In the progressive Utopian re-imagining of the United States, the First Amendment generally, and religious freedom especially, is truly secondary to the kind of “tolerance we” must all of us perforce adopt. Or else.
Sure, that kind of turns the notion of tolerance on its head — as well as inverts the intention of the First Amendment, which was adopted to protect unpopular speech — but hey: the ends justify the means when the ends are, by virtue of who desires them, necessarily good and noble and right.
You can’t make a utopia without breaking a few…million…H8rs. Oh, and flushing the Bill of Rights in the process.
But that’s OK. They’re only bigots. Surely this display of raw, contemptuous power won’t end up biting Good People on the ass.
How surprised will the homosexual peoples be to find they have made themselves the willing tools of monsters when they finally grasp their allies’ nature? Surprised and very sad, I reckon. Ah well. Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances.
Well, it kinda takes away the argument that gay marriage will result in persecution of those that do not accept the concept. I mean, apparently they’re going to do that even when the concept is expressly not legally recognized.
So bigots, what is your objection to SSM now?
There is no way this ruling is going to hold. I hope Ms. Photog gets her day in court and a monetary judgement with a lot of zeros in it.
Anyway the decision not to take photos is an economic activity to be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. ‘Cause just think if nobody took pictures! So you must take pictures. We all must take pictures. For the children. But not of the children. That’s a whole nother thing.
so why did the lezbos discriminate against homo photographers?
Call me old fashioned but it seems barbaric to celebrate a life together by first screwing a third person.
I’m sure their relationship will be fine though. What could go wrong between two litigious bitches?
All I can say is when they decide to divorce, I hope they don’t wear the same size clothing.
Of course, they’re in New Mexico so they probably have lots of flannel shirts and blue jeans.
That was too funny bh!
As a part time pro photographer I find a good way to get rid of persistent people I don’t want to shoot is to quote a price so high they go somewhere else.
– If this march down diviante lane continues they’ll need to rewrite obits soon. “Mr Dinsworthy is servived by his wife and daughter” could take on a whole new meaning.
I suppose a government that can force you to buy health insurance can force you to take pictures, but can it force you to take good pictures? You hire a pro for the artistry of her work — a touch of the wide-angle can take off 20# — but a pissed-off photographer could crank on a bit of telephoto and make your butt look two axe-handles wide as well. Or make you look like a pair of zombies with a little low lighting. Or make the pit hair and panty lines and muffin tops and bad skin the highlights of the reel. Then what ya gonna do, cancel her artistic license?
On the other hand, there’s a certain precedent to be set here. If the government can compel you to take photos could it compel the ‘dillo to dance? [He says, stroking his chin..]
I’m going to go ahead and assume that these would not have been the kinds of photographs of lesbians that I am so partial to.
A thumb print on the lens works too.
I can only imagine the kinds of conversations that had to take place in order for this whole fiasco to end up in court, not once, but twice (with more to come).
Unless both parties were looking for precisely this fight, in which case, they got it.
Maybe it’s just because the nature of the work I do means I’m constantly dealing with people with whom I would prefer not to associate, so I would think if you are running a business, that’s part of the job. If you feel you MUST agree with everyone with whom you do business, you’re not going to be in business very long.
I’m not necessarily calling for a pox on both houses, but I’m also not shedding a tear for the poor oppressed photographer. It’ll get overturned. If/when she takes it to a court with fewer nincompoops in charge, it’ll get overturned. Then she can go on, happily not photographing people again.
Fixed that for you.
Frankly, I don’t much care what you would have done, or what I would have done, or what a businessperson who is neither you or me chooses to do with his or her business. I care that they have a choice because they have their reasons — and because it is their lives, and they aren’t owned by the government or by some would-be oppressed protected class.
And at this point, all we see is that some idiot judges in a New Mexico courtroom don’t exactly see it the same as you, Jeff. The photographer will find a court to overturn it, and when she does The First Amendment will be safe once more.
“The First Amendment will be safe once more.”
But a message has been sent; exercising your right will cost you time and money.
I we assume, and I think that’s a big if, this photographer was innocently practicing her religion and operating her business, with no inkling this was coming, then I’m sorry it had to go this way. Like I said, what we know so far is that there are some judges sitting in courtrooms in New Mexico who have no business interpreting law, and it’s unfortunate that there are judges like that all over the country, but there are.
It will take time and money and effort to fight this fight. But if we’re committed to protecting our rights, it’s worth it, isn’t it?
Um..these wedding photos sure have a lot of pictures of potato salad. Just sayin’. I mean they are very nice pictures of potato salad. Very clear. Very well framed. I’d say they were of advertising quality even. But um, maybe the brides and the guests and the floral arrangement and the cake could have been….um…no? Okay. Sigh.
She can sue for damages and defamation, Danger. Justice is blind, after all.
You mean keeping her awful religious beliefs to herself, right? Like the First Amendment envisions?
Well, Alec she is being a big meany-head and a bigoty bigot and stuff. Even though it’s still legal.
The fact that someone has to keep going to court until one of them pretends to take the Constitution and precedent into account is what frightens me. Honestly, I’ll be happy that the decision is overturned. But I’ll still be astounded, amazed, and violently angry at the earlier decision.
For every person willing to keep carrying on the fight, how many out there just settle in order to end the expense, the court dates, and the harassment. This woman should be applauded, not mockingly dismissed, or smugly looked down upon.
Is my opinion. YMMV.
She should be applauded. Where are all the big gun lawyers who are all over the news? Dershowitz should weigh in, for one.
Yup. That’s exactly what they’re counting on, and not just on the civil side.
I wouldn’t be so confident this is going to be overturned. It’s almost certainly a matter of discretion for the NM Supreme Court to even hear an appeal, and the U.S. Supremes are a much longer shot. I can see this rancid decision standing.
Drip, drip, drip.
I figure that I’m about a year from finishing paying off my bout of taking things to a court with fewer nincompoops in charge. That’s going to make it a nice even decade of getting some bullshit all cleared up.
I don’t think so, Dale. The decision is contrary to their own state constitution.
And? It wouldn’t be the first time a state supreme court ignored constitutional rights. Judges and justices can be downright astounding that way.
True.
I hope she prevails. She should start a defense fund.
leigh, my point is that if you do not have any more appeals by right (and I doubt the photographer does), no higher court is required to hear you, no matter how outrageous the decision below was.
Should this one be reviewed? Oh, definitely. Will it be? That’s far from guaranteed.
In their discretion, the justices (NM or Supreme) can decline to hear the appeal and they do not have to give a reason why.
Oops–this was a supplement to my 9:09, not a response to your 9:17.
My bad.
You rabble rousers have to learn your lesson: going against the state will cost you a truckload of money. The state, on the other hand, will be using money taken from you and your fellow citizens by force to deprive you of your liberty.
Isn’t that awesome?
We love Big Brother.
You had better love Big Brother if you know what’s good for you.
If not, your address will be added to the drone flyover list.
There can be no virtue without choice. I am not saying taking or not taking some lesbian wedding is anything virtuosos or not. But we should have a right to refuse business to people.
We tried to stop Jim Crow by forcing people to stop punishing people on race. Well now we are all bigots depending on who is doing the defining. This is what you call a slippery slope.
Personally I think Dish sucks for potentially screwing up my AMC viewing. Does that make me a bigot?
Google already has an satelite map of my property. They know where I am.
Google’s stuff is old. Big Bro needs the latest info.
Google also has satellite imagery of my truck.
One of these two lovebirds Sandra Fluke, perchance? Because this stinks of her style of commodus operandi.
“cranky-d says June 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm
You had better love Big Brother if you know what’s good for you.
If not, your address will be added to the drone flyover list.”
If Iran wants that drone it’s theirs. They are 1st rate drone-jackers.
Apparently Chic Fil A hates gay people now. So I’m constantly told. Personally I don’t think anyone wants to ask me to choose between their whining and a delicious Chic Fil A.
On the other hand Arby’s(processed roast beef) apparently hates Rush Limbaugh. That’s a shame because Arby’s is the finest over the counter gentle laxative known to man. And if I was ever constipated (not likely) I might need them since their product probably tastes better than Metamucil.
Nothing says expanding human rights like involuntary servitude.
say cheese!
at heart what he have here is someone with very poor lawsuit-avoiding skillz I think
you can’t help but wonder if maybe the photographer didn’t want to be sued really
Chic-Fil-A is owned by an E-vil Christer, pala. Why, they aren’t even open on Sundays! The savages.
The gays on a food forum I belong to love to slam Chic-Fil-A for their “intolerance” by refusing to eat there.
So can I sue my gay wedding photographer if’n he opts out of shooting my ceremony at Westboro Baptist, complete with “GOD HATES FAGS” banners? Y’know, for teh farenesses?
No one wants to be sued, ‘feets. But there are plenty of agenda-driven cravens (inside insidious usually-but-not-always far-Left-maybe-STAUNCH! aggregates of hatey activism) who will push said agendas with any tools available. Alinsky told me of this.
Squeak for yourself.
I wouldn’t want to photograph a lesbian ceremony, that’s for sure. They’re only attractive in porn.
Chic-Fil-A just opened in West Hollywood this year to long long long long lines
Chic-Fil-A is fantastic. I guess one can compromise one’s principles for a tasty chicken sandwich.
And for it, they’ve got horsey sauce on their face. Or something resembling.
One can go to Sam’s and buy a complete flame-roasted chicken, hot off the rack, for $5 or so. And on another aisle, a bag of Asian Salad (with ginger dressing). Why go to any old Chic-establishment where many booger-devouring teens will handle your foodstuffs ?
Because their booger-eating cousins work at Sam’s, silly.
chik-fil-a is a treat plus their breakfasts are a best-kept secret
You sound like a horrible snob formerly serr8d. Fast food is good for the soul and not eating it is like saying you hate America.
Chic-Fil-A is not the McDonald’s of chicken sandwiches, either. They are the gold standard, cooked fresh and not made of ground, formed chicken patties. They have a very clever ad campaign and are clean as a whistle.
the southern chicken sammich at McDonald’s is their knock-off of chik-fil-a is my understanding
it’s not terrible really
This. And the waffle fries!
I crave that shit.
Fast in, fast out. And e.coli doesn’t engender attractiveness on it’s way out!
Bigoted Christer was just asking for it, wearing her cross so short…
Is gay marriage even legal in New Mexico?
No.
They had a ‘civil union’, and wanted a ‘wedding photographer’ to shoot them. That’s backdoor ‘purification’ at it’s finest.
I think the proper question is “Does gay marriage exist in New Mexico?” The answer remains the same. Ditto, Louisiana.
And e.coli doesn’t engender attractiveness on it’s way out!
If you are thinking of E. coli H7:0157, then yeah. That shit will kill you or total your kidneys. Regular old E. coli is normal flora that is always in the gut.
Denmark points the way:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Forward!
I mean, it’s just a building, and they marry all sorts of other people there, right?
I just don’t get this – so was the run-up to the refusal a simple question of “will you shoot this same sex wedding” and the photog said no, then the lesbians sued her for saying no? I mean, honestly, I cant think of anything more wrong and ridiculous- if I don’t have the right to refuse to provide my services to someone I don’t like, then I am not free. Its like my argument on Obamacare- the ability to contract OR not to contract is a fundamental principle of both freedom and commerce. What a load of crap- the judges that ruled on and/or upheld this ruling are not fit to be judges.
Matt, The Volokh Conspiracy has several articles about this topic and the legal ramifications thereof.
Update to the solution in search of a problem, or, how an abortion is just an abortion, from Dr. Sowell:
Yellow rodents everywhere cheered.
Matt, that train left the station in ~1965. Stipulate that it’s wrong to refuse to do business with someone because of skin color, etc. As long as the state can’t a) keep someone else from getting the business and b) anyone trying to harm someone else based on doing business gets a date with a rock pile or Old Sparky, depending, that’s all the state should do.
Otherwise, you should be free to let your bigotry cost you money in any way you see fit. Once you’ve abolished freedom of association (or non-association) for any reason, the slope is greased and the push has been applied.
Taking a chance…stopped on the way home for a Chick-fil-A spicy chicken sammich, waffle fries & hold the boogers.
You’ll never look back, jdw. Chic-Fil-A is clean and staffed by wholesome types.
Never been on my radar, leigh, but the spicy was just about right. A goodly-sized portion too; M’Chelle might not think so though, but she could order six.
Liked their condiment selection. Heinz ketchup in handy tubs, not the malodorous leaky plunger-vats of who knows what’s in there or what was the origin. I snagged a couple extra tubs for next time I’m in Logan’s, where there is only naasty Hunts.
Chic-Fil-A is headquartered in OKC, so we have lots of them. Me? I long for Popeye’s which is a real roadtrip from here.
Leigh i think Chic Fil A is still headquartered in Atlanta. And they still are closed on Sunday.
Chick-Fil-A is indeed HQ’d in Atlanta; you can visit the original store.
My bad. I misread an article about it a few months ago.
Huh. I’ll be in Hotlanta next week. Maybe I’ll look ’em up. Or not…there’s a NYY – Braves game that’ll keep me occupied. And trying to keep cool, if it’s possible in that choking asphalt jungle!
Chick-fil-A doesn’t put mayonnaise on ANYTHING. If you want it you grab a packet or 40 and do the evil deed your own damned self.
I respect that.
Is this the return of the mayo wars?
Oo. I see I need to go to Chic-Fil-A sometime.
Wonder where the nearest is.