Topic: Gay couple gets court to force photographer to cover their wedding

[LadyVirginia]

LINK

But Vanessa wanted a photographer at her ceremony who thinks what she is doing is immoral. I know. That seems odd, doesn’t it. But the reason is simple: She want this photographer to be compared to restaurants and hotels in the 1950s who refused to serve black customers.
 
Now let’s review: Same-sex marriage is not legal in New Mexico. Even same-sex civil unions are not recognized in New Mexico.
 
So on what legal basis was Vanessa Willock able to sue Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography when she refused to photograph the “commitment” ceremony of Willock and her partner? The New Mexico Human Rights Act, which covers “sexual orientation.” Pro-family groups, including CatholicVote, have long argued that these laws are not just a “shield” protecting the rights of gays against unfair discrimination, but will be used as a “sword” to deny the rights of Christians.

Could an African-American photographer, under that rationale, be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally? Elane asked hypothetically.
 
“The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class,” the court noted. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

Now I wonder if a heterosexual couple didn't want a gay photographer at their wedding what would happen?  No doubt that would be discrimination too.

In other words, faith means NOTHING.  Abortion and homosexuals are protected above all.  A person who wants to kill her baby or practice deviant behavior gets elevated over everyone else.

[IronDioPriest]

The common law principle of freedom of association that has been assumed for hundreds of years, trampled under the Leftist jackboot in the name of "equality". Equality for some, but not for others.

 

[Pandora]

The quest of equality as "our" highest principle eventually leads to radical egalitarianism, which is, in effect, that nothing and no one is differentiated from anything or anyone else.  This is a major violation of the reality that there IS a natural order, that things have their own differentiated nature and to re-invent or rearrange this order, in the end, is UNsane.

It is, in the case of protected groups, not only a violation of the freedom of worship, but, as IDP writes, the right to associate as one chooses.

If this principle is allowed to continue, "normal" will become the discriminated-against class in every endeavor of life.

[LadyVirginia]

If this principle is allowed to continue, "normal" will become the discriminated-against class in every endeavor of life.

I agree.  And it is already in the sense that people have modified their opinions and behavior in order to be "PC". Now it a matter of enshrining such descrimination in the law.

[Libertas]

Normal person - Contract law and the principle of voluntary agreements is sacred.

Leftist POS - I will force you to do what I want.

Leftists are are totalitarians, and this deviant witch illustrates that in spades!

To hell with them all.

[IronDioPriest]

So let's say for arguments sake that the photographer fails to show up for work that day. Does it become a legal matter?

This is f**king insane.

[LadyVirginia]

So let's say for arguments sake that the photographer fails to show up for work that day. Does it become a legal matter?

This is f**king insane.

There are creative ways to fight back.  You show up with a T-shirt that says I'm here because of a court order to violate my religious freedom and you have a bunch of friends stand out side on the public areas with signs supporting you. And maybe you call the media.

These sorts of things need to be put in the face of the American people.

[Glock32]

Has it never occurred to these enemies of liberty that certain freedoms are enshrined precisely because there are some people who will inevitably do things with them that other people, maybe even most people, find distasteful or offensive? That's the very essence of freedom.

Radical egalitarianism is something from the French Revolution, not the American one. It ends, one way or another.

[Libertas]

Has it never occurred to these enemies of liberty that certain freedoms are enshrined precisely because there are some people who will inevitably do things with them that other people, maybe even most people, find distasteful or offensive? That's the very essence of freedom.

Radical egalitarianism is something from the French Revolution, not the American one. It ends, one way or another.