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

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

AP thanks you for extending the hitcounter life of this thread.

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM

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

There are millions of straight people who engage in sodomy. As for any explanation as to why it’s appealing to so many people, it just is. It’s like asking someone why their favorite food or music is so appealing to them…it just is.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:32 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

Because they are a protected class, and will expect their 10% “Protected Class” discount….not higher prices.

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on April 7, 2014 at 12:33 PM

We need a federal religious freedom law.

JellyToast on April 7, 2014 at 12:33 PM

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM

What’s your point, that you’re not the most evil person in the world?

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Bad decision to deny cert. Weddings with designed cakes are planned well in advance. If one cake artist turns you down, you can go to a zillion others. Why should artists be forced to create against their will?

DisneyFan on April 7, 2014 at 12:36 PM

More homosexual fascism. Does some homosexual outfit have video of one or more of the justices?

Mason on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Barack knows the American Dream because he’s lived it…and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity, no matter who we are, or where we’re from, or what we look like, or who we love… and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love…then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.” -Michelle “Mike” 0b00ba

You bet your bippy the goal is conservative churches.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

What’s your point, that you’re not the most evil person in the world?

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:35 PM

My point is, the vast majority of gays don’t approve of, or participate in, anything like platy’s link. Nor do the vast majority of straights do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church. So it’s rather idiotic to throw out blanket accusations.

Get it?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Get it? JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

No. “Billy does it too” is not a defense. Everything you do sodomistically is evil, no matter the setting. There is no appropriate setting for you to put weners in your mouth.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:44 PM

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

Wowz.

You know you just wrote that out, right?
Wasn’t just some internal contemplation – you actually posted that on a blog.
And how enlightened of you to ‘understand’ oral sex.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

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 P

M

Wowz.

You know you just wrote that out, right?
Wasn’t just some internal contemplation – you actually posted that on a blog.
And how enlightened of you to ‘understand’ oral sex.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Soo, not really comfortable with the whole ‘free speech’ thing, huh?

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Sheesh. It’s getting downright disgusting in here. But then again, where else CAN it go given the subject matter.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2014 at 12:50 PM

I would argue the 13th Amendment, not even 1st Amendment speech or religion clauses. Congress didn’t make any law in Elaine’s case, this is involuntary servitude. The people of NM need to change the law that caused the problem.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

No. “Billy does it too” is not a defense. Everything you do sodomistically is evil, no matter the setting. There is no appropriate setting for you to put weners in your mouth.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 12:44 PM

I am so relieved that you cleared up all moral issues for the rest of us /s

It is so comforting to know that you have all the answers and a monopoly on right and justice. /s

I don’t agree with the Court’s decision but your comments are beyond absurd.

matthew8787 on April 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

My point is, the vast majority of gays don’t approve of, or participate in, anything like platy’s link. Nor do the vast majority of straights do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church. So it’s rather idiotic to throw out blanket accusations.

Get it?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Half true.

The majority of straights do not do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church because they will be arrested and prosecuted for doing so.

But gay-sex liberals push public sex like in platy’s link all the time with the full connivance of Obama Party officials and the leadership of the gay and lesbian community, and scream that anyone who doesn’t think they should be having public sex is a homophobe.

So JetBoy, your attempt backfired, inasmuch as you point out that heterosexuals are ARRESTED for the type of conduct that gays and lesbians push as “normal” and part of their “gay pride”.

Please admit that gays and lesbians are feral animals who cannot stop themselves from having sex in public, or acknowledge that gays and lesbians are hypocrites who demand of heterosexuals a level of conduct that they themselves will not follow.

northdallasthirty on April 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Can a baker, florist or photographer be forced to serve weddings at all? What if a baker put up a sign and said “We don’t do Weddings”

Could the state come in and say “Yes you will!”

Hey.. why stop at a business? Could a homosexual co-worker demand you attend their wedding and bring them gifts.. since you attended some other straight co-worker’s wedding and gave him gifts.

I honestly believe out there somewhere is a judge would say yes.

JellyToast on April 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Does this mean that tv channels cannot discriminate based on the message of commercials as they have done in the past when denying conservative advertisements?

astonerii on April 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Soo, not really comfortable with the whole ‘free speech’ thing, huh?

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

But I am…100%
I fully support people fully speaking their minds.
As well as their mindlessness.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

We need a federal religious freedom law.

JellyToast on April 7, 2014 at 12:33 PM

We have one. It was overwhelmingly passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democrat President William Jefferson Clinton.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

But gay-sex liberals push public sex like in platy’s link all the time with the full connivance of Obama Party officials and the leadership of the gay and lesbian community, and scream that anyone who doesn’t think they should be having public sex is a homophobe.

So JetBoy, your attempt backfired, inasmuch as you point out that heterosexuals are ARRESTED for the type of conduct that gays and lesbians push as “normal” and part of their “gay pride”.

northdallasthirty on April 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM

He’s got you on that one, Jetboy. Your posting a couple examples of heterosexuals who were arrested for lewd acts is not at all the same thing as lewd acts performed in public by homosexuals with no arrest resulting.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 12:58 PM

God was right, you can’t depend on the courts ruled by men. No one should ever be forced to do anything that goes against their conscience. Another small business bites the dust. Woe to you America…

crosshugger on April 7, 2014 at 12:58 PM

You know you just wrote that out, right? Wasn’t just some internal contemplation – you actually posted that on a blog.verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Yeah, the prols have to focus on sissies holding hands and fervently stealing kisses, not on what they actually do to each other, if we’re gonna advance the whole gay agenda thing.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Soo, not really comfortable with the whole ‘free speech’ thing, huh?

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

But I am…100%
I fully support people fully speaking their minds.
As well as their mindlessness.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Then you should be okay with asking a serious question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

My point is, the vast majority of gays don’t approve of, or participate in, anything like platy’s link. Nor do the vast majority of straights do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church. So it’s rather idiotic to throw out blanket accusations.

Get it?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Yeah, you know another thing gays don’t do? Support tolerance. Outside a couple gay conservatives where was the outrage that a man could be fired for merely giving $1000 of his own money to an ant-SSM group? Where’s the tolerance in respecting the rights of business owners whose personal beliefs are in conflict with supporting SSM “rites.”

Gays whine and whine about tolerance but they turn out to be the most intolerant bigoted group of hypocrites in society with a message of “accept me and my lifestyle choice or I will sue the hell out of you and destroy your life”

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I don’t agree with the Court’s decision but your comments are beyond absurd. matthew8787 on April 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

You should keep yelling and not actually engage in specifics. Makes you look concerned but you don’t have to put your neck on the line. Smart move.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 1:03 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 [...] 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.

“No matter what the event is” – worrisome phrase… “only a Sith deals in absolutes”??

So if we are going to force companies to provide services “no matter what the event is,” can the company have recourse or a higher fee? ie they don’t want to include the photographs taken at this event in their advertising portfolio, so they will have extra costs for advertising that are implicitly forced on them. If they cannot push those costs onto the client, then the company in essence has an unjust tax by complying with this ruling.

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 1:05 PM

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

…and show up in drag.

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM

But I am…100%
I fully support people fully speaking their minds.
As well as their mindlessness.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

You’re a perfect exemplar, for the latter.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death…You Can Keep The ‘Equality’

There is a reason that the American revolution succeeded and the ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ revolution ended up consuming its own and bringing forth a dictator.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM

There are millions of straight people who engage in sodomy. As for any explanation as to why it’s appealing to so many people, it just is. It’s like asking someone why their favorite food or music is so appealing to them…it just is.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Empirical proof or valid polls please?

Nutstuyu on April 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM

“No matter what the event is” – worrisome phrase… “only a Sith deals in absolutes”??

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 1:05 PM

I think that one should be put to the test. Hold an anti-SSM party and hire the gayest photographer in New Mexico. Ditto, for the florist, pianist, caterer. Maybe even hold the event at a gay bar that advertises it rents out for private functions.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM

…and show up in drag.

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Oh! Nice touch!

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Can a baker, florist or photographer be forced to serve weddings at all? What if a baker put up a sign and said “We don’t do Weddings”

Could the state come in and say “Yes you will!”

Hey.. why stop at a business? Could a homosexual co-worker demand you attend their wedding and bring them gifts.. since you attended some other straight co-worker’s wedding and gave him gifts.

I honestly believe out there somewhere is a judge would say yes.

JellyToast on April 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

That’s a great idea. And when someone asks what about that wedding you just did last week. I would reply, no that was the Holy Sacrament of Marriage–a religious practice.

Nutstuyu on April 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

In the meantime, Putin simply laughs and gathers his troops at the borders of the Ukraine…Oh, how the mighty U.S. has fallen….but..but..but…the GAYS!!!!!!!

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 1:23 PM

This comment thread has gone pretty far off track thanks to the resident troll brigade attempting to make it about gay rights and/or behavior.

But the issue was not about “Teh Gheys” at all. It is about freedom of speech and association.

Private business has already been subjugated by the state in countless ways. Non smoking law, ACA, EPA, SEC, etc. etc. ad nauseam. This ruling is simply one more encroachment on free enterprise, freedom of association and freedom of speech, nothing more nothing less.

Now that your business cannot refuse service for one reason or another, does it really matter what the reasons are at this point?

It’s simply another example of less freedom. When is enough enough?

PoliTech on April 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

In the meantime, Putin simply laughs and gathers his troops at the borders of the Ukraine…Oh, how the mighty U.S. has fallen….but..but..but…the GAYS!!!!!!!

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Yeah, but can Russians get gay wedding cake? I didn’t think so!

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Courtesy of

Courtesy of

http://byemozilla.com/

unclesmrgol on April 7, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Two courtesies is better than one.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Yeah, but can Russians get gay wedding cake? I didn’t think so!

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Only in America!!! We call is ‘Fruit Cake’…

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM

‘it’

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Mozilla got punk’d!

One of the co-founders of OkCupid, Sam Yagan, (the CEO of Match.com and one of the instigators of the Mozilla boycott) to former Utah Republican Chris Cannon in 2004. Cannon voted for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Sorry, Diversity and Tolerance Brigage™, OkCupid is not down for the struggle. It was all a big publicity stunt.

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/63661-brendan-eichs-ouster-shows-lynch-mob-at-work

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM

THe courts not taking a case says nothing about whether they agree with the ruling or not.

bossmanham on April 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Popular culture teaches that no one is more important than you are and that self-absorbed philosophy is what we are seeing being played out before our eyes today.

We have raised a generation of spoiled brats who have grown into selfish adults.

Just look at the actions of the Gay Mafia and their supporters, who forced Mozilla CEO Brendon Eich out of his job this week in a selfish and cruel act, designed to grab power over the faith practiced by the majority of American citizens.

Growing up, I always noticed that the worst bullies were actually intolerant little nobodies who wanted you to feel as miserable as they did.

That is what is behind this push by intolerant Liberals to attempt to force Christians to only practice the Faith of Our Fathers from 9 a.m. To 12 p.m. on Sunday mornings.

Just as other fascists before them, the thought of an omnipresent God interferes with their belief that they are the most important thing in the universe.

kingsjester on April 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Unlike bakers objecting to servicing such events, though, photographers have to attend the entire event in order to fulfill their commercial obligations.

And then photographers have to spend hours/days developing the photographs.

Will the photographers be forced to do all of the family photography once the newlyweds start to raise children too?

wren on April 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I think that one should be put to the test. Hold an anti-SSM party and hire the gayest photographer in New Mexico. Ditto, for the florist, pianist, caterer. Maybe even hold the event at a gay bar that advertises it rents out for private functions.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM

And be charged with hate crimes?

This whole string of lawsuits in this vein are nothing but an illustration of the “Me” mindset and immaturity that infests our country nowadays. Rather than wallow in the way the world is not, we need people to step up with ways to combat this. Unfortunately, I don’t have any ideas myself apart from some sort of secession scenario… let the libs have they area, and the rest of us can be free somewhere else, and not have any association with the lib area(s).

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM

And on it goes, the slow sniveling elitist walkback from our storied individual rights in the face of Progressive thuggery.

rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death…You Can Keep The ‘Equality’

There is a reason that the American revolution succeeded and the ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ revolution ended up consuming its own and bringing forth a dictator.
Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Agreed. But when have you heard anyone within the GOP make an argument against equality. There is a one sided debate in Washington.

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Diversity and tolerance for me, but not for thee:

Judge Rules Gay League Can Limit Number of Bisexual/Heterosexual Players

A federal judge ruled Thursday that a gay softball league can limit the number of heterosexuals on its teams, the Courthouse News Service reports.

The ruling was announced after three bisexual men claimed they were kicked out of the Gay Softball World Series for not being gay enough and filed a lawsuit in Washington state against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association.

The three men, playing for a San Francisco softball team, were challenged on their sexuality by a rival team, citing a rule that limits no more than two heterosexuals on a team.

The men claim they were “summoned to a hearing room to answer questions about their sexual interests or attractions,” according to the Courthouse News Service.

The men said they were told that “this is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour struck down the lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs have failed to argue that there is a compelling state interest in allowing heterosexuals to play gay softball,” Coughenour wrote, according to the Courthouse News Service.

“It is not the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization’s chosen expression.”

The judge did rule the association failed to prove it should not be subjected to public-accommodation laws.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:55 PM

That is what is behind this push by intolerant Liberals to attempt to force Christians to only practice the Faith of Our Fathers from 9 a.m. To 12 p.m. on Sunday mornings.

kingsjester on April 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM

And only out of public view. God forbid a Christian store owner would hang a crucifix behind the counter, say Merry Christmas to customers, or even openly talk about their faith.

I do not support SSM. Personally, I don’t see how it would be sinful to write “Congratulations Kyle and Trevor” on the top of a cake (actually having to attend the “rite” is more problematic). But neither of these things is the point. Individuals should have the right to decline providing services if it goes against their values.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour struck down the lawsuit.

“It is not the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization’s chosen expression.”

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:55 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 [...] 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 here we have two different state courts determining different things regarding what a company/organization can/cannot express.

How is this not something the supreme court picks up?

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM

And be charged with hate crimes?

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Hey if a Christian can be forced to photograph a gay wedding despite his religious beliefs, I see nothing that should legally prevent an anti-SSM event with all-gay service providers.

You’re right, of course, that it would be called hate crimes- as if the KKK or nazis were hosting a clam bake. Or even worse, have the gays host a Tea Party event!

I am making a point about the double standard that the gays are ignoring in their strident whining about these issues. Why should the values of a Christian photographer be trampled but nobody is going to say a word if I were to walk into a NM bakery owned by gays, ordered a cake that reads-just say no to SSM, and get told that they don’t do that kind of cake.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

This comment thread has gone pretty far off track thanks to the resident troll brigade attempting to make it about gay rights and/or behavior.
But the issue was not about “Teh Gheys” at all. It is about freedom of speech and association.
Private business has already been subjugated by the state in countless ways. Non smoking law, ACA, EPA, SEC, etc. etc. ad nauseam. This ruling is simply one more encroachment on free enterprise, freedom of association and freedom of speech, nothing more nothing less.
Now that your business cannot refuse service for one reason or another, does it really matter what the reasons are at this point?
It’s simply another example of less freedom. When is enough enough?
PoliTech on April 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

This is also about involuntary servitude, which is tantamount to slavery. It is also mentioned in the 13tg Amendment.

It is ironic that a “civil rights” movement that draws many (false) analogies between itself and the plight blacks has a defacto endorsement of involuntary servitude (aka slavery).

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:55 PM

I’m not sure I want to know the answer but- how is gay softball different than straight softball?

Gays are constantly whining that they are just like everybody else. And then they go and establish mirror organizations based solely on sexual orientation??? What the hell?

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

We all better get it together and understand that this just isn’t about the gays. Gays are just the current tools du jour being used by an overreaching government to bludgeon people who don’t go along with the leftist line. Gays activists better wake up as well, because tools become useless and broken eventually. Gays are disposable to the people who are using them to get more power, and when karma will come to bite them on the azz. If they don’t think this kind of thing creates a backlash, they better take a gander at Mozilla’s dashboard. So far, gays have made gains because they sold their movement as being non-threatening and not effecting anyone else. These kinds of decisions reinforce that lie that the activists in the gay community have sold.

That being said, if it wasn’t the gays it would be some other victim class tools i.e., womyn, Hispanics, blacks, Muslims etc.

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM

This +1000

Nutstuyu on April 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I’m not sure I want to know the answer but- how is gay softball different than straight softball?

Gays are constantly whining that they are just like everybody else. And then they go and establish mirror organizations based solely on sexual orientation??? What the hell?

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

They get more (better?) use out of the bats.

Nutstuyu on April 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

You may have misunderstood me. I agree completely regarding the double standard with SSM. Unfortunately, I think anyone brave enough to try and point out this double standard will be labeled a bigot/hater/etc and would never be listened to. We (as a country) have been complacent far too long and now this behavior is too much a commonplace in our society.

It used to be that you could have your beliefs and work hard and not be bothered. Now, you have to hide your beliefs for fear of being persecuted/prosecuted. It’s harder and harder to live in a society that actively turns your good intentions into evil, close-minded thoughts.

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

If you think jail time for Christians or SSM detractors isn’t here- Be aware:

A few days ago, we wrote an essay about Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, being justice systematic by Judge Robert N. Spencer to bake cakes for same-sex marriage, in defilement of his possess eremite beliefs. According to Breibart.com, Phillips now faces adult to 12 months in jail if he refuses to bake cakes, in a future, for same-sex marriages. Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, refused use to same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, on a drift that it is his Christian faith that matrimony is between one male and one woman. Even Colorado law recognizes matrimony as between one male and one lady yet does commend a “civil union” of same-sex couples. Many who review a essay wanted to know a judge’s position in sequence to sequence on a case.

Ken Klukowski reports for Breitbart.com:

Phillips is an Evangelical Christian who binds to a faith that matrimony is between a male and woman. When Phillips bakes a matrimony cake, he interprets it as participating in a matrimony celebration, and he explained that, therefore, he does not make cakes for happy marriages.

Craig and Mullins complained to a Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On Dec. 6, 2013, an executive law judge-Robert Spencer-ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips disregarded Colorado’s antidiscrimination law. Spencer systematic Phillips to bake cakes celebrating happy matrimony for any other parties that ask for such a cake in a future.

http://www.conewsfeed.com/lakewood/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-threatened-with-jail-for-not-baking-cakes-for/

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Wowz.

You know you just wrote that out, right?
Wasn’t just some internal contemplation – you actually posted that on a blog.
And how enlightened of you to ‘understand’ oral sex.

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Why exactly is it mind boggling that people find certain sexual acts unappealing?

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Unfortunately, I think anyone brave enough to try and point out this double standard will be labeled a bigot/hater/etc and would never be listened to.

Effay5 on April 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Sounds like a conservatophobe to me.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Why exactly is it mind boggling that people find certain sexual acts unappealing?

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Shhh could it be people have a “preference?” Most heterosexuals would be appalled if we knew what other’s did in the bedroom. In fact, I would venture to say we wouldn’t associate with some people if we knew. If we knew what turns most people on was different than ours, we would be appalled. Gays just have the unfortunate privilege of letting everyone know that what turns them on is automatically different than most of the heterosexual population. That is what happens when you make your sexuality your identity. Not all gays do that, but certainly the leftist gays do.

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

I saw an article about the gays who are at the center of this suit (Charlie Craig and David Mullins) They’re very proud that they had a part in attacking Christians.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:37 PM

We all better get it together and understand that this just isn’t about the gays. Gays are just the current tools du jour being used by an overreaching government to bludgeon people who don’t go along with the leftist line

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Gotta love a woman who’s not afraid to use the word “bludgeon” in a sentence ;)

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM

VERB and JETBOY,,, you may think I am mindless and ignorant, but we still do have freedom of expression no matter what your great president thinks. I know heaters perform sodomy and I still don’t get why they do it ,, like I said it would seem gross unsafe and the smell. Jet boy you still didn’t explain to me how all that could be pleasurable for the one doing it and the one taking it. Its always been a great mystery to me.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I don’t think your strawman holds. Domestic tranquility can hold without Christians compromising their faith. But that would require respect that not everybody in America is, for example, going to accept homosexuality as normal, natural, and tantamount to heterosexuality. Put bluntly these victim groups, need to respect diversity of opinion instead of demanding that we all accept theirs as settled law.

Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

So in other words: trade fundamental freedom for hypothetical security?

Hmmm… somebody said something about that once….

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

A nicely veiled and perverse threat.

rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith.
antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

By comparison, we can now see the “domestic tranquility” in store for us otherwise.

Here’s the real big question: is this fascism a fad or the new fixture?

rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 2:50 PM

A nicely veiled and perverse threat.
rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM

This is not a threat of physical war. Tranquility = peace. In order for America to be “one nation,” it has to consist of a single people with a common culture, religion, tradition, folk ways, and values. The Left has won the cultural war. I wanted to know for the sale of saving America are you will to compromise your religious principles for the sake of domestic peace. The only peaceful coexistence that can exist for the gays is complete surrender. By the way, this will not stop at gay marriage. Next will be gay adoption (adoption equality), mandatory gay friendly diversity classes in schools (public as private) and the outlawing of gay conversion therapy.

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

This is fairly obnoxious, and I’ll go to my grave before I surrender my principles.

Gays already adopt.

You can’t mandate such stupidity in private schools.

Outlawing the ghey conversion therapy is/would be unconstitutional. Freedom of association and religious expression, you know.

I don’t what the hell you think liberty is, but you are seriously mistaken if you think it means surrendering one’s principles to the collective.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

VERB and JETBOY,,, you may think I am mindless and ignorant…

Did I call you “mindless” or “ignorant”? No.

…but we still do have freedom of expression no matter what your great president thinks.

When you say “you’re great president”…I’m an American, so for better or worse (I’m on the “worse” side of that) Obama is our president.

Perhaps you’re not aware I’m Republican, I vote Republican, and hold conservative views, both social and fiscal, aside from the SSM issue. And before you embarrass yourself even more, I’m Roman Catholic…lest the “anti-Christian” prognosticating comes up.

And don’t forget, freedom of expression applies to all of us, not just you.

I know heaters perform sodomy and I still don’t get why they do it ,, like I said it would seem gross unsafe and the smell. Jet boy you still didn’t explain to me how all that could be pleasurable for the one doing it and the one taking it. Its always been a great mystery to me.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM

“Heaters”? That’s a new one to me.

Regular showers/bathing and good personal hygiene is important for everyone. And I’m not getting into any conversation here about details of sexual acts. This is really not the proper forum for that.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM

unclesmrgol on April 7, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Thank you. So if I’m using bing in the search box, does that work? /display of computer illiteracy.

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

No.

And do you want to know why? Because it wouldn’t ‘save’ America. America is dying because too many have already compromised their ‘faith’ or lost it all together. Romans 1, antifederalist. Romans 1! And for the Old Testament folks or those who dislike Saint Paul, it is just as clear in Deuteronomy 30.

pannw on April 7, 2014 at 3:05 PM

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Calm down. I’m on your side on this issue. I think many conservatives have a religious like devotion to “America.” America is against conservatives, especially social conservatives. I wanted to see if so cons put saving their religion before saving America.

Btw, gay conversion therapy is illegal Cal and NJ

I can see GLAAD using social pressure to compel private schools to have such classes either directly or through accreditation boards.

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Elaine had really bad lawyers. If you look at the text of the email exchange, The lesbian clearly stated that it was a same-sex ceremony and asked if Elaine was “open” to helping them celebrate.

This should have been a straight up religious freedom argument. No one should be forced to photograph activity they consider “immoral”.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 3:07 PM

The funny thing about the culture war…

The side that has supposedly lost is the only side that is reproducing. Conversion only gets so far once the conversion method consists of purges and intimidation.

Both of those methods have very, very poor track records against Christians.

BKennedy on April 7, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Outlawing the ghey conversion therapy is/would be unconstitutional.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

omg…

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Btw, gay conversion therapy is illegal Cal and NJ

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 3:05 PM

And those laws are unconstitutional. I had heard about the California law before, and it applied to minors. Still unconstitutional, though.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

omg…

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Something wrong?

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

JETboy ,,, I meant Heteros, not heaters ,,, typo, Anyway I don’t understand the sodomy thing and again I don’t understand how you can justify it with the church. Scripture is pretty clear about what happen to Sodom. That is not the only sin, there is envy, jealously, murder, adultery etc. Sorry if I seem not with it but what I read from the bible is pretty clear and still don’t know how you can put up with the pain, and smell of sodomy. Thank you for explaining your positions.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM

And those laws are unconstitutional. I had heard about the California law before, and it applied to minors. Still unconstitutional, though.
NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Illinois is doing the same thing. Do you believe the pro gay SCOTUS will strike down those laws?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Illinois is doing the same thing. Do you believe the pro gay SCOTUS will strike down those laws?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM

I don’t care if they do or not, such laws are still unconstitutional. People will just simply practice their liberties quietly if SCOTUS refuses to support our rights.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Gotta love a woman who’s not afraid to use the word “bludgeon” in a sentence ;)

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM

If you were a leftist, I’d mess with you and tell you it makes me think of baby seals. That should make some leftist’s head explode. :)

melle1228 on April 7, 2014 at 3:32 PM

JETboy ,,, I meant Heteros, not heaters ,,, typo,

For a moment, I thought I wasn’t up to speed on current slang.

Anyway I don’t understand the sodomy thing and again I don’t understand how you can justify it with the church.

Again, I’m just not going to get into a discussion about the finer points of any sex activity here. This isn’t the place…there are numerous online forums and sites out there where you read up on, or chat with anyone about anything, if you’d like further understanding.

I don’t “justify” anything with The Church. I am a sinner, as we all are. And my sins certainly aren’t limited to sexual activity. I don’t make excuses for any of my sins…they are my own, through my own accord, and like everyone else I’ll have to answer to God and face His judgement upon me when my time on this Earth is up.

Hopefully the religious amongst us will pray for me, as I pray for everyone here.

Scripture is pretty clear about what happen to Sodom. That is not the only sin, there is envy, jealously, murder, adultery etc.

You’re the first person I’ve seen (or at least recall)that understands Sodom was destroyed by God for more than homosexual promiscuity, when this gets brought up.

Sorry if I seem not with it but what I read from the bible is pretty clear and still don’t know how you can put up with the pain, and smell of sodomy.

Again, see above.

Thank you for explaining your positions.

garydt on April 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM

You’re welcome.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Good opportunity for business owners of religious faith to come up with a business model that could act as a buffer to potential lawsuits.

Just sayin’

lineholder on April 7, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I have the solution: Pro homosexual bigots win. Close the shop, and in a related action open a new shop at the same location, a name change if you like, with a new Christian policy. A Christian message on or in every cake. Like the toy doll in Mardi Gras cake that says either you are the princess for the night, or else have to do the dishes, I forget which, but like that, a Christian message goes with each cake. Same thing with photography. A loving Christian message with every photograph embedded digitally or outright on front or back, overt or covert but always there.

bour3 on April 7, 2014 at 3:53 PM

I have the solution: Pro homosexual bigots conservatophobes win.

bour3 on April 7, 2014 at 3:53 PM

FIFY

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I’m an atheist, but if America can only be saved by forcing people of faith to change and submit to the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others, then it isn’t worth saving.

Besides, I am pretty sure that Christians are more concerned with their souls and the afterlife than they are with whether kowtowing will ‘save America.’

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

The only peaceful coexistence that can exist for the gays is complete surrender. By the way, this will not stop at gay marriage….
antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Correct. So how can you not detect the fallacy in your premise of tranquility? There is no real peace, no real tranquility, certainly not through compromise. We know this through the contemporary particular and through historical generalization.

rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM

I’m an atheist, but if America can only be saved by forcing people of faith to change and submit to the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others, then it isn’t worth saving.

Besides, I am pretty sure that Christians are more concerned with their souls and the afterlife than they are with whether kowtowing will ‘save America.’

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

For people of faith God always comes first.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Why exactly is it mind boggling that people find certain sexual acts unappealing?

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Your straw manning here –
who says it’s mind boggling that people have different ideas of what does or does not appeal to them?

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Your straw manning here –
who says it’s mind boggling that people have different ideas of what does or does not appeal to them?

verbaluce on April 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM

You.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Correct. So how can you not detect the fallacy in your premise of tranquility? There is no real peace, no real tranquility, certainly not through compromise. We know this through the contemporary particular and through historical generalization.

rrpjr on April 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM

After all, government is traditional recognized as Force . How do you get tranquility–and have we ever had it?–out of forced surrender, and particularly of surrendered rights?

If the Constitution–taken only as a roster or rights, because everything else is less fashionable–is insufficient to guarantee those rights, there is no telling how insufficient it is for anything else. If it will not restrain powers in balance (and this is a morality issue) such as to restrain itself from imposing on the rights of conscience, it has failed.

We would then be like socialists saying that a constitutional republic just has to be tried right. It hasn’t had the right constitution yet. I know that some libertarians are capable of such fetishism, but I’m not.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 4:27 PM

For people of faith God always comes first.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 4:14 PM

America was founded on religious freedom. When it goes, you will hear talk of Texas seceding and other red states joining them.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Tell me, if not having your sham marriages recognized by the state is being a “second class citizen” how is compulsory service because (they were targeted; it’s what the left does) and despite your religion anything less?

And if your two options are 1) suppress your religious expression or 2) close down your business, not a ban on businesses of certain religious persuasions.

What the left says is no more “harmless” than what the right intends. At least the resolution of the right preserves the express form of government than the methods of the left.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

All it means is people won’t be able to overtly refuse service “because it’s a gay wedding.”

They can still find schedule conflicts and other reasons not to perform work, or subcontract it out at a profit. In fact, putting up a notice at your front counter to the effect that “We reserve the right to subcontract any job at our sole discretion” should cover that.

It’s a stupid law, but there are ways around it.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3