Supreme Court declines to intervene in NM photographer’s SSM objection

posted at 10:41 am on April 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Can an artist be forced to perform for a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs? In New Mexico, they can if they are engaging in commercial enterprise — and the Supreme Court apparently agrees. The justices denied certiorari for Elane Huguenin in her attempt to overturn the state Supreme Court decision finding her guilty of illegal discrimination:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal from a photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

The court’s action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elane Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

The issue in Elane Photography v Willock hinges on New Mexico’s public accommodation law, which keeps businesses from engaging in discrimination based on protected statuses. The state court ruled that the individual right of free speech and association did not transfer to their commercial business — even if it was just the event in question (a “commitment” ceremony, as New Mexico did not allow for same-sex marriage at the time) and not specifically the customers’ orientation. In fact, Vanessa Willock’s successful argument to the court emphasized that customers pay to have their own message expressed no matter what the event is, not the company’s.

That means that any businesses in the wedding industry must service any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony, even with the RFRA in place at the federal level. Unlike bakers objecting to servicing such events, though, photographers have to attend the entire event in order to fulfill their commercial obligations. The only option for Elane Photography in this case to keep with their religious practices in that regard would be to contract with another photographer to perform the work — which would be a reasonable accommodation, perhaps, but that won’t be much comfort for bakers and florists.

As I recall, it only takes four justices to vote to grant certiorari in appeals, and Elane Photography couldn’t get that with its claim of corporate speech protection under the First Amendment. Gabriel Malor warns people not to read too much into this, though:

We’ll see. It does say something about the limits of corporate-speech protection, though.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So now Christians in NM will have to work to amend the anti-discrimination law, which amendment will be struck down by the NM and US Supreme Courts.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 10:45 AM

I wonder which four justices granted certiorari?

Tater Salad on April 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

So, there it is. The highest court in the land approves, by their silence, the persecution of a faithful Christian.

I really hope this collapse is swift and not as drawn out as the Roman Empire’s. I’m sick of living in Sodom. Unfortunately, it seems to be a worldwide collapse in morality, (even though at least Putin is giving lip service to it) so there really isn’t anywhere to go.

God have mercy on my children.

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

By default they just made being gay a protected class; can’t wait for when someone wants a job and claims to be gay.

Tater Salad on April 7, 2014 at 10:49 AM

That means that any businesses in the wedding industry must service any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony, even with the RFRA in place at the federal level.

This is a crock.

Next up, churches that haven’t caved in to the gay way.

I’m looking forward to reading about that first Muslim officiated SSM ceremony.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Since, apparently, marrying homosexuals and sodomists are now ‘protected’ species, as a ‘practicing’ Conservative, can I now seek ‘protected’ status, since it is now deemed by The Court to be legally heretical to ‘discriminate’ against any minority.

vnvet on April 7, 2014 at 10:50 AM

A person has the fundamental right to associate with anyone he chooses and on any basis he chooses. He might be the biggest bigot in the world, choosing only to associate with white supremacists, but that’s what freedom is all about — the right to make whatever choices one wants in his life, so long as his conduct is peaceful.

To ban discrimination is to ban freedom of thought and freedom of association. Everyone in a free society should have the right to think whatever he wants to think about anyone else and to choose to associate or not associate, in both personal or business relationships, with anyone on the basis of those thoughts. His thoughts may be erroneous, illogical, irrational, or unreasonable, his opinions may be based on stereotypes, prejudice, bigotry, or racism—but in a free society everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions.

Even though opponents of individual liberty and a free society don’t want to hear it, and even though some defenders of these things shy away from the issue, a truly free society must include the freedom to discriminate against any individual or group.

The simple truth is that Americans don’t live in a free society, although they may think they do. We live in a relatively free society compared to people in many other countries, but we do not live in a society that is absolutely free. We have a nanny state. We have a government full of politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators and a society full of statists, authoritarians, and busybodies who all want to use the force of government to impose their values, remake society in their own image, and compel others to associate with people of their choosing

roflmmfao

donabernathy on April 7, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Supremely gay.

Bmore on April 7, 2014 at 10:51 AM

It’s been about twelve hours since the last gay thread. The long drought over the gays has ended! I am just so sick of hearing the gays whine and complain just how miserable their lives are thanks to Christians.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Oh, and even the Nashville Dominicans are caving by failing to tell dissident and heretic Catholic parents and students to accept the Truth, or move on. No, instead, they are silencing a faithful young sister. When you’ve lost the Nashville Dominicans, well, read the last line of Romans 1. Not a good sign, and He told us there would be signs to read.

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I wonder which four justices granted certiorari?

Tater Salad on April 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

You need four to grant certiorari. That means no more than three were willing to grant it–if even that many. If Scalia, Thomas, and Alito wanted to grant cert, I could see Kennedy backing away and then Roberts not wanting to be the deciding vote to take it.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I wonder how long it took the couple to find a photographer that would refuse to photograph their “ceremony”

Ditkaca on April 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

…Supremely STUPID!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

That means that any businesses in the wedding industry must service any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony

That doesn’t mean the pictures have to be good.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Wrong argument presented to SCOTUS in this case, but again, does one have to have “religious convictions” to be allowed to discriminate against an intolerable life-style? The “commercial business” decision will make most businesses libel when they choose not to participate. So much for the old sign posted in many businesses years ago—”We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

Rovin on April 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

The only option for Elane Photography in this case to keep with their religious practices in that regard would be to contract with another photographer to perform the work

Maybe that was the weakness in the case since wedding photographers do use sub-contractors all the time because of schedules and during the busiest part of wedding season?

It’s still wrong.

Bummer.

workingclass artist on April 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Well, it is clear this photographer should step down as the owner of her company anyway, because of her anti-gay positions. She should immediately fire herself and apologize to her employees for taking so long to take action against herself.

STL_Vet on April 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I saw this coming a mile away. A body that says you must engage in commerce would never allow something like the First Amendment to get in the way of their Utopian society. You know this is all about testing the waters to see what they can get away with. Next up, forcing the Catholic Church to perform SSM ceremonies. You go against President Palapatine, then you must pay the price

Brock Robamney on April 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM

So much for the old sign posted in many businesses years ago—”We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

Rovin on April 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

That is still valid, just not for protected classes.

Meaning if a WASP walks in, you can throw him out on his ear. But not an LGBT.

“You will celebrate the ghey”

BobMbx on April 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM

If you want to hear an interesting analysis on a related issue, go to Defining Ideas at the Hoover Institute for Richard Epstein’s Libertarain podcast. This one, from 3 March 2014, deals with the AZ legislation.

https://soundcloud.com/hoover-institution/gay-rights-religious-liberty

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM

so how long will it take before it becomes discriminatory to price products or services at levels that certain people can not afford?

smitty41 on April 7, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Oh, and even the Nashville Dominicans are caving by failing to tell dissident and heretic Catholic parents and students to accept the Truth, or move on. No, instead, they are silencing a faithful young sister. When you’ve lost the Nashville Dominicans, well, read the last line of Romans 1. Not a good sign, and He told us there would be signs to read.
pannw on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM


“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Pope Francis

They’re just following the leader. Next comes the flushing sound.

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM

That was interesting. I hadn’t heard about it.

tree hugging sister on April 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Pope Francis

They’re just following the leader. Next comes the flushing sound.

whatcat on April 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM

ARGGHHHHH!!!! Oh, the damage that quote has done. Even though I know what the context was, and it was spot on with what the Church teaches, it has been a disaster. He really has to come out and make a clear statement or the Scandal will be on his head, I’m afraid.

“Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” ~Bishop Saint John Chrysostom.

God have mercy and give the Pope wisdom and strength.

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM

That was interesting. I hadn’t heard about it.

tree hugging sister on April 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM

It is horrifying and heartbreaking. Our youth are being scandalized by their own parents. God have mercy on them. Jesus was very graphic in His warning about what would happen to those who lead His little ones into scandal.

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Hold on this.

Did any money actually exchange hands?

Some law school prof claimed this per the NBC article:

“Customers do not pay for the privilege of facilitating the company’s message. Customers pay to have their own events memorialized,” said Tobias Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.”

In what sense is a company “hired” if you do not actually pay them for services rendered? Does this mean I am currently hiring every business in the United States merely by existing?

BKennedy on April 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM

We’re becoming slaves to the emotional needs of the most emotionally wrecked class of people in society today.

I imagine, however, that there will be numerous businesses that just so happen to be booked up for these types of services.

p0s3r on April 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM

That means that any businesses in the wedding industry must service any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony

That doesn’t mean the pictures have to be good.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

People are sued for the quality of their services all the time. And that’s the next step I imagine. Seek out a Christian Business. He or she will know they have no ability to follow their faith tenets and will have to comply. They’ll go into the agreement planning on being dissatisfied.

This has never been about coexisting with people who think differently that they do. It’s about punishing Christians for their imagined centuries of persecution.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Ugh, this is diminution of our freedom of religion and commerce. The justices have just assured that no Christian can be in business as a wedding photographer. I suppose they could dodge the IRS and do it on the sly, but a Bible-believing Christian who wants to photograph weddings has just been “closeted.”

diplomatsteve on April 7, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Meaning if a WASP walks in, you can throw him out on his ear. But not an LGBT.

“You will celebrate the ghey”

BobMbx on April 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM

…And all to further Equality!!

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Hold on this.

Did any money actually exchange hands?

Some law school prof claimed this per the NBC article:

“Customers do not pay for the privilege of facilitating the company’s message. Customers pay to have their own events memorialized,” said Tobias Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.”

In what sense is a company “hired” if you do not actually pay them for services rendered? Does this mean I am currently hiring every business in the United States merely by existing?

BKennedy on April 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM

good question. that’s so strange!

Sachiko on April 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I wonder how long it took the couple to find a photographer that would refuse to photograph their “ceremony”

Ditkaca on April 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

.
Good question. I guess we will have to wait until the celebratory documentary on PBS to find out.

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM

So the Supreme Court is moving toward “coerced commerce”. In the Obamacare case in 2012, SCOTUS ruled that a person could be forced by the Government to BUY health insurance. Now SCOTUS has ruled that a photographer can be forced to SELL photography services to a gay or lesbian couple wanting to record their relationship on film. Whatever happened to the free market–if Elane Huguenin didn’t want this photography job, couldn’t Vanessa Willock find another photographer who would be willing to do the job?

There may be a free-market solution to this problem. If wedding photography businesses don’t want to do business with same-sex weddings, they could charge twice the price for same-sex weddings as for opposite-sex weddings. Same-sex couples would then choose cheaper photographers who are not opposed to same-sex weddings on religious grounds.

Steve Z on April 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Well no one can force the photographer to take the kind of pictures the happy couple would ever want to actually look at.

Extreme closeups, pictures of the guests and happy couple eating. Open mouthed and scowl shots. Shots of guests only at their drunkest and most disheveled at the end of the night.

No reason to perform “bad” photography, in fact those types of pics can be very artistic while still remaining extremely unflattering for the subject.

Could be fun!

PoliTech on April 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

This has never been about coexisting with people who think differently that they do. It’s about punishing Christians for their imagined centuries of persecution.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Pretty much. Next step is probably to go out after the churches. The gays will not be happy until Pope Francis is obliged to marry a couple of priests at the high altar of St. Peters. Gays constantly talk about tolerance but they are, in fact, completely and totally intolerant.

I suspect that Elane Huguenin was trolled by a gay couple who sought out a photographer to say no so that they could sue. Instead of doing what any tolerant person would do- find another photographer- the gays decided to make a lawsuit out of this. With the SCOTUS decision, I have no doubt that we’re in for some tearful lesbian in front of a camera telling us yet again that all the gays want is “tolerance” in society. The fact is this is a vendetta against Christians. It’s hard not to hate every single gay when you see what the intolerant and bigoted ones are doing to society.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

The reason we conservatives keep losing ground is because there isn’t anyone in the Republican party with the spine to stand up for conservativsm.

It seems there are plenty of Democrats and Leftists out there that will make the argument, no matter how unpalatable, that they are in the right. But when it comes to conservatives, anytime someone begins to stand up for our side, they become the butt of the joke on Saturday Night Live. And then Republicans follow suit.

It’s time we started being more forceful making the case for freedom. We need someone to stand up and say, “We ought to have complete and total freedom of association in the United States. Yes, this means bigots and haters and racists will get to have their own clubs and refuse service to people. But it also means women can have their own clubs. Black people can have their own schools and television channels. Muslims can have their own places to meet and restrict membership. It’s fair across the board. Freedom to associate with whomever you like. Or not to associate.”

Where is this person?

Baggi on April 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

So, I guess Sylvia’s in Harlem must agree to lease its premises to a Neo-Nazi wedding (yes, there are special Neo-Nazi marriage ceremonies), Greenwich ShopRite (or a bakery owned by a Holocaust survivor) must, must, must bake the birthday cakes festooned with swastikas for Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Himmler Jeannie Campbell, Heinrich Hons Campbell, and Eva Braun Campbell, and bakers in the LGBTQQIAAP community must bake the wedding cakes for couples, who insist that they say ‘One Man, One Woman: The Only True Marriage’.

As a lawyer, I decline to accept cases routinely. Sometimes, it is the facts of the case, but, other times, it is the client. I have to work with him or her and, if I feel as though that will be impossible, then I have a right to ‘discriminate’ by not accepting the matter. I have never nor would I decline based upon skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, etc, but I have refused for many other reasons, including body odor (!) and the failure to actively participate in the discovery process. Should I be sued for discrimination?

While I am in favour of SSM, I will always defend the religious and their right to practise over-and-above SSM even though I happen to be an atheist.

I ask again: Will gays become everything that they claimed to hate in others? Will they become homosexist Nazis? Will they and their supporters demand compliance and conformity with the tenets of their ‘religion’? Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, and Oliver Cromwell tortured and murdered those that believed in a faith other than theirs. Will this end similarly or have we learned the lessons which gave rise to this great country?

From the Left: Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn’t Hateful

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Well no one can force the photographer to take the kind of pictures the happy couple would ever want to actually look at.

Extreme closeups, pictures of the guests and happy couple eating. Open mouthed and scowl shots. Shots of guests only at their drunkest and most disheveled at the end of the night.

No reason to perform “bad” photography, in fact those types of pics can be very artistic while still remaining extremely unflattering for the subject.

Could be fun!

PoliTech on April 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Just taking fuzzy or bad photos is just spiteful. Far better to avante garde for a non-traditional “rite.” For instance, have the cake topper somewhere in every single picture.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

“Customers do not pay for the privilege of facilitating the company’s message. Customers pay to have their own events memorialized,” said Tobias Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.”

BKennedy on April 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Whoops, there’s that ineptitude with logical inversions again.

Yes, customers do not pay for facilitating the company’s message–except in that they do pay for any advertising budget a company wants to engage in.

But here again, they are making a lack of a message into a “message”. If I don’t want to shoot your wedding, by not shooting it, I’m also not injecting anything into it, let alone my message. Plus, you won’t have to pay for my advertising budget either.

If you do not procure my services, you are 100% free of funding any message that I might have.

If you think sophists like this will leave you alone, you just don’t see the full perversion of logic they use. Here they are framing it so consent to silence is injecting your message (or lack thereof) into someone’s personal life.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Unless this insanity is stopped, our nation is doomed. Forcing people to go against their religious convictions is one of the reasons people came to this country to get away from.

The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to practice religious freedom. If it were today, they would find somewhere else to go. Religious freedom of Christians in America is going the way of the passenger pigeon.

sadatoni on April 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

No law against disabling the Red Eye Reduction feature on your camera.
Not yet anyway.

Buttercup on April 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM

“Customers do not pay for the privilege of facilitating the company’s message. Customers pay to have their own events memorialized,” said Tobias Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.”

In what sense is a company “hired” if you do not actually pay them for services rendered?…

BKennedy on April 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Professor Wolff knows full well that he can decline to accept a case for any reason whatsoever. Of course, he wouldn’t actually say why, but I doubt he would serve as counsel for, say, the hideous Westboro Baptist Church.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM

I don’t know why the religious beliefs part even has to come into it. The basic freedom to choose not to participate in so fundamental to freedom that I don’t think you can have any amount of freedom without it. What freedom do you have if outsiders can make you do what they want you to do all day long instead of what you want to do? You might say “well, it’s not all day long”, but there are a lot of special people, probably a majority of special people, and I guess they could make a white, male, hetero, non-handicapped person jump through their hoops every hour of every day until you beg the courts for permission to get some sleep. It is a master/slave relationship where the slave’s desired freedom is up against the “master’s right” to control people to his convenience and profit.

Buddahpundit on April 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Two consenting adults, and one levied photographer….

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM

I don’t know why the religious beliefs part even has to come into it. The basic freedom to choose not to participate in so fundamental to freedom that I don’t think you can have any amount of freedom without it.

We don’t have the freedom to choose anymore if those choices hurt the feelings of gays.

Which, of course, everything does.

p0s3r on April 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM

We’re becoming slaves to the emotional needs of the most emotionally wrecked class of people in society today.

p0s3r on April 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM

THIS

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The NSA case the SC declined is devastating.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Elaine was a fool in intentionally provoking this fight. The way to do it was to take their deposit and then call in sick on the day of the wedding, or cite a scheduling conflict, and then make them fight you in court until you can finally settle for giving the deposit back with an agreement for a gag order on both sides.

Okay, if that seems devious and complicated, you can’t blame me, I’m a lawyer, that’s how we think.

Tom Servo on April 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM

To all those people crying free market the other day, is it fair to force a photographer to shoot two GUYS kissing each other in the mouth????

CoolAir on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

‘Toons of the Day: The Iceberg Cometh

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 11:39 AM

I love Ramirez, I do, I do…but he should know that the bow of that ship is already under water.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Why would anyone want to hire a photographer for their wedding, and expect a pleasant and top-notch service, if the person needs to be threatened with a lawsuit to show up.

I suppose it makes sense for a couple beginning a lifetime together of grievance mongering.

Uncledave on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

So, there it is. The highest court in the land approves, by their silence, the persecution of a faithful Christian.
pannw on April 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Yes, by their silence they have certainly spoken loudly.

fourdeucer on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

For a world that has always gotten technically smarter as time has moved on, this has to be the dumbest generation that has ever existed on earth. From the top down. From the Supreme Court and our leaders to the uninformed voter at the bottom. WE ARE THE STUPIDEST GENERATION OF ALL TIME. It makes me hope that we are closer to next cleansing than we think.

Nat George on April 7, 2014 at 11:44 AM

***

Next up, forcing the Catholic Church to perform SSM ceremonies.

***

Brock Robamney on April 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM

No, next up will be a smaller denomination. My money is on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM

It does say something about the limits of corporate-speech protection, though.

Yeah, that they are illogical and inconsistent.

GWB on April 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM

The stupidity here is epic. By refusing to hear this case, SCOTUS has struck down the 1st amendment. It is that simple.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

In refusing to hear, and rule on her behalf, SCOTUS has struck or prohibiting the free exercise thereof from the 1st amendment.

oscarwilde on April 7, 2014 at 11:47 AM

We don’t have the freedom to choose anymore if those choices hurt the feelings of gays.

Which, of course, everything does.

p0s3r on April 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that?

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

For a world that has always gotten technically smarter as time has moved on, this has to be the dumbest generation that has ever existed on earth.

This generation is not technically smarter. It was the previous generation that sent man to the moon. Trust me, if NASA tries to do that now, it will fail, even though we have prior experience.

CoolAir on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

How does the corporate free-speech/exercise-of-religion issue enter into it? The wedding photographers I’v encountered were free-lancing individuals.

kd6rxl on April 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that?

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Your comment, for one.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM

How many movies will have to be purged of gay-derogatory remarks? For example, aren’t there at least two times–maybe three–in Saving Private Ryan when the guys in the company looking for Ryan are badgering one another about “liking to take is up the ***”?

Get ready for the censors.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that?

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Truthfully, it’s probably too late to put the shame back into ANY conduct, whatsoever.

It’s the ’60′s leftist mentality in charge……if it “feels” right, do it, anything goes. Free love, free stuff, free of judgement, free of morals and ethics.

Feel free to embrace the rainbow, or be ordered to do so.

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 11:54 AM

To all those people crying free market the other day, is it fair to force a photographer to shoot two GUYS kissing each other in the mouth????

CoolAir on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Whoa…how is a photographer supposed to get his/her gun in their mouths while they’re kissing?

/s

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM

My father used to say, “You don’t have the sense God gave a piss-ant.” That comes to mind. THe point is, do you really want to hire a photographer, for such an important event, that is morally against it? Once the event is over, it’s over and the ability to photograph it is gone. There’s a difference between someone being agnostic about it and someone who has real problem.

Sometimes people just don’t think this stuff out.

bflat879 on April 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM

To all those people crying free market the other day, is it fair to force a photographer to shoot two GUYS kissing each other in the mouth????

CoolAir on April 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

You mean shoot them with a camera, right?

I don’t know how many photographers, bakers, or florists have religious qualms with abetting sodomite unions. I suspect the number is relatively low. My advice to these people is don’t apologize to potential customers that sodomy goes against your religious beliefs. Just tell them you’re booked that day and move on.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 11:58 AM

How many movies will have to be purged of gay-derogatory remarks? …

Get ready for the censors.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Canada banned (for several years) the song ‘Money for Nothing.’

And, while not about homosexuality, a popular singer on the beachwalk on the Isle of Wight was arrested for singing Kung-Fu Fighting.

Hell, a few years ago, a teenager was imprisoned for calling Scientology a cult.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM

The Supreme Court is composed of a bunch of Baby Boomers. What did everyone expect from them?

Think of all the horrible, ridiculous, nonsensical decisions made over the last few years. Compare that to the prior 30 years before it was overrun by Baby Boomers. What kind of picture does that paint?

The country has gone to the dogs because it’s being controlled by a bunch of narcissists and other anti-social types. Spoiled kids turn into spoiled adults.

Another Libertarian on April 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM

How many movies will have to be purged of gay-derogatory remarks? For example, aren’t there at least two times–maybe three–in Saving Private Ryan when the guys in the company looking for Ryan are badgering one another about “liking to take is up the ***”?

Get ready for the censors.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Say, that is a possibility with technology these days….any remarks or scenes can be probably be edited through CGI to something non-derogatory.

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM

bflat879 on April 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Sure they do. What could make their day any more joyous than the knowledge that they forced someone to “celebrate” under duress. It’s what they live for. If they can’t destroy your business, of course.

Cindy Munford on April 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that?

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Your comment, for one.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM

There it is once again. In the world the homosexual inhabits, one is supposed to be ashamed of THINKING that sodomy is repugnant but not for ENGAGING in sodomy.

Alice in Wonderland.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:02 PM

How many movies will have to be purged of gay-derogatory remarks? For example, aren’t there at least two times–maybe three–in Saving Private Ryan when the guys in the company looking for Ryan are badgering one another about “liking to take is up the ***”?

Get ready for the censors.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

By the new gay-fascist standards, Steven Spielberg should be blacklisted for life by Hollywood for producing a movie that a gay might have found offensive.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

According to this ruling, on what basis could a photographer decline to be hired to photograph, for example, sexual acts?

It isn’t pornography if the images aren’t sold or circulated- it could be argued that the photos or video are an artistic and lasting expression of the enacting couple’s love for one another. Possibly you could even call it an athletic event.

It is perfectly legal for 2 people to have sex, and legal as well to capture that sex on film or video.

If the couple (or threesome, or duo plus pony) belong to a “protected” class, there couldn’t be a valid argument that the act being photographed (presuming other activities between 2 or more adults are routinely videoed) was sufficient to decline to be hired.

Pless1foEngrish on April 7, 2014 at 12:04 PM

My advice to these people is don’t apologize to potential customers that sodomy goes against your religious beliefs. Just tell them you’re booked that day and move on.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Trouble is, you might not be aware if you’re asked about doing the job if those wanting your service are not entirely up front right away, without you pressing for more details….in which case telling them you are booked will look suspicious, maybe.

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:05 PM

By the new gay-fascist standards, Steven Spielberg should be blacklisted for life by Hollywood for producing a movie that a gay might have found offensive.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

On the other hand, with a new cautionary introduction added to the beginning of such movies, it could be considered a lesson on the bigotry and narrow-mindedness of our “Greatest Generation.”

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:08 PM

The answer for how we got here is clear: We have bent Logic and the Intellect to the service of unreasoning passion and nihilistic appetite.

This is the whale going through the fishing net…

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

As some of you have pointed out, I guess that is the next case.

Someone if forced to take on a job or risk a lawsuit.

They say nothing, and end up producing shoddy work.

They then are sued and have to explain, “Look, I didn’t want the gig, but if I said no I was going to end up in a lawsuit”.

At that point, aren’t we at equal distressed emotional level with the LGB advocates?

budfox on April 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM

And BTW- Does this mean a married couple can force a photographer to take picture of them having sex? Is a baker compelled to make boob-themed cupcakes? It seems as if the law is saying that a business owner doesn’t have the right to refuse service no matter how disgusting or reprehenisble the customer’s request.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Has anybody forgotten what “partying” means to these people?

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC LINK

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM

The state court ruled that the individual right of free speech and association did not transfer to their commercial business — even if it was just the event in question (a “commitment” ceremony, as New Mexico did not allow for same-sex marriage at the time) and not specifically the customers’ orientation. In fact, Vanessa Willock’s successful argument to the court emphasized that customers pay to have their own message expressed no matter what the event is, not the company’s.

So it’s only an individual right that does not transfer to the individual’s business.

Presumably, Elane Photography as a business can not refuse to take the pictures, but Elane Huguenin as an individual can refuse.

I guess if individual Elane refuses to take pictures, then business Elane will have to take disciplinary measures against individual Elane for her stubborn refusal.

Except that individual Elane has the Constitutional right to refuse, so business Elane can’t punish her for expressing her Constitutional rights.

Quite the conundrum. Maybe business Elane could simply explain to the customer that the only employee she has to do the photography is refusing to do so on religious freedom and freedom of speech Constitutional grounds, which business Elane has no right to punish her for, and therefore no one is available to take the pictures.

After all, you can’t punish a business for turning down a job is they have no individual employee to handle the job, right?

Unless the courts want to now hold that you have no individual right to refuse to do a job…..

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM

On the other hand, with a new cautionary introduction added to the beginning of such movies, it could be considered a lesson on the bigotry and narrow-mindedness of our “Greatest Generation.”

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:08 PM

And maybe an alternate ending where battle buddies end up finding one another years later and forge a committed-relationship that makes them outsiders in the eyes of society until they launch Operation Brokeback or something.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Well, if they’re not going to close their doors, then raise their prices for photographing homosexual unions.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Does this mean a married couple can force a photographer to take picture of them having sex? Is a baker compelled to make boob-themed cupcakes? It seems as if the law is saying that a business owner doesn’t have the right to refuse service no matter how disgusting or reprehenisble the customer’s request.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Hmmm. Good Point. Someone could ask for such business, and if refused, take the issue to court and see how it turns out.

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Yeah, that they are illogical and inconsistent.

GWB on April 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM

What was the “four vs. six” comment in the orgasm thread?

Maddie on April 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM

And maybe an alternate ending where battle buddies end up finding one another years later and forge a committed-relationship that makes them outsiders in the eyes of society until they launch Operation Brokeback or something.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Not a bad idea, considering the stale rehashing of old themes and remakes. That would, at least, be original by Hollywood standards.

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM

homosexual unions.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

No offense to you but fruits cannot unite. Plumbing is all wrong.

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Well, if they’re not going to close their doors, then raise their prices for photographing homosexual unions.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

You think that overcharging wouldn’t be noticed!? Sue!!!!

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that?

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Your comment, for one.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Anyone who believes that homosexual relations are anything other than pathetic is nuts.

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Has anybody forgotten what “partying” means to these people?

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC LINK

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Not surprising you have that link handy. Click on that a lot, do ya?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

In refusing to hear, and rule on her behalf, SCOTUS has struck or prohibiting the free exercise thereof from the 1st amendment. oscarwilde on April 7, 2014 at 11:47 AM

No one’s less enthusiastic about ghey “marriage” than I am, however, congress made no law in this case.

If we complain when the 1st Amendment is twisted until “congress” means “school board” or “high school football coach,” we should be consistent. The citizens of NM who want the state law changed should work to change the law.

I’m not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I think that this case should have been argued on 13th Amendment grounds prohibiting involuntary servitude.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

This has never been about coexisting with people who think differently that they do. It’s about punishing Christians for their imagined centuries of persecution.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM

This

Ricard on April 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

You think that overcharging wouldn’t be noticed!? Sue!!!!

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Noticed? Hell, I’d put it right out in front along with my list of all other charges. Why hide it?

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

These squalling gay activists are unaware that the masses are getting PO’d at them. They are only harming themselves. Progressive liberalism is a cancer.

ultracon on April 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Ultimately those who don’t want to provide services the ghey “weddings” won’t. They just won’t be open about it any longer. No business does business with those they don’t want to do business with, regardless of the law.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Not surprising you have that link handy. Click on that a lot, do ya? JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

The truth hurts don’t it?

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I can kind of see why some people are gay being attracted to the same sex. I can see civil unions being legal. What I don’t get is why is it that gheys are so turned on about Sodomy?????. This seems that it would hurt like hell, be unsafe and stink. I can understand oral sex but with this anal thing it goes beyond my perception on why anyone including the gays are so excited about it. Its natural that things come out of that area and not designed for the opposite. Maybe JETBOY can explain ,,, thanks.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

The truth hurts don’t it?

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Actually, it would be more accurate if it read, The truth butt hurts, don’t it?

:)

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Maybe JETBOY can explain ,,, thanks.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Actually, I would prefer if JETBOY spared us that explanation…just sayin’…

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM

I suppose it’s too late to put the shame back into homosexual conduct. But seriously, two guys engaged in homosexual sex? What’s more pathetic than that? BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Your comment, for one. JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM

No, you see, talking about you putting weners in your mouth is not more pathetic than you putting weners in your mouth.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3