« Australian Environazis Employ High-Tech Garbage Monitoring | Main | Alicia Keys Promises to Spread Message of Anti-Caucasian Race Hate »
April 14, 2008
Christians Sued for Not Participating in Homosexual Ceremony
Some of us imagine we're self-employed, but we all have the same employer: the Government. We keep only as much of our earnings as it allows us to keep, and we do our jobs in accordance with its orders. A case in point:
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 Christian photographers who refused to participate in the depraved ceremony were forced to pay a litigious lesbian $6,637.94.
To advance its goal of increasing government dependency by undermining the traditional family, the establishment promotes homosexuality. You will assist in this promotion as required. Dereliction of this duty will be regarded as "discrimination" and punished accordingly.
On a tip from Jimbo.
Posted by Van Helsing at April 14, 2008 9:25 AM
It'll never stick. It is time we start flexing our religious freedom muscles and hard. NOW.
Posted by: Anony at April 14, 2008 9:34 AM
Too bad the photographer wasn't muslim. He could've sued THEM for offending his religious beliefs by asking him to participate in their ceremony that offends Allah.
Posted by: conservativeteen at April 14, 2008 9:58 AM
This isn't simply about religious freedom. The unnamed premise is that there are certain groups in society that can force others to do their bidding. They are booted and spurred. It is the creation of an aristocracy, and this is so contrary to the classic view of equality and the democratic ideal that it just blows me away that this kind of thing can happen in America. It goes against everything this country was founded on and is another example of how the Left destroys civilization and creates aristocracies of privilege.
Posted by: Kevin at April 14, 2008 10:00 AM
For all of those that deny that there is a "homosexual agenda", how many photographers are there in Albuquerque or Santa Fe that would have taken the offer of this business? Why was it necessary to put this small business through the ringer, just because they declined?
I seem to recall a small landscaping company in the Houston, TX area getting hammered for the same thing, declining to do landscaping for a male homosexual "couple".
Will it someday come to the point that if a homosexual makes a pass at you and you say "No Thank You", are you going to be fined for sexual discrimination?
This will get worse with the encouragement of Obama or Hillary.
Posted by: on-the-rocks at April 14, 2008 10:46 AM
Why didn't the happy couplers seek a different photographer?
BTW, does New Mexico require gay/lesbian marriages be dissolved under the same divorce laws as hetero marriages? If not, then there is a 14th Amendment issue there.
Posted by: chsw at April 14, 2008 11:45 AM
The "New Mexico Human Rights Commission" managed the case. What the hell is the "New Mexico Human Rights Commission"? Sounds like a shadow government.
Posted by: d at April 14, 2008 5:09 PM
In a sane society, your rights end where they infringe on the rights of others. At one time, a business was considered private property and you could refuse to serve anyone, for any reason because of the RIGHT to prevent people from setting foot on your property. But now we HAVE TO provide goods and services to ANYONE, no matter OBNOXIOUS and ABUSIVE they may be.
This case should be concerned with only three points:
1> Was there an agreement signed by the company?
2> Was advance payment rendered?
3> Was there a "handshake deal" or verbal agreement in private of before a witness?
The first two make the photographers legaly bound to the job, the third point makes the MORALLY bound. If none of the questions are in effect, then the couple and the "New Mexico Human Rights Commission" should be charged with harrasment and sued. Maybe throw in "racketeering" for good measure.
Posted by: KHarn at April 14, 2008 6:19 PM
Turn this case the other way round. Imagine a gay couple of photographers asked to take photos at a church sermon on the punishment for Sodom and Gomorrah.
The church would be sued for even asking, not the other way round. That's 'fairness and non-discrimination' for you.
Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 14, 2008 7:16 PM
I believe that I read that 19 U.S. states have Human Rights Commissions and these same entities have been causing havoc in several Canadian Provinces, where they largely stand up for the grievances of Muslims and homosexuals.
In Canada, these Human Rights Commissions can fine you for offending a "protected species" by quoting scripture. No doubt the Human Rights Commissions here are patterned after their Canadian counterparts.
Posted by: on-the-rocks at April 14, 2008 7:20 PM
The real issue here was that the photographer overtly stated that she did not do 'that' kind of ceremony. Implying/saying that she did not approve of the gay agenda of the participants.
If she had just said "Sorry, I am fully booked that day." then there would have been no harm/no foul. But, she did not. She made the point that she did not approve of the type of ceremony she was being asked to work in.
Now, I am from Albuquerque and New Mexico is a liberal hot bed, in the cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Most of the rest of the state is pretty conservative and pretty sparsely populated. Conservatives are outnumbered by the moonbats in the central Rio Grande valley.
The fact is the photog offended the gay girls and she should have been more circumspect. Imagine had she said that she did not do black weddings.
Posted by: Robohobo at April 14, 2008 9:30 PM
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." Article Four, United States Constitution.
The time may come when citizens of some states will need to take Congress up on its guarantee. "Human Rights Commissions"; who elected them? Who gave them executive, legislative and judicial powers? What recourse do citizens have to their rulings? What just authority have they derived from the consent of the governed?
Posted by: uppitychuck at April 15, 2008 5:09 AM
Robohobo, you missed the point. A business has the right to refuse a customer service, for whatever reason they want, and the customer has the right to tell them to sod off, and use their own free-speech rights to inform other people what they think of that business. They also have the right to refuse to patronise that business again.
They DO NOT have the right to subsequently extort large amounts of money from that business.
Posted by: Archonix at April 15, 2008 6:33 AM