“A tattoo artist should not be forced to put a swastika on an Aryan Nation guy”
“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day, it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’”…
Most courts, to say nothing of serious photographers, agree that photography is expression entitled to First Amendment protection. Ms. Huguenin composes and selects images, arranging them in picture books that tell the stories of memorable days. But there are stories that she does not wish to tell.
Tobias B. Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who represents Ms. Willock and Ms. Collinsworth, said Ms. Huguenin had given up the right to make that choice when she opened the doors of her business to the public…
“A tattoo artist should not be forced to put a swastika on an Aryan Nation guy,” Mr. Lorence said. “The government could not force someone to put a bumper sticker on their car that says, ‘I support same-sex marriage’ or ‘I support interracial marriage.’ ”









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
“Freedom is what we say it is, not what you say it is”–any leftie.
vityas on November 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM
If the NYT would support a Catholic pharmacist who does not wish to fill a Plan B prescription I could support this.
xkaydet65 on November 24, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Religious freedom ends here.
You have a right to the government’s opinion, period.
profitsbeard on November 24, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Freedom of association is soo Bush era.
Murphy9 on November 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM
No it isn’t.
What a tard. I’m sick of these logic twisting morons.
Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM
From Discover The Networks:
“[I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.” -Roger Baldwin, Communist Founder of the ACLU.
Reflecting on his early years as the ACLU’s Executive Director, Baldwin candidly revealed his original motives and objectives: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose — the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.” -Roger Baldwin, Communist Founder of the ACLU.
Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:18 PM
Yes it is, and so what? In a free country that wouldn’t be controversial.
Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM
This is wrong on so many levels. Elaine Huguenin is not the only photographer in New Mexico who photographs weddings. It wouldn’t surprise me if a bunch of photographers in New Mexico were gay. Why are they picking on her, when they literally have dozens of other choices for someone to take their pictures.
This is bigotry, pure and simple. Their decision to force someone to do something against her beliefs, just to try and validate their life choices, is unconscionable. And the fact that the courts back them up is the truly disturbing part. But then again, this is the state where police can arrest you and subject you to multiple anal probes just because they thought you were clenching you butt-cheeks.
This war on Christianity must stop.
RoadRunner on November 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM
Freedom is a dirty word.
faraway on November 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM
I disagree. Imo this couple purposely targeted this Christian business in order to file a law suit.
Again..I’m sick of these logic twisting morons. Why does it only work one way? Why can’t Christian organization succeed in doing the same..i.e filing suit against gay marriage organizations for not featuring pro traditional marriage sponsors and advertising, regardless of whether it would violate the beliefs of the pro gay marriage business?
Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 8:33 PM
I forget: does the NYT excercise discretion in the ads that it chooses to print in its pages?
They do? Hmmm. That seems like it needs to change, right?
TexasDan on November 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Self-answering question…
So you’ve changed your mind?
Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:41 PM
How so?
Maybe you misunderstood my position?
Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Or I misunderstood you reply?
Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Yes it is. But so what? In a free country this wouldn’t be controversial.
~
Why would it be a problem, in a free country, to say “NO HOMOS ALLOWED”?
Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:51 PM
But a tatoo artist who is asked to tat, or brand, “Black Power”, or some such other ridiculous phrase, is “well within their 1st Amendment rights”, right?
Keep pushin’ “Progs”.
Clink on November 24, 2013 at 8:57 PM
The Left thinks that ‘freedom of association’ is overrated (except for themselves).
CPT. Charles on November 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM
This is what happens with “protected classes”.
Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Put up a sign: Entrance by appointment only. Then run the business via (approved) word of mouth.
Otherwise, you are at the mercy of the mob.
OldEnglish on November 24, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Bullying works.
CurtZHP on November 24, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Keep voting for one party rule and see if it ends up the same way it has everywhere else it’s been done.
Idiots.
KMC1 on November 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Would a black photographer (or any other for that matter) be forced to do the same for a Klan rally? A Jew for an Illinois Nazi rally?
29Victor on November 24, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Wouldn’t have to be that explicit.
We don’t live in that country. In some places it’s prohibited to fly an American flag…to practice your religion..to openly speak your mind.
Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM
“If you have your freedom you can keep it.”
Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Yep. Or a gay wedding cake baker for a couple or church who opposes gay marriage?
TexasDan on November 24, 2013 at 10:22 PM
This has proven my position from the first time I read about gay marriage. I exchanged emails with Andrew Sullivan asserting that this was a ploy to force churches to perform gay weddings. He wrote back saying that it would violate the First Amendment and that he would fight for Religious Rights. I thought he was lying, but I knew that whatever he said, the Gay Parade would use it that way.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are a kind of covenant with God and each other. Their purpose is stated in the Preamble and limited by the Bill of Rights. They were adopted by “we the people of the United States” not to give special rights to any group, but “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I maintain that the last sentence in the quote doesn’t apply to self-selected minorities or apply to override those rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which include the rights to freedom of speech and association and freedom of religion.
It’s a sacrilege and blasphemy to place the rights of gay persons ahead of those of others. I have the right to believe that abortion and homosexual behavior are both evil and offensive to God. I also believe that God gave us this land and that he will not tolerate our rebellion against moral laws forever. When the voice of the people chooses iniquity, they will suffer the judgment of God, and then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. I have the right to believe that and to state it publicly. I don’t have the right to force it upon those doing wickedly, but they should be warned.
flataffect on November 25, 2013 at 12:17 AM
But they’re trying to make it illegal in the UK to say you disapprove of gay marriage.
The Thin Man Returns on November 25, 2013 at 12:34 AM
It’s also in the constitution. I can’t find where forcing people to do business with them is, but I guess it’s in the clauses that only leftists can see.
That’s Lorence’s point. If we want to take “equal protection” to this extreme, then they would be. I wonder if they’ve considered the possible consequences of this….
JannyMae on November 25, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Precisely, but the church is not a specially protected minority, like gays want to be…which, of course, throws equal protection right out the stained glass window.
JannyMae on November 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM
Why shouldn’t a photographer be able to do only gay weddings if those are the sort of weddings that interest him? Is this not America?
Buddahpundit on November 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM
According to left-tard judges a business does not have the right refuse anyone their services … unless they belong to the Tea Party.
kregg on November 25, 2013 at 5:27 AM