Do Gay Rights Trump the First Amendment?

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


constitution-burning

And if gay rights do indeed trump the First Amendment when it comes to compelling a photographer to photograph a gay wedding, then it would also compel a writer to write about gay marriage or a director to make a movie about gay marriage.

There would essentially be no more First Amendment for anyone engaged in any creative speech that he or she earns a living doing.

“In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.

So she turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography. So far, the studio has lost in the courts.

There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech. I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.

Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices. Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said, and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”

But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.

There is a First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. It should trump any invented right to compel businesses to accept your business.

This goes back to JFK’s invention of a right to be served anywhere leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While people should be served everywhere equally, there is no such right, nor does government have the right to compel such a thing.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act specified public accommodations, such as hotels and lunch counters. And now we somehow end up compelling photogs to take pictures.

The New Mexico Supreme Court depends on the same definition of public accommodation. Is a wedding photographer really a public accommodation?

The Court argued that creative professionals don’t have freedom of speech as long as they offer their services for pay. That’s a roundabout way of saying that the First Amendment is history. If the First Amendment does not apply to creative professionals, then it has no reason to exist.

Professional writers, journalists and artists have more need of First Amendment protection than amateurs do.

  • JKomar

    So that means the the 1st amendment trumps a Civil Rights? That argument was used in the 1960s in the south.

    • A Z

      Ever hear of the Black Wallstreet in Tulsa Oklahoma?

      Yeah, it was a dirty rotten deal, a crime.

      My point is that if you can do it once you can do it again. Greenwood was built up in a discriminatory time. It could have been replicated anywhere. Over time businesses would not want to lose their market share due to a growing black population or some white people taking their business elsewhere. And there would be some. The % would vary by region. It would also grow.

      There are certain businesses that are needed by everyone like transportation, but not restaurants. Let them be exclusionary and let them lose money. It would be a slow trickle at first but things would have changed.

    • Joey

      Actually, the First Amendment doesn’t trump civil rights. It is civil rights. It’s the civil rights of this photographer that are being violated, not the homosexual bully.

      • Mo86

        Absolutely right.

      • JKomar

        So then those who were forced to serve black people against their will in the south had their civil rights violated?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The morality and legality of a thing don’t always align. Some things may be morally right, but still a violation of the law.

          The Civil War was full of violations of civil and legal rights for the greater good. The question is do we still need to continue acting as if the country is in the middle of a civil war and justifying it with the greater good or can we restore the rule of law?

        • Gee

          To this day restaurants state that they have the right to refuse service to anybody.

          That is a business decision

        • guest

          On the left, tolerance is:

          1. Moslems kicking the blind out of taxis and buses
          2. Blacks beating up whites, Asians, and Jews
          3. Forcing businesses to endorse political correctness with threat of imprisonment.

          Race has little to do with dining at a restaurant.

          Homosexuality has much to do with how Christians view marriage, to endorse Creation and to conceive children.

          People change sexuality throughout life, starting and often ending celibate. People cannot change ethnicity.

          Do widowers and singles face discrimination? They lack tax benefits and special privileges, like choosing a foreigner to receive citizenship?

    • Mo86

      Here we go, with the same old tired argument of comparing sexual behavior to skin color. (How insulting to black people this must be!)

      Same-sex “marriage” is not comparable to interracial marriage.

      Skin color is not relevant to marriage.

      Gender is.

      • JKomar

        They are both marriage. How can they not be comparable?

        • guest

          Homosexuality is a behavior. Homosexuals have often change their sexual preference. Blacks cannot change their ethnicity.

          If this is discrimination, is it discrimination against singles to allow more privellages in taxes and immigration than for couples?

          • Mo86

            Exactly right. Notice how you receive no response to this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A long time ago when I first heard about proposals to endorse or allow “gay marriage” my very first thought in that moment was to abolish government recognition of “marriage” and treat it like people who want to “incorporate” their homes. That way sex has nothing to do with it, gender, quantity, nothing.

            And then they have no right to insist we call it marriage. We allow the government to get involved by accepting the incentives. But we don’t want to destroy society by throwing away the incentives for families that need it to raise their kids. Look at what happens in communities that accept public aid and when they have incentives NOT to marry.

            It’s hard not to see an agenda here to destroy the traditional nuclear family. Otherwise they wouldn’t use their “rights” to attack the peace of others. They march in to your business and demand anything they think you might deny, to the extent that thought crimes can be punished because they’ve “outed you” as a “homophobe” because you don’t want to photograph the gay wedding.

            It’s lunacy. And these guys expect to be taken seriously like they care about everyone’s rights. Sure.

        • Mo86

          You’re already starting with the conclusion, that “both are marriage”.

          You need to start with your premise:

          race/color and sexual behavior are the same.

          Race is not relevant to marriage. A black man is the same as a white man. A white woman is the same as a black woman.

          But are you really going to make the argument that gender is not relevant to marriage? Is a man the same as a woman? Is a woman the same as a man? (And I don’t mean just the physical differences.)

          • guest

            The concept of marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and therefore there cannot be gay marriage. Didn’t it used to be called sodomy and have all those anti-sodomy laws been removed from the books? Oh i forgot, this is the US and laws are now meaningless and can be ignored if they aren’t politically correct.

          • Mo86

            Yep. Notice how my question/point about the difference between interracial couples and same-sex couples were completely ignored.

            What’s bizarre is that these same people explode in fury and judgment when you ask them this question:

            If marriage is “anything society decides that it is”, then upon what basis can society deny this supposed right of marriage to any combination of persons or inanimate objects or animals that demands it?

            I’ve asked all these questions again and again when this discussion arises. I do not recall ever once receiving a response. (Other than screaming about how I’m equating homosexuals to pedophiles or whatever – which, obviously, is not what is being done.)

          • tr60

            At one time a black man was not the same as a white. In so many words he was only “3/5″ and had no voting rights, and it was illegal in some states for people of different races to marry outside their race.

            My grandparents had a honeymoon that went on all their married lives, but my grandfather warned me that if you ever end up in court “you’ll find out that marriage is nothing but a contract that decide who’s entitled to what: title to the house, title to the car, title to the farm…”

            Marriage is an agreement between two people. Whether they have love, or sex, or children is up to them. The contract is what the law is recognizing.

        • Mo86

          Please respond to my question. I cannot tell you how many times I have asked this and have been left hanging. Thank you.

        • Habbgun

          Well in my religion which is the Jewish religion they are absolutely not comparable. Marriage in Judaism is between Jew and Jew and how you define race is irrelevant. My pale white features might look more like the Catholic girl down the street but she’s not eligible as a Catholic and the dark girl from Yemen who is Jewish certainly is. If the government tells me that it now will force non-denominational marriage on everyone meaning that an Orthodox Rabbi will have to perform a wedding between Jew and non-Jew that is a violation of religious freedom. The same religious laws that say non-Jew to Jew marriages are not marriages says a homosexual marriage is not marriage. There is a consistency to the religious belief that you refuse to acknowledge. You are putting your definition of marriage ahead of mine. Now you want the law to enforce your definition over mine.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Skin compatibility is not an issue when it comes to creating offspring. Gender compatibility is.

          Sexual behavior is something people can choose. Skin tone is something we have less influence over, and something obvious to any observer. Sexual preferences should not be a public matter.

          They’re not both marriage. Marriage is a union of single man and a single woman.

          A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Sorry, Not fungible. Skin tone is not relevant to any definition of marriage.

    • john spielman

      actually rather than freedom of speech, this is a freedom of RELIGION issue

  • David

    Another utterly clueless piece from Greenfield. It amazes me that Horowitz allows him to continue.

    First, the issue isn’t whether “gay rights” trump the First Amendment. The New Mexico case happened to involve a lesbian couple, but the issue raised by the case applies to all antidiscrimination laws and all categories under those laws. Greenfield only makes it a gay issue because, well, Greenfield is obsessed with gay people. Also, he is probably embarrassed to deal with whether he thinks it would be a First Amendment issue for a photography business to decline all weddings of Black people on creative grounds.

    Second, no statute can “trump” the First Amendment. So the issue isn’t whether antidiscrimination laws, which are statutes, can trump a provision of the Constitution, but rather whether the activities of a photography business in this context fall within the First Amendment at all.

    The New Mexico case involves a business that is providing photography services to the public. This was not a case involving an individual artist who limited his work to a patron or group of patrons, or who uses art to advance a particular message or vision. This is a business that incorporated, enjoyed all the benefits of incorporation, and offered photographic services to the public. At that point, it is little different than Kinko’s and has to serve the public.

    Looking forward to Greenfield’s next homosexual-related post in a few days.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So a photographer who incorporates and offers her services is not an artist? I believe Annie Leibovitz is incorporated. I presume no one will be forcing her to photograph Westboro Baptist Church protests. It’s that First Amendment thing… which really should protect photographers of all sexual orientations.

      • Parque_Hundido

        There is no First Amendment issue here. This is a straightforward case of applying a statewide non-discrimination law to a business offering services to the public. Business is defined and regulated by New Mexico statute. The “artist” thing is a red herring.

        It appears that you choose to not understand this issue. I cannot fathom why anyone has given you a soap box.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Forcing someone to engage in speech isn’t a First Amendment issue?

          So for example there would be nothing wrong with forcing a writer to express an opinion he disagrees with for money as long as he’s defined as a business?

          • JKomar

            So then no one should be forced to serve any group they don’t like in their establishment?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Is speech a public accommodation?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So then no one should be forced to serve any group they don’t like in their establishment?”

            It depends on the establishment and what they don’t like. Facts matter.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. Stay in school Daniel!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Then you cannot compel someone to engage in speech you want by insisting that they are a public accommodation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If the writer offers his services to the public, he could very well be a public accommodation.”

            If the writer offers his fungible services to the public, he *could* be a public accommodation.

            FUNGIBLE!!!

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry, no. That word isn’t relevant to this discussion. Sorry.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Translation; you do not recognize the relevance.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You’re off the rails dear. Sorry.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Honey, do you know what the word fungible means?

          • Parque_Hundido

            Maybe you should ask the New Mexico Supreme Court. They’ll tell you that you’re in the wrong track dear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Maybe you should ask the New Mexico Supreme Court. They’ll tell you that you’re in the wrong track dear.”

            Perhaps a citation is in order from you. I’m certainly not on your track.

            But dearest, do you know what fungible means?

          • Parque_Hundido

            Poor thing, you’re just mad that the court decision didn’t turn out as you would have liked. It’s a sign of maturity to recognize that things aren’t always as you’d like!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Remind me which part of the First Amendment said that it does not apply to those who offer their services to the public.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry Daniel, the First Amendment has to do with government restrictions. It does not apply to commercial contexts. This is constitutional law 101.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So it only applied to the non-commercial press then?

          • Parque_Hundido

            The First Amendment concerns government restrictions on speech. Again, this is a basic legal concept you’ll need to understand if you hope to be a journalist some day. Good luck!

        • Habbgun

          Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. There is definitely a First Amendment issue. The photography is not a fungible good. It represents the expertise of one particular photographer. They are not being denied because they are asking for a good off the shelf and are being discriminated against but that they are demanding this woman’s specific time and effort. Even if this is a business no two photographers will get the same exact photo otherwise we could have robots. The woman has specific beliefs that makes her wish not to be part of an affair. She has every right to bow out. The issue is that marriage is a holy institution. That its essence comes from the Creator and is not man-made. Gay marriage is the belief if government mandates something belief must follow. The photographer made her lines very clear. She will do portraiture which is general but she will not acquiesce her beliefs in a specific manner. The couple is not being inconvenienced. There are outfits specifically looking for their business and those outfits will go to the wedding. In fact they have to. This is a test case to prove government can mandate individual behavior. The very fact it is being filed shows the problem.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. I’m assuming this is some kind of paper written for a high school debate thing, so I’ll try to be clear. The First Amendment has to do with government regulation of speech. This case has to do with a state statute that makes discrimination against specific groups illegal. Marriage statutes, whatever you believe, have nothing to do with any of this. If this isn’t clear, you should ask your teacher for help. Good luck and stay in school!

          • Habbgun

            Discrimination of a group doesn’t include compulsion of someone else to use their time in a specific way especially if it is in violation of their religious values. If the state wants to call something marriage it still can’t say the citizenry have to use their own time and talents in service to the will of the state. A statute defines what the state says something is. It doesn’t say who can be grabbed off the street to make someone else happy. You very well know that the point of the suit is the compulsion of the photographer and not the marriage. That is why you are dancing and snarking and being a good Obamabot. If there is an implied right to privacy (Roe Vs. Wade) and states can not by statute define abortion as murder the actual first amendment applies. End of story.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry, no.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The reason most photographic services are NOT FUNGIBLE is because of the artistic expression involved. If the gays wants a stationary camera set up that fired based on programming or rules, that would be different. I’m sure that’s available.

            It’s not about the First Amendment per se, but it is an encroachment if the artist loses. The reason it’s not more explicitly about the First Amendment is that people like you treat all photographic services as fungible when it’s convenient to your arguments. If a gay photographer protested being asked to shoot something, I’m sure it would be about oppression and cultural supremacy and other BS class victim rhetoric.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. You’ve seized in some definition that appears to be irrelevant to all legislation in this country. You need to ask your teacher for help.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ve seized in some definition that appears to be irrelevant to all legislation in this country.”

            The battle is not even close to finished. Most new laws are written by progressives. It’s time to roll back some of this insanity.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Just focus on basic concepts and verifiable facts. Your opinions do not reflect the facts of the case. Ask your teacher for help dear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh thanks sweetie. I need to get back in for an indoctrination update I guess.

            Tee hee.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Why not just ask your teacher for help. You’re off the rails dear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. There is definitely a First Amendment issue. The photography is not a fungible good.”

            Ahh, thank you.

            “This is a test case to prove government can mandate individual behavior. The very fact it is being filed shows the problem.”

            Exactly. It’s real-world Orwellian.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “This is a straightforward case of applying a statewide non-discrimination law to a business offering services to the public.”

          IT”S NOT A FUNGIBLE SERVICE! NOT FUNGIBLE! Therefore it’s more than mere issues of commerce. The service the client requested DOES NOT EXIST!

          • Parque_Hundido

            The courts see it differently. If you have an issue, take it up with them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gosh, if only there was some process of appeal…

    • Joey

      “The New Mexico case involves a business that is providing photography services to the public.”

      Where on earth did you get that from, David? Business owners don’t sign a paper saying that they will serve anyone who walks in the door. They aren’t obligated to serve “the public.” In saner times, a business person could decline to take a contract for any reason at all and he didn’t have to justify it to the government. Even today, a business person can refuse to serve “the public” for a myriad of reasons. He can refuse to serve members of the public if they are Republicans, or Democrats for that matter. He can refuse to serve members of the public because they belong to the American Legion or they donate to NPR. He can refuse members of the public because he doesn’t like Yankee fans. He can refuse members of the public if they belong to a family he doesn’t like.

      Why do homosexuals have some kind of special right to someone else’s labor?

      Businesses don’t exist to “serve the public.” They exist to make a profit for the business owner.

      • David_in_Houston

        I’m not quite sure how businesses can make a profit without “serving the public” in some fashion. Osmosis?

        New Mexico non-discrimination laws cover (mostly) innate human characteristics: race, gender, sexual orientation, disability… and religion — keeping in mind that religion is a choice. Political affiliation or favorite sports team aren’t included in that list. So, no, the photographer would not be obligated to provide services to NPR.

        “Why do interracial couples have some kind of special right to someone else’s labor?” — That’s what photographers like her were saying 50 years ago. “If God had wanted the races to mix, he wouldn’t have put them on separate continents.” So there’s your religious argument why religious people shouldn’t have to provide services to mixed-race couples. You okay with that? Is the interracial couple asking for “special” rights, or do they simply wanted to be treated exactly the same as everyone else?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          No business is obligated to serve everyone. And the original legal basis for this is public accommodation.

          Is a wedding photographer a motel?

          • JKomar

            When you offer services to the general public, you are a public accommodation.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Here’s the definition of the Civil Rights Act

            TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
            SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

            (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

            (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

            (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

            premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

            (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

            (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

            (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I’m not quite sure how businesses can make a profit without “serving the public” in some fashion. Osmosis?”

          By serving clients, not “the entire public at large.” It’s not a toll road.

      • JKomar

        So then no one should have to serve anyone or any group they don’t approve of?

        • Idl

          Should a black business owner be forced to do business with the KKK?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          It depends on circumstances. Rights to access certain businesses in the public space are more essential than hiring services. That’s for sure. The effect of this alleged photographer discrimination are actually favorable to the potential client. Photographers are not robots.

          When will you stupid Marxists learn that humans are not completely fungible?

    • A Z

      “Looking forward to Greenfield’s next homosexual-related post in a few days.”

      Instead of homosexual you could substitute many words and member of those groups post at times saying “Your essay was wrong you post too many of them”

      So the above essay must be on the right track. I have seen too many posts like your “who doth protest too much”.

    • A Z

      A photographer is not a Kinko’s. A copier machine will reproduce as accurately as it can given machine’s capability an exact copy of whatever is placed in it.

      A photographer has to frame a picture.

      If a photographer is not an artist, then why are we paying more than a few cents per picture?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The guy’s an idiot.

    • A Z

      David,

      I was listening to Charles Butler fill in for Rusty Humphries. He gave examples about how under Richard Daley and Father Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago mayors have cut budgets for the black community and increased those for the gay community.

      Gays trump constituencies trump black constituencies.

      I always wondered the pecking order among the Democrat constituencies. Now I know.

    • A Z

      David,

      One more thing about Charles Butler.

      You brought him to national prominence. You did that.

      It might have been an unintended consequence, but you did it.

      Take a bow.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Also, he is probably embarrassed to deal with whether he thinks it would be a First Amendment issue for a photography business to decline all weddings of Black people on creative grounds.”

      The photographer would need to show where this would conflict with her religious beliefs. We’ll have to see where the evidence leads. Don’t hold your breath. Sexual preferences have nothing to do with skin color and racial theories.

      Don’t be an idiot.

      “At that point, it is little different than Kinko’s and has to serve the public.”

      Too late. OTOH maybe the gays can use the photographer’s photocopier and everyone would be happy.

      Ever held a camera in your hands, retread?

  • EdgarDavidson1981

    Interesting case. Presumably this means that a photographer could also be sued if they refused to, say, photograph a nudist colony.

    • David_in_Houston

      Nudity is not a protected class under non-discrimination laws.

      • A Z

        Neither are polygamists, but both are going to be.

        We can read the auguries.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Why not? If someone sets up a nudist church or claims that nudism is a fundamental part of their gay wedding experience?

        • David_in_Houston

          When New Mexico adds nudity to their non-discrimination laws, then we’ll talk. I hope you enjoy seeing 80-year old women shopping at the grocery store in the nude.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They don’t have to. All a recognized protected group has to do is argue that it’s a vital part of their culture and way of life.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I hope you enjoy seeing 80-year old women shopping at the grocery store in the nude.”

            What does enjoyment of the observer have to do with anything?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        It would be if gays asked for it.

  • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

    The last time I looked, homos were, like the rest of America, Americans — and as such do not have any special “rights.”

    • David_in_Houston

      Being treated exactly the same as everyone else (straight people) is not a “special” right.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Being treated the same as everyone else would mean accepting that a business has the right to refuse your business.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Among many other things.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Asking you to treat me like something that I’m not, say I want you to treat me like a Martian or like Darth Vader, that is a right I don’t actually have. Gays want special rights to be treated according to their feelings about how the world should be rather than how it is.

        For example it takes a man and a woman to create a child. They deny the relevance of this fact. They want a lot of special treatment because they resent the fact that society needs babies and they can’t provide them.

        Gay marriage is a special right distinct from marriage that tends to lead to society perpetuating itself. Gays want special rights that don’t exist. It would be exactly the same as asking for a right to marry my dog.. Not because “gays are dogs” but because it matters how we define marriage when we ask the government to get involved. The government has no interest in my relationship with my dog.

        See?

        • Parque_Hundido

          You might wonder why no court, law or serious person shares your opinion. Food for thought dear. Stay in school, you will not regret it!

          • unionville

            Actually courts, laws and serious people do share his opinion or this discussion wouldn’t be taking place and these lawsuits wouldn’t be continuing.

            Objectivefacts wrote something beautiful in it’s simplicity that even a six year old could understand it. Marriage isn’t just about love or desire. It has a purpose in procreation. Regardless of whether all married men and women have children. Society has a vested interest in their offspring and government has provided certain tax benefits for married folks due to men and women’s natural ability to reproduce. Something homosexuals and lesbians have an inability to provide naturally within the boundaries of their primary relationship.

            Homosexual marriage is an artificial construct. It will never have the value of a heterosexual union. This photographer should not be compelled to participate in the sham.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. All court decisions thus far affirm what I said: no court or serious scholar shares these opinions, which are based on your subjective religious feelings rather than on fact. It doesn’t matter what your religious feelings are, marriage and reproduction are both conceptually and legally unrelated. You’re of course free to have and express your subjective religious feelings, but they cannot and will not form the basis for our secular laws. Sorry, but you’re seriously off the rails here.

          • unionville

            In states that have expanded anti-discrimination laws to include those with abnormal sexual issues. Yes. But it’s been an uphill battle for your side in the, I believe, 29 other states that have had the intellegience to resist that expansion. 

            “marriage and reproduction are both conceptually and legally unrelated” 

            This is the single most ridiculous statement I have seen on this thread. And I’m off the rails?  

            In order to see things your way, one must be a moral relativist which is a religion unto itself.  

            Moral relativists are relativists only in that they believe that right and wrong should be defined relative to their current opinion on the matter. They retain the right to change their view tomorrow and expect their new opinions to be enforced by “evolving” judicial decisions. Hence the importance of judges. 

            Marriage has not evolved to the point that reproduction is irrelevant to the institution. It is still, on the heterosexual side at least, a major component to men and women marrying.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry. If you want to exchange ideas, you’ll need to learn about verifiable facts and actual court cases. Instead, you only have your subjective religious feelings and judgments based on silly superstitions. And you don’t seem to understand the distinction between biology and law. Yes, unfortunately we can only conclude that you’re off the rails! Sorry!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And you don’t seem to understand the fact that law is only viable when it reflects reality, rather than the obsession of the mentally ill with denying reality.

            Biology is reality. Gay marriage isn’t.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry Daniel, but the reality is that I’m right. If you agree with unionville’s religious tendencies and superstitions, that’s fine, but it’s not the basis for an argument in a debate. This is ordinarily taught in high schools, though I don’t know about yours.

          • NoPasaran

            What if the photographer were an atheist? In other words, would THAT matter? No. They are being compelled to provide a service for political reasons, and you are repeating the same endless pedantries because of some sad need for affirmation.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You are correct, it would not matter if the photographer were an atheist. The law is blind with regard to religion: it just doesn’t matter. Atheist or bible thumper, s/he cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. That’s the law. There is no compulsion here except to obey the law.

          • unionville

            This case is hardly over so you may want to temper your arrogance with a little humility. It is going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse the state court’s short sighted decision then no one will be safe from coercian to participate in events that are inconsistant with their beliefs as others on this thread have already stated. Do you think those 9 justices aren’t aware of what’s at stake?

          • Parque_Hundido

            The Supreme Court will not hear this case, ther is no controversy here. Sorry, but your personal religious feelings are not grounds for appeal.

          • unionville

            Keep telling yourself that and maybe…if you think really hard, the Supreme Court will pass this case by. Fat chance. There are people on this board who have already stated very well that this case is not an ordinary case of refusing to take a picture of someone because that someone is lesbian. She is a photographic artist who retains tight control over the work she does. It is forcing her, as an artist, to express through pictures a point of view she does not agree with. It has profound implications for any artististic expression. Yea, the Supreme court is going to pass this by.

            I have a dream too. My dream is that WHEN this case gets to the Supreme Court, that in addition to ruling in favor of Elaine Huguenin, they rule that broadening anti-discrimination laws to include sexual behaviors, is not only unnecessary, but it is an odious violation of all Americans rights.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I know that you want to believe these things but that’s not enough to make them true. As I’ve said, your personal, subjective religious feelings are not enough to constitute grounds for appeal. This case is only controversial among a tiny minority of ultra extremist right wing fringe groups. They don’t exactly have a good track record and they are correctly seen as wing nuts.

          • unionville

            “I know that you want to believe these things but that’s not enough to make them true”

            This can also be said of you. I know that you want the last word. So change things up and make it something worthwhile.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I don’t think I really have more to add here, nothing beyond what the NM Supreme Court actually said. You need to stick to externally verifiable facts and rely less on hope, your religious feelings and superstition. Hope this helps!

          • Nottaturk

            Quite obviously you are obsessed with other peoples “personal religious feelings” or beliefs, and judging from this thread, you spend more time trolling for “a tiny minority of ultra extremist right wing fringe” to hurl your smug “intellect” at than what we’re worth.

            Your activist allies have stacked a few courtrooms with your fellows, and you claim a great victory when the rights of someone to exercise their Constitutionally delineated rights are quelled, simply because their views are based in a Constitutionally protected institution which opposes your own.

            So then, where do you find your authority to declare your morality superior, and upon what do you base that morality?

            Remember we’re not talking about homosexual marriage here, even though that is the weak point you are clinging to, but the right of a business owner to name terms of a contract where in she may enter of her own free will.

            I await with baited breath for your condescending reply eminating from all that fiery intellect.

          • John Hardy

            with 84% of the world being religious, you are basically saying that you are “enlightened” and one of the only smart people on the planet. The rest of the 5,880,000,000 are just idiots and only you and your cohorts have the real answers which is basically based off of you guys mantra “if it feels good, do it”. The basis for human life and any life on teh planet has one primary purpose and one biological purpopse only, which is to continue the species. Homosexual’s are an aboration of this fact. In the animal kingdom this trait would be lost be being bred out of the populations because a homosexual tendency in genetics could not be continued on in the bloodline. There is not one factual study that says homosexuality is genetic or a “born with behavior” just empherical evidence that can be interpreted either way and usually by marginal scientists at best. Even they wont 100% ascribe to the genetic theory. It is a choice. If someone wants to be married to someone of the samesex, fine. Thats their choice. But I dont have to like it, accept it, approve of it, or anyting else just as you dont have to subscribe to someone elses belief in God, Buddah, Scientology, or the Bigfoot. If someone doesnt want to serve you, let your money do the walking and pay someone else to do it. If it were me I would take the fine, time in jail and sell the business along with a “shove it” sign on top of their wedding cake as a gift. I dont even consider myself religious though I was raised in a VERY conservative family. The fact that you people seem to want to FORCE your world and social views on the majority of everyone else is disgusting. It reeks of selfrightousness and “little” man syndrome. And whats worng with religion? Liberals teach “if it feels good do it”, make eveyone else accept and like it, the WANTS (not needs) of the few outweight the wants and needs of everyone else. Religion teaches acceptance, humility, family, community, others over self, compassion, etc.. Why wouldnt you want those traits in your society? You dont. You want our country to be a social cesspool like Europe. I have been to Europe on multiple occasions and even they think you Liberals are idiots. Funny how that works.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No one cares about what you accept or reject. It is your right to choose the behavior of a right wing religious extremist even if I categorically reject all of your ideas. Our Constitution matters more than your claims based on your poor math skills and your misunderstanding of evolution. Sorry you find that objectionable. This is my country. If you can’t accept that, there are alternatives. Consider them.

          • John Hardy

            As someone who defends your very ability to express your rights, I would say it is more mine than yours. My personal beliefs are that if you want to be gay, I dont care. if you want to marry another guy or girl, I dont care. I have a gay brother, one of my best friends is a lesbian. I could care less about anyones choices. But just name it what it is. A CHOICE!! You dont get to bend the rules and laws to fit your CHOICE. I am in no way a right wing anything. I am nonreligious and havent been in a church in about 15 years. You only counter what I say with an ill formed opinion which as usual states zero facts (leftist play #32) and if there would be a fact there, I am sure it would come straight from wikipedia. In your universe the opinion of the very few trumps the wants or rights of everyone else. there are already plenty of nations that are set up just as you would like them to be. One is right north of us. Feel free to move there. You believe in the typical, because you FEEL something, that makes it true. It doesnt. It yours and tiny percent of the worlds populations opinion of how things should be. Your side just happens to be louder than the majority. Yelling louder than someone else doesn’t make you right. It just makes you the asshole in the room.

          • John Hardy

            are you basically saying that if someone doesnt accept a left side ideology that they are bigots or right wing extremists? Based of multiple studies NOT put together by either the far right or far left, the main stream opinion is that gay marriage is NOT acceptable. So in your humble opinion, then middle of the road people are “extremist” but the 5% is mainstream? And as for the irrelevant math point.. 7,000,000,000 * 84% is actually 5,880,000,000 as I stated… you might want to invest in a newer calculator. You can also google the word calculator and one will show up for you to use.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Also, may is suggest you work on your writing skills? The above screed is barely legible to English speakers.

          • John Hardy

            my writing skills are not relevant to the conversation and your mention of them would be the standard moronic attempt to take the conversation in another direction. Leftist play #76.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You might wonder why no court, law or serious person shares your opinion.”

            I’ve never posed as Darth Vader for one thing. The second thing is that American law is not frozen.

            Keep your smugness. It will lead to bigger laughs in the future.

            “Gays” should be protected from persecution and unlawful discrimination like all others. They should not be a privileged class. And obviously the distinctions between lawful and unlawful discrimination have to be further refined due to unhinged lunatics like you and irrational activist judges, not to mention the cultural hegemony of the left in certain locations.

            But that’s why there are so many avenues to pursue correction.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Stay in school dear, it will give you more opportunities after high school. I don’t understand your Darth Vader comment, maybe that’s what high school kids are thinking about these days, I don’t know. I can assure you that homophobia is decidedly uncool and will limit your opportunities once you’re out of high school. No one wants a bigot for a coworker! Keep up your studies, you won’t regret it!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I can assure you that homophobia is decidedly uncool…”

            Can you help me pick an outfit that like, coordinates really well?

          • Parque_Hundido

            With prison orange?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Sweety, if that’s what you wear, I’m all for it. Thinking for myself will just lead to rail departure. And I’ll be declared homophobic and unpopular. Can’t have that.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Wouldn’t it be better if you studied harder and learned to write? Otherwise, people like you end up wearing prison orange. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think you already know this.

          • John Hardy

            in this thread… you are implying that if someone is not ok with someone who is homosexual, they have a phobia and are afraid of homosexuals. Maybe panic attacks ensure.. who knows. and it is obviously “uncool”. I would imagine that if the poster simply doesnt care for homosexuality and doesnt treat that person any differently, then there isnt an issue.

    • JKomar

      What “special” right is being asked for by homosexuals? Keep in mind that a “special” right is one given ONLY to them and not to other people.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Can the Westboro Baptist Church compel a gay photographer to photograph their protest?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Good luck with that.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Who is this author? Is this some kind of amateur forum? He doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment at all. His understanding of public accommodation appears to be just as bad. Is this just an extended homophobic rant?

    • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

      No, you’re ranting.

      • Parque_Hundido

        No, I just didn’t realize that this was some kind of student publication.

        • Mo86

          No, you just have nothing to offer other than silly, childish personal attacks.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I haven’t attacked anyone. You need to learn to speak about ideas rather than just repeating your usual childish retorts.

          • Mo86

            I HAVE spoken about ideas, (And I’m STILL waiting for my main comment to go through. I don’t know why it hasn’t.)

            YOU are the one with the childish retorts.

            Good grief, projection is such a frightening thing sometimes.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, sorry, I haven’t seen any ideas in your posts, just childish behaviour. You won’t do well in school if you continue like this. Sorry!

          • Mo86

            (TEST)

          • Mo86

            More projection. Here’s my original comment, since I have no energy to scroll through all these comments to see if it was finally posted. You will just ignore it and say I don’t have any ideas to offer.

            ****

            “There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: The couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech.”

            See, this is part of the problem. We must distinguish between the rights of individuals and of groups. Individuals have the right to be treated equally. But groups do not – especially when the groups *are not the same*!

            ***

            The point in this case (and others like it) is that the business owner is not discriminating against individuals. They simply do not wish to photograph an event. That is a key difference that people don’t seem to understand. Or rather, they choose to act as though they do not understand. It’s the same situation as perhaps a bed and breakfast owner not wishing to rent to unmarried couples. They have that right. Why should they be forced to violate their conscience? It’s nothing personal against the individuals. And couples have the right to go anywhere else. It’s the same principle.

            ***

            Let’s get this… I was going to say “straight”, but I do not wish to be taken as joking about this, because I am not.

            So let’s be clear:

            Homosexuals have the same exact rights I do as a heterosexual woman. They have the same rights everyone does under the Constitution. There is no ban on same-sex “marriage”. Homosexuals have been able to hold their ceremonies, enter into legal agreements and live freely as they choose. No one’s stopping them.

            The argument about being denied the right to marry whom they love is just emotionalism, based in nothing. No one can marry just anyone they love. There are all kinds of restrictions on who can marry and whom they can marry.

            Everyone has the same right (if it’s even really a “right”) when it comes to marriage. They can marry one person, of the opposite sex, who is of legal age and standing to do so. No one can marry just anyone they choose. That goes for me as a heterosexual woman just like it goes for homosexuals. I can’t marry a man if he’s already married. I can’t marry a man if he’s under the legal age limit for that state. I can’t marry a close relative. I can’t marry three people of any combination. Emotion is irrelevant to all of these instances, is it not? So why is it only homosexuals making their arguments based on emotions?

            ***

            “There would essentially be no more First Amendment for anyone engaged in any creative speech that he or she earns a living doing.”

            Exactly right. That’s the point. Homosexuals want to silence those who disagree with their lifestyle. They want to bully them by law. If this means their business is destroyed, so be it.

            This is about forcing social acceptance of their behavior upon those who disagree – and by force of law, if necessary.

            What I wish is that homosexuals would be honest and simply say so. I’d have a lot more respect for them if they did. But instead, they’ve chosen to frame this as an issue about rights and discrimination.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’ve already used some variation of childish as an insult a dozen times.

            Might want to switch it up.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry Daniel, but you’d do well to focus on verifiable facts and pay less attention to some of the crazies your school project seems to attract. Keep studying, you may yet be able to become a journalist.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            School, childish, teacher, dear, etc…

            Very repetitive. I realize it’s an attempt at appearing superior, but it actually stinks of insecurity.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Now Daniel, you’re not going to learn unless you’re open to constructive criticism. This is obviously not a strong piece. There are too few verified facts, way too much opinion and a lot of legal analysis that is frankly divorced from reality. Learn to accept criticism and your writing will improve, I promise!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Considering that I just offered you constructive criticism….

          • Parque_Hundido

            Looks like you’re still not listening. You won’t get to be a grown up journalist until you learn to listen. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And you won’t get to be a grown up troll until you listen… sorry that’s just the way it is.

            I’m only trying to help you

          • Parque_Hundido

            Daniel, with that attitude you’re never going to be a journalist. You need to be open to constructive criticism in order to move beyond this type of article. I know it sounds harsh, but this piece is amateurish and comes across as juvenile. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s not like you haven’t heard this before.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The troll has spoken. We must submit to his authority.

  • Mo86

    “There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: The couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech.”

    See, this is part of the problem. We must distinguish between the rights of individuals and of groups. Individuals have the right to be treated equally. But groups do not – especially when the groups *are not the same*!

    ***

    The point in this case (and others like it) is that the business owner is not discriminating against individuals. They simply do not wish to photograph an event. That is a key difference that people don’t seem to understand. Or rather, they choose to act as though they do not understand. It’s the same situation as perhaps a bed and breakfast owner not wishing to rent to unmarried couples. They have that right. Why should they be forced to violate their conscience? It’s nothing personal against the individuals. And couples have the right to go anywhere else. It’s the same principle.

    ***

    Let’s get this… I was going to say “straight”, but I do not wish to be taken as joking about this, because I am not.

    So let’s be clear:

    Homosexuals have the same exact rights I do as a heterosexual woman. They have the same rights everyone does under the Constitution. There is no ban on same-sex “marriage”. Homosexuals have been able to hold their ceremonies, enter into legal agreements and live freely as they choose. No one’s stopping them.

    The argument about being denied the right to marry whom they love is just emotionalism, based in nothing. No one can marry just anyone they love. There are all kinds of restrictions on who can marry and whom they can marry.

    Everyone has the same right (if it’s even really a “right”) when it comes to marriage. They can marry one person, of the opposite sex, who is of legal age and standing to do so. No one can marry just anyone they choose. That goes for me as a heterosexual woman just like it goes for homosexuals. I can’t marry a man if he’s already married. I can’t marry a man if he’s under the legal age limit for that state. I can’t marry a close relative. I can’t marry three people of any combination. Emotion is irrelevant to all of these instances, is it not? So why is it only homosexuals making their arguments based on emotions?

    ***

    “There would essentially be no more First Amendment for anyone engaged in any creative speech that he or she earns a living doing.”

    Exactly right. That’s the point. Homosexuals want to silence those who disagree with their lifestyle. They want to bully them by law. If this means their business is destroyed, so be it.

    This is about forcing social acceptance of their behavior upon those who disagree – and by force of law, if necessary.

    What I wish is that homosexuals would be honest and simply say so. I’d have a lot more respect for them if they did. But instead, they’ve chosen to frame this as an issue about rights and discrimination.

    • Avrum

      Parque-Hundido—which apparently is Albanian for “Smug Something or Other With a Bad Case of Repetition Compulsion”–fails to notice (perhaps because it was admiring itself in homeroom rather than studying—is that laws are obeyed only as long as their benefits outweigh their costs. Laws based on coercion are rarely experienced as legitimate, except by persons whose lives are clever imitations of sheep. The rest of us—when pusged far enough—are doing to do things that the Hundido of the world will not much like. The law is backed by force, dear, and so is resistance.

  • guest

    Political machines create conflict with any issue not to improve other’s lives, but to destroy any opposition. They will use any ridiculous issue affecting only a small percent of the population to keep their power and continue their theft no matter who they hurt.

  • Gee

    If Ms. Huguenin refused to film any other type of wedding – she would not be required to do so. So this is obviously a case of discrimination against Ms. Huguenin.

    This is her business and she has the right to turn down business if she so desires

    • Fifty Ville

      There’s a little sign in just about every restaurant I know – “The Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone”.

      Why aren’t restaurants persecuted for that?

      • Parque_Hundido

        If they ever tried to enforce it, they would be. Some restaurants put up signs that say “Jesus is Lord” or “Santa Claus is coming”. It doesn’t mean that these things are in any way true.

        • Fifty Ville

          Do you mean if they ever tried to implement it, that restaurants would be persecuted? Nonsense, it’s put into effect every day all over the country with the approval of local and state governments because anything else would be a surrender to anarchy. Some circumstances might be a little dubious, but the balance of judgment swings to the restaurant because those who complain have the opportunity to just go someplace else. Same thing with photographer; anyone taking offense has literally an endless variety of other photographers to work with. The photographer’s personal integrity is preserved and the complainants simply go elsewhere.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What the sign does is warn people that the burden of proof is on them if they get ejected and file a lawsuit. Generally management does have a right to eject people but this right is limited today by law.

          • Parque_Hundido

            The restaurant could be prosecuted (under criminal statutes) or they could be the targets of a civil suit.

        • Habbgun

          Your court system is imaginary also. The day their rulings are not enforced is the day they are irrelevant. You seem to think when they say something it doesn’t just have the force of law it has the force to change reality. The day the rulings won’t be enforced is the day everyone thinks they are out of their minds. It’s important to at least make an argument and not say childish this or childish that. You can at least acknowledge this is a test case and a set up. You can at least answer the question whether you think this would happen to a Moslem photographer.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, you’re just wrong dear. This was not a test case, not in any way. Did you read the decision? Have you read the statute? In legal terms, this case is uncomplicated and uncontroversial. You need to get in touch with reality, especially if you think the courts are imaginary. Based on your posts, your future does not look bright!

          • Habbgun

            The reason we call slobs like you Obamabots is you can’t even make a legitimate point. You either snark or say well its the law and when we don’t like the law we overturn it and when we like the law we keep it fair or not but no matter what you do you never have a real answer to a real question. It shows a real fear of being alive.

            If you read the article above. ACLU said that they perfectly understood the woman’s point of view they just felt that gay rights trumped it. That’s subjective. In my view religious freedom of an individual is a right and equal to so-called gay rights especially when it means absolute compulsion. If I was the photographer I would take the money make the best shots I could and if anyone asks I would laugh in their face and say Hashem says what marriage is and this is just a little school pageant for the Parque-Hundidos of the world. I’m not as nice as this poor woman. They wouldn’t take me to court though. They found someone they could bully because that person wanted to do the right thing. She wanted to be nice and they took it as weakness. I would have told them to their face that their money is green but the marriage is a farce and taken full payment up front, gotten my equipment made nice pictures and farted in their general direction as I left. All professionally of course. Same reason people like you wouldn’t have tried this with a Moslem photographer. Now back to your pretend marriage and your pretend rights. See if you can get real cops to force this woman to take the pictures. That would be a true travesty.

          • http://www.facebook.com/LostInSpaceMan Steve Armstrong

            And your answer shows the exact lack of true moral character we’ve all come to expect from the so called “right”!

          • Habbgun

            Moral character does not require anyone to be a doormat. That’s the Left’s game. Their reasoning goes this way “You say you are religious and moral but when I explicitly take advantage of you, you don’t act that way. You’re a hypocrite”. Morality is treating a decent person like a decent person and a thief like a thief. If I do so I am moral not a hypocrite.
            These lesbians saw this woman’s willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness and slapped her with a nasty court case rather than taking her up on her offer or leaving her alone. You love that. Like I said I won’t be making that mistake with them or with you. Lawfare is for cowards and it suits you quite well.

          • Parque_Hundido

            But let’s face it, you’re not likely to be employed anytime soon, are you? I know it’s fun to imagine yourself challenging people like me, but if you’re honest, you’ll admit that this isn’t very likely in the near future.

          • Parque_Hundido

            The reason you call others names is that you get frustrated by your own inability to articulate an argument and you end up lashing out. This is also why you cannot stick to verifiable facts and instead rely on your feelings, opinions and superstitions. You must move beyond this if you want to make something of yourself. Good luck!

  • Martin Freye

    It is not possible to have a wedding between homosexuals.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Obviously not.

      But liberalism insists on manufacturing its own reality.

    • Mo86

      To be more accurate, homosexuals can have what they call “wedding” ceremonies, but it is not a marriage because marriage is a particular thing. Marriage is not whatever you think it is. That is what people cannot and will not understand.

  • Mo86

    “There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: The couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech.”

    See, this is part of the problem. We must distinguish between the rights of individuals and of groups. Individuals have the right to be treated equally. But groups do not – especially when the groups *are not the same*!

    ***

    The point in this case (and others like it) is that the business owner is not discriminating against individuals. They simply do not wish to photograph an event. That is a key difference that people don’t seem to understand. Or rather, they choose to act as though they do not understand. It’s the same situation as perhaps a bed and breakfast owner not wishing to rent to unmarried couples. They have that right. Why should they be forced to violate their conscience? It’s nothing personal against the individuals. And couples have the right to go anywhere else. It’s the same principle.

    ***

    Let’s get this… I was going to say “straight”, but I do not wish to be taken as joking about this, because I am not.

    So let’s be clear:

    Homosexuals have the same exact rights I do as a heterosexual woman. They have the same rights everyone does under the Constitution. There is no ban on same-sex “marriage”. Homosexuals have been able to hold their ceremonies, enter into legal agreements and live freely as they choose. No one’s stopping them.

    The argument about being denied the right to marry whom they love is just emotionalism, based in nothing. No one can marry just anyone they love. There are all kinds of restrictions on who can marry and whom they can marry.

    Everyone has the same right (if it’s even really a “right”) when it comes to marriage. They can marry one person, of the opposite sex, who is of legal age and standing to do so. No one can marry just anyone they choose. That goes for me as a heterosexual woman just like it goes for homosexuals. I can’t marry a man if he’s already married. I can’t marry a man if he’s under the legal age limit for that state. I can’t marry a close relative. I can’t marry three people of any combination. Emotion is irrelevant to all of these instances, is it not? So why is it only homosexuals making their arguments based on emotions?

    ***

    “There would essentially be no more First Amendment for anyone engaged in any creative speech that he or she earns a living doing.”

    Exactly right. That’s the point. Homosexuals want to silence those who disagree with their lifestyle. They want to bully them by law. If this means their business is destroyed, so be it.

    This is about forcing social acceptance of their behavior upon those who disagree – and by force of law, if necessary.

    What I wish is that homosexuals would be honest and simply say so. I’d have a lot more respect for them if they did. But instead, they’ve chosen to frame this as an issue about rights and discrimination.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Stay in school Daniel. The First Amendment has nothing to do with state statutes regulating access to commerce. This kind of writing is okay for a college paper like this, but not for a real publication.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Stay in school Daniel. The First Amendment has nothing to do with state statutes regulating access to commerce.”

      The government should not be involved in every transaction. It must show why it has authority to intervene. Nobody is blocking access to commerce. This photographer is emotionally incapable of providing the specialized service the client asked for. That should be obvious to everyone and it is. This is about making a point that doesn’t actually need to be made. It’s about cultural warfare.

      • Parque_Hundido

        That’s you little opinion. The courts in New Mexico see things very differently. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Don’t temp me. You’d hate it if I did.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Font at all. The state Supreme Court has ruled, so I’m guessing you’ll fail.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If only there was a higher authority. I guess I should give up.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Don’t give up! Stay in school!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK honey, but I’m still waiting with baited breath for your fashion advice.

          • Parque_Hundido

            School uniforms would be best for you. Certainly better than the prison orange you’ll wear if you don’t stick to your studies and finish high school!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I take it you’re pointing me in this direction:

            http://www.gurleyauctions.com/images/030109germanuniform4.jpg

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m trying to help you finish high school and avoid prison. If you’re lucky, you may even learn to write a proper sentence.

  • shevmonster

    I think this is stupid. I cannot imagine why I would want someone who hates me photographing my wedding in the first place. These sorts of lawsuits are incredibly stupid because they are so incredibly self-defeating for the whole gay rights movement, and they are also incredibly rare, which just shows that the right will be a big cry baby about any tiny example of discrimination against them, whereas they love to heap as much discrimination upon others as they can.

    This Lesbian couple is as misguided as the photographer: the photographer thinks she is a loving Christian by hating her neighbor, and the Lesbian couple thinks it is fighting for civil rights by punishing someone for hating them. We (gays and Lesbians) would be so much better off if the fringe/militant gay and Lesbian community would go away and stop filing these sorts of lawsuits.

    There are millions of gays and Lesbians who want to marry in this country, and so far there have been 2 lawsuits filed by Lesbian couples for failing to provide service (one Inn in Vermont and one photographer in New Mexico). Because these two stupid couples filed these stupid, frivolous lawsuits, now the right has talking points, and millions are being denied their rights because of it. It’s stupid people like the ones who filed these lawsuits who prevented us from all having equal rights long ago.

    • guest

      More than likely they sought this out and targeted the photographer on purpose.
      This epitomizes the current public advocacy of the entire left. They raise petty grievances to distract from their theft.

    • Mo86

      “I think this is stupid. I cannot imagine why I would want someone who hates me photographing my wedding in the first place.”

      Please demonstrate to me where anywhere in the story it says or in any way implies this photographer hates anyone?

  • c0mm0ncenz

    The issue isn’t really that gays want to get married. They could have civil unions and still get the financial benefits. The issue is that this is a war to them; they want to fundamentally change the govt, morals and society of the US. I base this on a discussion with a lesbian I know well. She would not discuss the issue in a rational and legalistic way, but seemed to want to rub her disdain for my morals and Biblical objections in my face. The photographer should be able to turn down any business for any reason. She’s not the only photographer in town. The couple in question indeed hired someone else and only wanted to punish this photographer. Is the goal of revenge now more important than freedom of conscience? Or, does the US no longer value freedom of conscience?

  • GrantLV

    David in Houston, and other bigots, lets imagine a scenario where a huge megachurch develops in your city. It’s members believe that all men must be clean shaven according to their religious beliefs. This church grows and thrives until half the businesses in town are owned by members. They will not do business with men who are not clean-shaven. What will you do? When you need a hardware store you would have to call a store to see whether or not they will sell you a hammer. Or you could shave, unless that is against YOUR religion. Do you see why we need laws to say if you are serving the public, you must serve ALL of the public.
    Finally, most gay people are gay because they discovered at puberty, like you, that they were attracted to certain people. We are not gay because it’s fun, kinky, we hate God, or we like to make others uncomfortable. We are gay because that is a basic part of ourselves, just as your sexuality is a basic part of you. To deny that part of ourselves would be just as hurtful as it would be for you to deny your sexuality. In our struggle to gain rights, we only ask for equality. We don’t want to be superior, because we are not superior. We are equal, and we deserve as much respect and right to happiness as any other American.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It would no doubt be irritating but these people have a right not to do business with me.

      I have no right to compel them to do business with me.

      The same way you may want to date someone, but you have no right to compel them to do so.

      Human relationships of all sorts in a free society should be based on mutual consent, not compulsion.

      • Parque_Hundido

        You’re confusing the world you want with the world we have. Sorry.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The photographer did not “refuse to do business with” the gays. She refused to perform a service that is not available because she is incapable. Not all services are fungible. The photographer offered other services, just not the one they wanted because…it is not available from her.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “We are not gay because it’s fun, kinky, we hate God, or we like to make others uncomfortable. We are gay because that is a basic part of ourselves, just as your sexuality is a basic part of you.”

      That’s your view and you have no right to thrust that on others. Just as others have no right to thrust their sexual preferences on you. That is where you should focus your energy if you think you are harmed by the “hetero” community or society.

      Nobody but nobody would care if a gay photographer declined to shoot a hetero wedding. Seriously. Nobody. Please think about it.

      “We don’t want to be superior, because we are not superior. We are equal, and we deserve as much respect and right to happiness as any other American.”

      I know you believe that you are consider yourself equal, but you have a delusional idea about “straight privilege” and you envy some kind of equality based on that envy rather than on reality. In the end what you ask for makes you superior, not equal.

  • Habbgun

    Glad to see this is an active discussion. It is also interesting to see the people who don’t like the article in any way shape or form are not addressing the problem.

    Parque says it is state statute end of story. Well that means every law is perfect or we know exactly what it means even till they get to court. Obviously that isn’t so. The law is being used to compel a woman to pack her equipment, travel to a wedding, take photographs for a ceremony she doesn’t believe is real and doesn’t want other people to think she regards it as real. Then repack her equipment and leave She is quite right to refuse because it violates her religious beliefs about marriage. Whether the state says black is white doesn’t matter. She is acting under compulsion. If she doesn’t take pictures the lesbians like does she give the money back? (she was compelled after all) or do we file a hate crime? The other position is that people are bigots and their religious beliefs are just tacked on excuses. That is not even an argument. That’s just blowing off steam.

    Finally does anyone really believe this law will be fairly applied? Does anyone think these same women will go to a mosque and ask who their favorite photographer is and sue that photographer when he refuses? By the way I speak Obamabot so I already know the reply (T-Bagger now talks islamaphobia. No like brown people,loloololololol.) Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way care to answer?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      They’re looking for “social justice.” Subconsciously they believe this is “fair” to target Christians because “it was the Christians” that persecuted them or caused society to reject them.

      They also on some level know that Muslims are also considered class victims by their leftist comrades, which means the fight would not be easily won. And I am sure that fear is probably a factor and underneath it all they are just as racist or bigoted as anyone else if not more so. How can one believe these ridiculous theories about rigid class in our society without being bigoted, even if that bigotry is cloaked in stealth paternalism?

    • Parque_Hundido

      Sorry, but you’re wrong. Again. The law was reviewed by the state Supreme Court. It appears that you do not like the result. Sour grapes much? You’d be better off if you paid attention and stuck to verifiable facts.

  • lhfry

    Allowing homosexuals’ demands for “special rights” to be termed “civil rights” was the first mistake. All future arguments about their demands are then on their turf.
    I’m still waiting for someone to tell me which civil rights homosexuals have been denied.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Does the photographer have to do a stellar job or will the results if they aren’t up to expectations also wind up in the court as hate crimes?

  • Daniel

    “This goes back to JFK’s invention of a right to be served anywhere
    leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While people should be served
    everywhere equally, there is no such right, nor does government have the
    right to compel such a thing.”

    Actually, what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says is that you can’t be denied service on the basis of your race, gender, national origin, etc. It does not say you have a “right to be served anywhere”, it says you have a right not to be *refused* service because of racism, sexism, etc. There is a difference. Businesses can still refuse service to individuals for plenty of reasons, just not those.

    Also, government clearly has the right to compel businesses not to discriminate. It’s exercised that right for decades. So do all 50 states. Each of them now has state anti-discrimination laws which mirror the Civil Rights Act in this regard.

    Where does the First Amendment provide the freedom to operate a business in whatever manner you choose? It doesn’t. Businesses are legal entities, they are and always have been required to comply with various state and federal laws and regulations, and unlike individuals, they cannot have religious beliefs or biases, because *they are legal entities and not people*.

    Professional artists have First Amendment rights. They are permitted to create what they wish and their expression is not being censored in any way, shape, or form. They can go on and on all they want about how much they don’t like homosexuals or approve of gay marriage, if they want. No law is stopping them from doing so. But if they *hold themselves out as providing commercial services*, they can’t *refuse to provide those commercial services to only some people*. If someone advertises themselves as a “wedding photographer” available for hire, then anyone should be able to hire them to produce “wedding photographs”. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, interracial, straight, gay, whatever. There is a huge difference between a person saying what you disapprove of, and the *actions* taken by a *business* to advertise services and then refuse to provide them to only some individuals based on discrimination. What you’re talking about has nothing to do with speech at all, really.