Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony

[DoctorDoom]

The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.

"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate there conscience," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on an appeal.

"The commission's decision shows stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights, and we will appeal…," he said.

The case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was brought by Vanessa Willock against Elane Photography LLC, which is run by owners Jon and Elaine Huguenin.Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61342)

Is there an iota of doubt that the contemptible dykes deliberately chose Christian photographers for the specific reason of making an example of them to anyone who doesn't kiss queer ass?

Shoot the perverted bitches.

[Taylor1]

Is there more to this story?

[DesertFox]

No doubt there IS more to the story. No doubt the queers insulted the photographers and damaged home and equipment, too.

Queers have gotten waaaay outta hand. It's past time to roll them back where they belong -- on the periphery of society, where they can't make people throw up all the time. The nation's esophagi are getting all vomitty from queers acting, well, queer.

[DoctorDoom]

Is there more to this story?Click the link.

[DoctorDoom]

Here's the faggot opinion of it.

NM commission rules photographer discriminated against gay couple (http://www.edgenewyork.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=72948)

More links:

Full Coverage: Homosexual Hysteria in New Mexico (http://www.newstin.co.uk/sim/uk/52491835/en-010-001790606)

[DesertFox]

That's their usual MO: Someone disagrees, call it hysteria.

I detest these frockers and it has relatively little to do with their queerness.

[roguemerc]

Sometimes the fastest way for any special interest group to get everyone to hate them is to use the state to bully others.

[Trance]

But as a private business does the photographer have the right to refuse service?

[Neil Peart]

But as a private business does the photographer have the right to refuse service?No, because businesses are evil. Don't you know ANYTHING?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Fox writes, that "[t]he nation's esophagi are getting all vomitty from queers acting, well, queer."

LOL!

And in the meantime Lefty financially menaces more and more. . . . How many cases like this are out there? How many victims can't afford to defend their natural rights? These folks need to sue the commission after winning their constitutional case.

"The Commission": now that sounds subtly ominous. I'm thinkin' the Voltairean Citizen's Commission of the Enlightened Despotism, the good ol' VCCED. Or how about the newspaper report on the newly established Jacobinic Citizens Branch of Pillage and Plunder (JCBPP), a little Reign of Terror to go with your morning coffee.

"Say, Comrade, pass me the cream and sugar."

"Sure, Citizen Joe. Say did you remember to pack your pitchfork this morning?"

"Sure thing! In the trunk, right beside my torch."

I’m thinkin’ the roving gangs of thugs in our inner cities or the morality enforcement patrols in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I’m wondering if Chavez has got his version of the Rousseauian Concerned Citizens Group (RCCG) up and running yet.

[Trance]

No, because businesses are evil. Don't you know ANYTHING?

Oh, that's right how stupid of me. I must have forgotten my Liberal 101 brainwashing... I mean re-education.

[PrezLeefun]

This is insane... any private company can refuse to supply business for someone. Insane.

[DoctorDoom]

Doubtless there were any number of queer photographers that would have performed the service for the dykes. But the fag agenda surpercedes all other considerations.

[Lubbock]

I'm with Prez. This is INSANE.

I't the most INSANE thing I've heard in a long time.

It's high damned time for Hetero America to begin a real rebellion against this Queer Bullshit, and I mean a REAL rebellion --if it means burning down the courthouse and killing the attorneys, I would use the Vince Flynn Approach: kill enough of the ACLU types to make the rest of them afraid to file these bullshit lawsuits.

[DeclinetoState]

Couldn't the <del>fags</del> <del>queers</del> <del>fudge packers</del> <del>homos</del> same-sex couple have simply hired another photographer? I would assume that there is at least one competent photographer, even in New Mexico, that would be more than willing to cover the "marriage" ceremony of a same-sex couple.

[CzechPrince]

That's their usual MO: Someone disagrees, call it hysteria.

I detest these frockers and it has relatively little to do with their queerness.

I agree.

I would think the courts would have to side with the business in this case. At least they should anyway.

[The_Elucidator]

But none of this is our business when it comes to homos, with all that what goes on in the bedroom blather.... blah, blah, blah... After all, they just want us Christian prudes to stay out of their business and they just want to be left alone, right?... right?... right?...

[gnome]

In the absence of more facts, I'm inclined to side with the photographer on this one too. I suspect the appeal will succeed.

[Deagle]

It's high damned time for Hetero America to begin a real rebellion against this Queer Bullshit, and I mean a REAL rebellion --if it means burning down the courthouse and killing the attorneys, I would use the Vince Flynn Approach: kill enough of the ACLU types to make the rest of them afraid to file these bullshit lawsuits.
Yes, that's the best way to resolve an issue. :unsmile:

[Deagle]

In the absence of more facts, I'm inclined to side with the photographer on this one too. I suspect the appeal will succeed. What if the couple had been Muslim? Would it be okay for the photographers to decline based on the obvious conflict there?

[Neil Peart]

What if the couple had been Muslim? Would it be okay for the photographers to decline based on the obvious conflict there?Are you equating being queer with being Muslim? Of course, since you defend Fidel Castro, I've come to expect no less from you, Beagle. :thumb:

[The_Elucidator]

What if the couple had been Muslim? Would it be okay for the photographers to decline based on the obvious conflict there?

What conflict would you be referring to? Are you talking about Muslim homos?

[Deagle]

Are you equating being queer with being Muslim? Of course, since you defend Fidel Castro, I've come to expect no less from you, Beagle. :thumb:No.
If a Muslim couple asked this photographer to shoot their wedding and they refused as it would conflict with their religious beliefs would it be okay for them to decline to do the work? Discrimination is discrimination whether it's religious, sexual or racial.

[Neil Peart]

No.
If a Muslim couple asked this photographer to shoot their wedding and they refused as it would conflict with their religious beliefs would it be okay for them to decline to do the work?Photographing a wedding for another religion does not conflict with religious beliefs.

Discrimination is discrimination whether it's religious, sexual or racial.I see you've bought into the lie that faggotry should be defended. Good on ya.

[The_Elucidator]

No.
If a Muslim couple asked this photographer to shoot their wedding and they refused as it would conflict with their religious beliefs would it be okay for them to decline to do the work? Discrimination is discrimination whether it's religious, sexual or racial.

Wrong!

[LivingDeadGirl]

Anti-discrimination laws run amok! They had good intent in the beginning but now are used to bash others over the head. If someone doesn't get a promotion - gender/age/race discrimination...facts be damned. If someone doesn't get a job - gender/age/race/so discrimination...facts be damned. I fear that soon Christian Bookstores will have to sell Muslim/Hindu/Tao books and items as well...otherwise they're discriminating against those religions. There has to be a point where it becomes OK for a business to decide who their clients will be. If they don't mind loosing money from certain people, who are we to force the to cater to others?

[Deagle]

Wrong!
Wrong how?

[Deagle]

Photographing a wedding for another religion does not conflict with religious beliefs. So photographing a "wedding" for two men or two women does not conflict with religious beliefs either.

I see you've bought into the lie that faggotry should be defended. Good on ya. Hey I'll defend your right to believe in an invisible man in the clouds who loves you even though you hate fags, which are as much his creation as anything else.

[DoctorDoom]

So photographing a "wedding" for two men or two women does not conflict with religious beliefs either.Only an utterly, irreparably clueless atheist would dare to equate religion with sexual perversion.

Hey I'll defend your right to believe in an invisible man in the clouds ...Thanks, but we don't need your support, fool.

... who loves you ...That's one of greatest mysteries of God. He loves even you, fool.

... even though you hate fags ...Classic liberaloser spin: anything with which you don't agree constitutes "hate".

... which are as much his creation as anything else.God created man. Sin creates queers.

[Kathy30]

If the couple had been muslim and the photographers had declined to take the job, they should be allowed to do that. There isn't enough discrimination in the world. People should be allowed to engage in any kind of discriminatory business practice they want to.

Here is the way business, IF LEFT ALONE, works. Christian photographers refuse to work for a homosexual couple. Someone is gonna say "Wow, there are all these Christian photographers who are refusing to photograph the weddings of gay couples. I'm going to specialize in the weddings of gay couples and I'm gonna make a MINT". That's how business works when it is left alone. Forcing someone to perform services for those who they have philosophical differences with only creates resentment and resentment in many ways leads to bad service.

How about muslim cab drivers who refuse fares with alcohol or seeing eye dogs. Should they be allowed to do this on religious grounds. Obviously they ARE. Should a muslim cab driver have to drive a "painted whore infidel woman" to her destination? This is the new battle. Should they be forced to take these fares? Basic freedom says that they should not. AND, companies should start hiring non muslim cab drivers to take these fares or go out of business. However, asking people their religion to avoid hiring a muslim is discrimination isn't it. We need more respect for discrimination not less.

[Rhino]

I like the headline at Drudge.

New Mexico: Photographer Must Shoot Gays (http://www.drudge.com/news/106566/new-mexico-photographer-must-shoot-gays)

:lol:

[DesertFox]

I'll defend your right to believe in an invisible man in the clouds Who believes that? Anyone I know? I don't know a single Christian who believes in such a thing.

I do, however, know a whole shitpot full of liberals who have that silly notion as their idea of God. No wonder they don't wanna believe in Him. Neither would I. Neither would any other Christian.

Only liberals think God is an invisible man in the clouds.

[gnome]

What if the couple had been Muslim? Would it be okay for the photographers to decline based on the obvious conflict there?

I've been struggling with this general issue, and here's why:

It seems perfectly acceptable to me that a photographer should be able to choose or reject clients completely at will. Even if, say, they just don't feel like taking a picture of whatever it is.

On the other hand, tell me about a restaurant that refuses service to gays, and I'd think that's a problem.
ETA: By gays, I mean gay patrons that are behaving in a manner perfectly acceptable for in public. If they got thrown out for being disruptive or lewd, it's not because they were gay.

The struggle is that I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the two cases. I feel so certain of both but I can't identify the critical difference.

[DesertFox]

There is no difference. The govt should respect a person's right to do business with whom he/she pleases. The govt has no legitimate interest in that. None.

[DoctorDoom]

On the other hand, tell me about a restaurant that refuses service to gays, and I'd think that's a problem.The comparison fails. If "gays" go into a restaurant, unless they announce their queerness or their behavior makes it glaringly obvious, they should be treated as just more customers.

OTOH, if a couple of dykes call on a photographer to go to their chosen location to shoot their "commitment ceremony", there is not the merest question that the event is homosexual in nature. They should not expect anyone opposed to that "lifestyle" to comply with their request.

And IAC, as previously noted, it is 100% certain that the lesbos deliberately sought out a Christian photographer with the sole intention of forcing the issue to further the queer agenda.

[MrSanity]

This is insane... any private company can refuse to supply business for someone. Insane.Unless you wind up working for these bull-dyke bastards.

[DeclinetoState]

Liberals believe that a long-winded, crusty old German fart from the 19th century who understood human nature, politics and economics well enough to plan a politico-socio-economic system that has been an abject failure everywhere it's been tried nevertheless knew what he was talking about.