerous for your belief than mine, if gay had been a gene; then people would be able to abort them after a prenatal screening. (though personally, that would be a stupid reason to abort).
    To compare a person who actually believes in personal responsibility for your freewill choice, and moral standards, to someone who thinks the earth is flat (if you’ve read the Bible, you know the earth is round), is quite the dismissive retort.
    Your so-called “real science” argument is the same as an “AGW-truther”, who will call the science “settled” when it agrees with them, and just dismiss any science that doesn’t. That’s intellectually dishonest.
    But, I will agree to disagree with you.

  • Anonymous

    Further, YOUR second source reinforced what my link said, thus corroborating it. It is the epigenetic and ENVIRONMENTAL factors that affect whether or not a person becomes (read chooses) gay.
    The twins study is interesting because the “concordance” of homosexuality (as they called it) can also be attributed to the fact that the ENVIRONMENTAL factors for each set of twins is essentially identical. The only major difference is their CHOICE (i.e. freewill). Thus the science backs up the concept of homosexuality being because of their choice (influenced by the epigenetic and environmental factors).
    Even lesbians recognize the environmental factors in their personal lives that affected their decision.
    http://torikelly.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/lesbians-and-their-absent-fathers/

  • Caroline Krieger Comings

    Again, they can exercise preferences but the photographers may not.  Kiss my ….

  • http://www.facebook.com/dwasmer1 David Wasmer Sr.

    The feminist movement has been much more destructive of freedom than even the black civil rights movement. The welfare system is mostly a scheme to steal money (taxes) from responsible hard working people, mostly men, to subsidize the selfish and bad choices of single mothers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dwasmer1 David Wasmer Sr.

    Our constitutional republic does not protect groups, whether they be a majority or a minority.  It protects individuals. It protects their freedom.  The fact that there are plenty of examples of people being “forced” by government to do business with people they don’t want to does not make it right.  It makes it tyranny.

  • Anonymous

     But, you DON”T have a right to my labor or property!

  • Anonymous

    Time to live their faith and absolutely refuse to obey this decision.  This is where the rubber meets the road.  If people do not stand up against this tyranny and do not permit the government to interfere with their religious beliefs everyone’s faith is fair game for the anti-religious zealots.  Just say no I will not comply.

  • robert hamrick

    If i was the photographer and forced, i would use film and anything else that could be developed properly.  Then when they went to court over the cost, you just testifly that their disability of ugliness destroyed the film.  Then they can blame the camera maker or the film maker.  This is ridicilous.  These judges should be flogged and it should be our civic duty to do so.

  • greywolfrs

    Trickery? You are fool. Again, you mention the “popular vote,” which means squat in Constitutional Republic.

    My side? Which side is that? You mean those of us who believe in the Constitution? You are correct, we will fight you idiots that want get rid of that document. Oh, and you WILL lose.

    I find it amusing you believe the left is doing OK on your own, idiot.

  • Anonymous

    That is a canard. These people were not refusing to photograph people because they were gay. They already had done business with homosexuals before. It is in the SPECIFIC circumstance of a wedding (or its related components, such as this commitment ceremony) that they did not wish to do business with these homosexuals because in this SPECIFIC INSTANCE it violated their religious beliefs. I’m sorry if you disagree, but the 1st Amendment prohibition against infringing upon a person’s religious practices, trumps these “discrimination” laws IF they actually conflict (the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land). Unfortunately the judges in this situation seemed to think the Constitution doesn’t apply to them.

  • Anonymous

     Unfortunately that bakery since decided to no longer make their services available to the general public because of the hate mail and death threats by those who support homosexuality (where’s the tolerance in that?).

  • Anonymous

     Same way the SEC can add extra stuff to contracts being negotiated between two companies; government overreach. (If I remember correct, it was the Comcast deal where the SEC required them to provide laptops for poor people in order for their merger to be “approved”).

  • Anonymous

     That is a good way of CYA’ing, but in this case, the couple was the company (it was what, a husband and wife team?), the “company” does have a belief (in that it IS the couple that does the photography). Small businesses are both functionally and legally different than Corporations (even filed differently under the tax codes, etc).