Court Rules Christian Photographers Must “Compromise their Religious Values” for Gay Wedding

Say goodbye to your freedom of religion

Say goodbye to your freedom of religion

The First Amendment. It was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

Why must we “compromise our values” to accommodate clashing values. Why can’t the people acting out their imaginary wedding compromise their values instead by leaving photographers who don’t want their business alone?

Why is the need of two lesbians to have a wedding photographers more compelling than Freedom of Religion?

Isn’t that freedom what the nation is about? If we had wanted a system that would force people to compromise their values because the state decided they should, why even bother with a revolution?

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

But it’s not the Huguenins who squeezed out the lesbian couple. It’s the lesbians who squeezed out the Huguenins.

Under the existing scheme, the lesbian couple had the right to hire anyone who would take their business and the Huguenins had the right to accept anyone’s business.

Under the new scheme, the lesbian couple get to compel a wedding photographer to perform for them while the Christians lose their religious freedom.

They’re the ones who have no more space left. And that is why gay rights is such a basic threat to the civil rights of everyone in the long run.

“The New Mexico Human Rights Act does not violate the photographer’s free-speech rights, the court concluded, because it “does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.”

Ah but it does.

Gay rights is a government-mandated message. That is why it has special protection.

One of the more hilariously absurd passages in Judge Bosson’s twisted ruling is that the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act which protects the right of freedom of religion applies only to government agencies, but not to the courts.

Meaning that Justice Bosson is free to compel you to violate your religion.

  • Jakareh

    Judges like this should at the very least be removed from the bench with no pension and no severance payment.

    • beezwaxing

      For federal judges, it’s usually called impeachment, but that is sooo not going to happen with you know who in charge.

  • VHG1

    The cure is to counter sue the two who filed a complaint, then use the biz laws in the state which do not require that “all jobs be accepted”! They should file a complaint with the state bar for judicial review of this idiot judge

    • tickletik

      No, the cure is to have hundreds of thousands of Americans, screaming for the bastards head in the streets. Sociopaths do not care about right or wrong, or argument. For them, only force means anything. Put thousands of people in the streets threatening to tear it all down and they will pay attention. Otherwise, they will smile with amusement at how adorable you are.

    • tickletik

      And that’s another thing. Stop being polite. Since they think it’s OK to enslave us, there is no point in treating them like civilized human beings any more than we would treat Nazi or Communist scum as human. Start calling them d**es and f***ots.

    • laura rubin

      a small business can refuse any job, no questions asked. no reason. all they have to say is that they are booked, something came up, & cancel. i worked as a photographer, & didnt take all jobs that were offered. small businesses have also turned me down for requests. housepainters have said the job is too small, or they dont have the help, & they are busy w/ big projects. SO, now i can say they were sexist? or racist? now the govt regulates this? COUNTER SUE!!!

      • moneekwa

        exactly. i don’t even agree with the photogtraphers’ stance on homosexual unions, and think they are misguided, BUT they SHOULD be allowed to turn down a job. their mistake was saying it was their religion, instead of saying “we have a prior commitment” or “we are unavailable for that event”. i turn down jobs all the time. whatever. they probably should counter sue, because this is unfair and unconstitutional.

        i think gay militants deliberately seek out Christian businesses, so “be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves” and don’t hand them the ammo to sue you with. it has to be a militant action. WHY would you want a photographer who doesn’t agree with your event and vehemently doesn’t want to be there, to photograph it? THOSE pix oughta come out GREAT! same goes for bakeries and B&Bs they try to hire, then sue. by now we should see there’s a pattern, so be smart and decline politely. you have a right to turn away a job for plenty of reasons, or no reasons.

        • laura rubin

          i thought small businesses can turn down jobs? as i said they do it all the time, no questions asked. this is NTO about religion, it is about small business freedom. i believe the photographers have a good case. i hope someone like micheal savage can help them w/legal fees. (being a former photographer myself, i have an interest in this). lesson to be learned for small business: keep your mouth shut about religion. no one cam prove you are “booked” for 6 months etc.

  • truebearing

    Did this moron of a judge recently get a lobotomy with an electric egg beater? He is incoherent. How can a business be sued for turning down a customer for any reason? The Homo-nazis found another photographer, so there were no damages. The only reason for the suit was spite, which apparently this nitwit judge thinks is more important than the 1st amendment.
    The judge should be drug off the bench and imprisoned for criminal stupidity and incompetence.

    • tickletik

      He didn’t get a lobotomy. He, like most of the black robed sociopaths on the bench, simply does not have any ethical standard. For him, the law is whatever he says it is, provided he can give some intelligent sounding crap to justify it.

      Here is the point: Neither the 1st nor the 13th amendment exist.

      The concept of slavery is to force a man to act against his will, without contract, without agreement. That is what is happening here. The judge can get away with it, because the stupid fat populace simply does not care.

    • maria

      you stole my words

  • JJP

    Judge Bosson will burn forever in hell.
    I pray the merciless wrath of God does not tarry
    and this filthy godless judge will soon appear before
    the eternal judge and receive not an ounce of clemency.
    I look forward to his death. Please god may it come soon.
    JJP

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Why would you want a photographer who doesn’t approve of the subject?

    These “social engineers” are insane. It’s not like the water company wants to deny lesbians the vital resource, or some photographer turned them down for help documenting some urgent medical condition or even something unrelated to their desire to obliterate marriage that creates children.

    This is precisely why we must fight “gay marriage” and the notion that they can engineer society, labels, and every detail about culture must be manipulated by them.

    • tickletik

      What they were really punished for was taking a stand. They could have slunk away and claimed they didn’t have time, but because they told the truth they were hit with a court case. What it’s really about is punishing freedom of speech.

      This case fills me with rage and hatred towards homosexuals.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “What they were really punished for was taking a stand. They could have slunk away and claimed they didn’t have time, but because they told the truth they were hit with a court case. What it’s really about is punishing freedom of speech.”

        I agree totally.

        “This case fills me with rage and hatred towards homosexuals.”

        This case fills me with rage towards political homosexuals.

        • moneekwa

          yes, political ones. i guess if it was me, i’d take pictures if forced, then give them bad ones. not bad enough to be sued over, but just bad so there’s no good shots of the couple or guests. cause i don’t like being forced to do stuff against my rights.

      • laura rubin

        sometimes “taking a stand” is foolish. choose your battles carefully. keep your mouth shut, unless you know you WILL win! these days, its best to just go about your business.

    • A_Perspective

      You’re precisely right, and clearly the “Liberal” Police State has no idea of what it actually takes to make a good photograph.

      • Hugh Vincelette

        The denigrating & demionizing of “liberal’ thinking & perspectives shows an ignorance of history & reality; that is breath taking.Liberals , along with the respect & compromise of more conservative thinkers., created one of the most eminent documents ever composed for the benefit of the common people. It’s called the United States Constitution. You don’t really think that right wingers would ever have come up with religious liberty for all; do you? The religious & political tyranny of the Old World lead men of vision & insight to create a new nation with rights, privileges & responsibilities to be equally applied to all her citizens. It became, of course, the USA. It was an imperfect set of ideals & it took centuries before it slowly became truly applicable to even more Americans of color. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would deny liberty to others, deserve it not for themselves.” Try Windex on those mirrors, my friends.

        • groovamos

          You are the ignorant one Hugh. The country’s founders were CLASSICAL LIBERALS not “progressives”. Ludwig von Mises was a classical liberal and he gets bashed all the time by people of your ilk. “Progressives” like you didn’t live and breath until formulating their thinking from Rousseau and Marx, later in history, in countries OTHER THAN THIS ONE. So your alien ideology has nothing to do with the country’s founders. That’s why none of those forefathers didn’t write into the constitution that you have to work for someone just because you put a sign out in front of your shop, you totalitarian.

    • laura rubin

      let me say this: a professional person should not get into religious beliefs. its stiring the pot, & as i said it is not professional behavior. i was a freelance person, worked w/whom i wanted. non one ever confronted me. business is not a debate. you just dont get personal, OK??

      • groovamos

        This one is very different than many kinds of businesses Laura. Personally I would prefer not to watch gays French kiss. I don’t hate them for doing it, I just want to turn my back on it and leave. You are saying the photographer must not only watch the homosexual lifestyle as it is being posed, but to create the symbolic images of such, to a high standard. And these lesbians decided obviously to make it personal, because they didn’t take this photographer to court out of respect and dignity they did it out of SPITE.

        • laura rubin

          RE read my comment. you have it backwards. any photogragher or self employed person (decorator, architect, nurse, chef, personal trainer, etc), can refuse a job, no excuses necessary. it is not professional for a freelancer to get into personal beliefs, or religious discussions. the photographer talked too much. i would have said, i was “booked”, “something came up” etc. also re read my other comments on this topic. i have been turned down by housepainters etc. they said they were busy, or made up an excuse. maybe it was chemistry, i appeared too picky, maybe the job too small, maybe i was a “pushy jew”? (no one really told the truth, who knows, who cares)? i cant force someone to work for me. also no one can force me to work for them! an attorney wont take a case if the photographer is “busy”- they wont bother. better for freelancer or the client not to yabbayabba. once you do that, its a great opportunity for a lawsuit. these are strange times. communist all the way!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Just tell them that you’re busy.

    • beezwaxing

      Or better than that, just do a really fast and crummy job. lmbo :-D

      • Biff Henderson

        An album of crotch shots and dare I say it?? Boobies. Oh, I’m a wicked, wicked man…

    • tickletik

      Then they would have to die a little inside for not being able to tell the truth.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I understand that.

  • beezwaxing

    I just went completely slackjaw. Sorry. It’s probably a good thing I don’t practice law anymore. These courts are laying down rules I never even heard of.

    • Deborah Revell

      It is completely contrary to the 13th amendment too. Maybe you should go back to practicing law so you can teach those ignorant Bling’s what the Law is really about?

    • Besökare

      This ruling is baffling – would be really interested in hearing more from a prof.

      …where will they draw the line – can a photographer still refuse working for the x-rated industry on moral grounds? How about other ceremonies – can you refuse to shoot any sort of ritual no matter how you feel about it; will the state compel photographers to shoot bigamous ceremonies, arranged marriages etc.? And will they force a muslim photographer to serve at a lesbian wedding?

      And this is not in public space but in a private house or buissness, isn’t it? How can you compel any private citizen offering services to go to and work in an area, private or public, which you don’t want to. What if you don’t feel safe there? Maybe poor Robert Spencer will be forced to go and play the sax next time a muslim brotherhood member gets married….

  • tanstaafl

    In a free enterprise system, a business has the right to accept or refuse a contract.

    • beezwaxing

      And even if they had a contract, common law courts have never granted specific performance of a contract as a remedy for breach of contract for personal services like painting a portrait, performing music, or a contract for any kind of artistic performance for the simple reason that the one so compelled cannot be FORCED to perform at his or her best. Jeez this is getting really, really scary … lunatic judges … what’s next?

      • nomoretraitors

        “We have a lunatic president”
        Elected by a lunatic electorate

      • laura rubin

        if you dont perform your best, you dont get paid. if you received a deposit, they can sue you for return. i worked as a photographer for many clients. if the client cant afford to sue for the deposite, then word gets out that your work is not up to par.

    • sJames6621

      not on the basis of discriminaton against a minority

      • tickletik

        You are a liar. By definition, a free enterprise system does not care why a person refuses a contract, even if it contradicts some bullshit principle like “discrimination against a minority”.

        • lofty_goals

          Name-calling won’t help your incorrect interpretation of law.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        What makes them a minority?

        Discrimination is a fact of every day life. What happens when you arrive at a traffic light? I hope you discriminate then,

        You should concern yourself with unjust discrimination rather than hysterical knee jerk reactions to your programming about what causes you’re supposed to defend.

      • tanstaafl

        So “minorities” have a right to force businesses to choose their contract over that of anyone else? BTW, what happened to the “right to choose”?

        • lofty_goals

          Where is this “right to choose?” It’s in quotes, so I’m curious. Thanks. Also, if you own a restaurant, should you be able to refuse to serve blacks? Or women? Be consistent in your beliefs…

          • tanstaafl

            If I were the photographer in question, I would photograph the gay wedding. If I were a restaurant owner, I would serve any customer. However, I do not believe that the instrumentality of the state should be used to compell obedience in matters of how an individual conducts their business.

            People have the right to manage their own businesses. It would seem to be illogical to turn away trade, but there is no law that says a business must be run logically.

          • laura rubin

            different story, its a public place. YES if the blacks are making trouble, you can refuse. if the woman is acting crazy, you can refuse. whats not to understand?

          • laura rubin

            restaurant is a public place. you also have the right to ask someone to leave of they cause trouble.

    • laura rubin

      this is exactly what i have been saying. you said it better. i have been refused many times: taxies will not drive thru dangerous areas, my hair is too thin for a hair weave, etc etc.

      • tanstaafl

        I was denied a rental because i was a single man and the landlord wanted to rent to a married couple.

        • laura rubin

          a landlord can react to anyone they want too. i was a landlord. no pets, no smokers, no loud noise. i choose who i was comfortable with. i lived downstairs, owner occupied buildings have different laws then large complexes.

          • tanstaafl

            This wasn’t owner occupied. My point was bad things happen to everyone.

  • Randy

    “…can no more turn away customers …. than they could refuse to photograph …. Muslims,”

    Since Islam teaches that divine justice can not rein upon the Earth until muslims rid it of jews (and the rocks call out “Oh muslim, there is a jew hiding behind me. Come kill him.”), why should any person, jew, christian, hindu or atheist be forced to do business with such people?

  • Jsjk

    Compelled, forced, coerced by govt to take pictures? So what happens if the coerced photographers sabatoge their photos (the images turn out all black or blank) and the photographer says, oops. How can a judge make them take photos?

    • truebearing

      How about drawing moustaches on them? They might like that.

    • Deborah Revell

      It as an infringement on the photographer’s 13th amendment right Look:

      The definition of involuntary servitude is:
      Slavery: the condition of an individual who works for another individual against his or her will as a result of force, coercion, or imprisonment, regardless of whether the individual is paid for the labor. this can be found in the dictionary under the 13th Amendment.

    • patron2

      They make them pay a fine. Another government shakedown, worthy of Al Capone’s syndicate.

      They don’t pay the fine, and they have their assets seized, or go to jail for contempt charges, or both. If they appeal, it’s more court and lawyer costs and no guarantee they will win or be reversed later, and already their publicity is ruined.

      If this is all about homosexual love, why are they so hateful, vindictive, sadists? I’m betting they probably heard about this and sought out the photographers on purpose just satisfy their own selfish egos. If they thought their lifetstyles were right, they wouldn’t have to destroy other families to justify it.

  • Deborah Revell

    And what about the 13th amendment? Freedom against involuntary servitude? That just gets chucked out the window because some fags want to make the papers and parade their sins? The definition of involuntary servitude is: Slavery: the condition of an individual who works for another individual against his or her will as a result of force, coercion, or imprisonment, regardless of whether the individual is paid for the labor. this can be found in the dictionary under the 13th Amendment. So they will ignore our rights as long as they get the publicity. WHAT ABOUT THE 13th AMENDMENT?

  • Deborah Revell

    Okay take the pictures, keep copies of the nasty negatives and sell them to the dirty magazines, that way they are where they should be, and you got your final and rightful jab in the end. Just a spiteful thought, But really if queers are permitted to get away with this, we God loving people will loose all our rights.

    • lofty_goals

      The loving Lord Jesus Christ would be so proud of your sentiments here… LOL.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    If photographers are now forced to photograph acts of moral depravity against their will, I should be able to force any videographer into making porn movies, or force a photographer to do something that the Left may find offensive, like taking pictures of me shooting photos of Trayvon Martin, or burning Korans.

    If anyone has a contact with Westboro Baptist Church, contact them to see if they would do a “test case” where they order a flower arrangement from a gay florist. See what happens.

  • Hank Rearden

    Among the many ridiculous things about this ruling is that the photographers are not offering a product but a service. Suppose they took the job, but then made lousy photographs? Who is to say whether a photograph is good or not? This fool of a judge would then be looking at a wall of photos deciding which were “good” and which were not. And even the “good” ones, would they be up to the photographers’ “standard” or would they be “less” for this lesbian couple?

    Any service requires the will of the provider. I am sure that to take good pictures, the photographer must want to do so. It is an art, after all. It is not as if the photographers were running a candy store and refused to sell a Snickers bar to a couple who were lesbian.

    • Sashland

      Why would someone want to hire a photographer who does not want to be at the event? It makes no sense except retribution,

      Do they really think they would get good photo from someone FORCED to attend and take photos?

      I sense a lack of respect from a wedding party that you might think would be attuned to such a thing – isn’t the goal freedom?

  • libuster

    They can’t lay down for this. This has to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Jay Sekalow where are you?

    • beezwaxing

      I would hope it wouldn’t get to the SCOTUS. Their track record on the Constitution aint exactly stellar lately.

  • Big Al

    This comes as no surprise to me in NZ. We are now a fully fledged member country of the perversion known as same sex marriage. We have been reassured by the lawmakers here that no church or minister will be compelled to officiate at a same sex ceremony, but if I know the UN, and the charter for Human Rights to which our country is a paid up member, then it won’t be long and our politicians will be exposed for the long term liars we know they are. So ministers who object to this substitute for real marriage will have no choice just like the photographers in this story. I have friends who are well known as wedding photographers but are now changing the focus of their business for this very reason – not because of any hatred for homosexuals and lesbians, but because of a deeply held, unwavering certainty that same sex marriage is contrary to God’s prescribed order and as such cannot and will not be party to the this unwholesome deed. Much like if someone were asked to take photos at an abortion clinic when their faith compels them to not only abstain from evil but even the very appearance of evil. Sadly, the freedoms of choice, speech and religion only count if you’re on the left wing of the political spectrum. But God’s word reassures us that these days would come when evil would be called good and good, evil. When we would be hated for His name’s sake – when standing for God’s righteousness and standard.

  • Simon Timothy

    When the Homos can do what they liked and can not be forced to do what they do not like, how the Christian photographer can be compelled and forced to do what he does not like? How can the Government force some one to do things against his wish when it does not hurt the fellow human beings? What sort of stupidity and lopsided reasoning? Just because this moron is posted as the judge should others suffer because of him? Oh! America! How greatly you have fallen into stupidity, led by stupid and insane leaders!

    • nomoretraitors

      How greatly you have fallen into stupidity, led by stupid and insane leaders!
      Because he we have stupid and insane people who elect them. Just look at last November

    • lofty_goals

      Next thing you know, they’ll force southern Christians to serve blacks in restaurants! We obviously know more about the law than this person who went through years and years of training in the law. When we don’t like something, the government should just enforce our religious or personal beliefs and bigotry on everyone else, no questions asked, right? What is this world coming to?

      • Nabuquduriuzhur

        The Lord rebuke you for being a liar in Jesus’ Name, Lofty Goals.

  • sJames6621

    Sorry but whats next – xtinains going back to putting up whites only signs

    Your church can do as it wants and so can you in your home etc

    But you cant discriminate against minorities in the public square.

    BTW in general the people having a fit over this rulling are the evangelicals / southern baptists – the people who justified slavery as per the bible, made america the second to last nation in the west to end slavery and then created segregation.

    No wonder so many youtth wll have nothing to d o with ultra conservative stianity

    • tickletik

      You aren’t sorry, you are a passive aggressive liar.

      You aren’t even consistent.

      If a Muslim puts up a “Chinese only” sign, can we expect you to send armed thugs of the State to kick in his door and electrocute him with a Taser? Because at the end of the day, that’s what a “law” means. It means some armed thug of the State will kick in somebodies door to brutally break the body of the person who refuses to obey that law.

      Because I am a normal human being and I realize this, I oppose passing laws unless absolutely necessary. Because you are a cowardly, hate filled degenerate, you can’t wait to pass as many flimsy laws as possible.

      The weren’t discriminating in the public square, they were discriminating in their private business. So that’s another deception on your part. But you don’t even believe in private property because on top of everything else you are probably another disgusting little communist dog who wants to see every human being with a collar around his neck.

      And even then, what does it mean “discriminate in the public square”? So if I am handing out chocolates to people in public and I choose not to hand those chocolates out to White folk, am I discriminating? Should I be arrested and beaten to within an inch of my life or perhaps even shot because your precious little ego can’t take that?

      Your incoherent rant about slavery has nothing to do with a damn thing. Even so, the Abolitionists were mostly composed of the same Evangelicals and Baptists you’ve just insulted. If anything, it was precisely the appeal to Christianity that compelled so much sentiment against slavery.

      The youth don’t associate with the “ultra conservative” groups, because the ultra conservative groups are afraid to stand up to two faced Homos like you and speak the truth.

      • lofty_goals

        WOW. Someone had a bad day. I love how you called the person a “passive aggressive liar” and then proceeded to literally make up ridiculous scenarios on the fly. LOL.

        First of all, if a Muslim shop keeper put up a sign that said “Chinese Only”, as you put it, YES, they would also be in violation of the law and I’m pretty sure someone would sue them for equal treatment pretty quickly. But they wouldn’t kick the door down and taser them and they didn’t do that to the photographer here, either… LOL. No one is arresting and beating people up for not agreeing with a gay couple getting equal treatment under the law. It’s completely ridiculous that you bring that up, considering the number and gay or lesbian people who are indeed attacked every day, though. And not for pushing their beliefs but for simply walking down the road or a hallway. I dare you do count up the number of people in the USA who are physically attacked because they’re thought to be Christian versus the number of people attacked for being gay. WOW.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Sorry but whats next – xtinains going back to putting up whites only signs”

      The sign will read that you must follow our beliefs if you want to be a member.

      “Racism!”

      What hysterical fools. Everything is “morally equivalent” to racism if you resist the communist agenda.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    I’m going to go out and hire a gay sign-maker to print up some signs inscribed with certain passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy dealing with homosexuality. If he refuses to do it, I’m taking him to court.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      There you go.

    • nomoretraitors

      Keep us posted (of course I don’t think you’d get very far since the left’s concept of inclusiveness never extends to those who disagree with them)

      • Hugh Vincelette

        Academic & historic corrections : The overall issue here is simply human rights & human dignity. For untold decades now, we have seen the religious right (extremists), refuse to accept that freedom of religion; an essential component of liberty; does not ever include the right to deny, diminish, or eliminate; the rights of others.:Denial of Constitutional rights to LGBT citizens & taxpayers has absolutely nothing to do with a ‘difference of opinion’.It is the very definition of hatred & bigotry, & creates & nurtures the mindset that leads to violence , bloodshed, & murders. My sources? The RCMP (Canada), the FBI, Interpol, & New Scotland Yard.

        • groovamos

          Well how about that, it is a human right to be able to force the photographers to work for the lesbians, And if the photographers don’t want to, well they’re haters just because Hugh says so. And of course it is a human right to be able to force haters into court and strip them of their assets. What does the constitution have to do with any of this? NOTHING. Leftists are sickos.

        • nomoretraitors

          “Denial of Constitutional rights to LGBT citizens & taxpayers has absolutely nothing to do with a ‘difference of opinion”
          Typical liberal. “If I disagree with you, that’s freedom. If you disagree with me, that’s hate.” Liars and phonies, every stinkin’ last one of yuhz.

          There is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires a business to accept your patronage. There are plenty of photographers who would be more than willing to accept their business. So here we see what the true “gay rights” agenda is: Forcing everyone to condone their lifestyle and silencing any dissent.

          If the photographers were Muslim (or any other religion besides Christianity), or if a business owned by a gay refused someone’s business because they were Christian, you would be on the front lines defending the business owner.

    • Simon Timothy

      Good! God bless you!

  • antioli

    Do Muslim photographers have to take pictures of gay weddings also?

    • defcon 4

      Muslime taxi drivers are free to kick lesbians out of their cabs on busy freeways, in the middle of the night.

      • Waiting

        In some places, they refuse to transport the blind who have his/her dog along, no matter the social preferences of the blind person. They object to the dog; and anyone carrying alcohol is also refused.

        Perhaps the Supreme Court will hear the case and judge rightly.

        • lofty_goals

          Not allowed in the USA. If you hear of this, you should report it. But I think you’re confusing reality with what you hear about on blogs.

          • Waiting

            Did not read about it on “blogs” but in news articles. There are cities in this country that give muslims preference. Look it up, and perhaps you’ll find out for yourself. Kind of like the NJ judge who ruled in favor of the rapist who said it was his “culture” to rape. The case had to be appealed. And the muslim who accosted the other man dressed as the muslim’s “prophet” and the judge told the victim that it was not right to “insult” the prophet and even told the victim that he could be put to death for that in other countries.. Not exact wording, but the point is that the rulings were in favor of the muslims.

          • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

            Not surprising. The judge was a Dhimmi.

          • Blahblahblah Noah

            You’ve obviously not been to Milwaukee, Minneapolis or Detroit…daily occurrence.

          • moneekwa

            what did they do in Milwaukee? i know about Dearbornistan and Little Mogadishu.

    • laura rubin

      someone should “test” case the muslim thing. i believe they are protected like gays blacks hispanics. right? is that “written” or is it “tradition”? comments please.

  • rangerrebew

    But muslim taxi drivers can refuse to pick people up who have alcohol?

  • southwood

    Doom and gloom time: this action by the judge is horrific, but imagine what things will be like during Obama’s THIRD term. Think it won’t happen ? Not so sure. If, for example, some kind of civil/race war breaks out, emergency legislation is put in place etc.

    • moneekwa

      yeah, he’d probably like to delete the 22nd amendment even more than he wants to chuck the 2nd.

  • gnorfel

    Just say you’re fully booked… Being honest is of no benefit in today’s society… The ONLY groups that gets to reject others are blacks-/gays-/Muslim-/et.al -only… If you’re Caucasian, you no longer have any rights.

    • birdonawire

      No they wanted to make a point. Well now they made a point.

  • Duinsnip

    Sodom and Ghommora shall be burned to ashes again, Luke 17:20-37.

  • Gamal

    Photographers need to agree to film the ceremony and then get sick the day of the ceremony.

  • A_Perspective

    More OMama style “Civil Rights.” Meaning if you’re a Christian you have none. However, the “ruling” is nothing more than PR, since any photographer with an IQ 10 points above the average “Liberal” just isn’t available on the “Day.”

  • CowboyUp

    That’s brilliant, force someone to do the photography at your faux wedding. What could possibly go wrong?

  • ProclaimingGodsTruth

    This shows just how far we have declined in the area of morality. Rulings like this and others will show the God of the Universe that most hate and despise Him, reject Him, turn their backs and faces against Him, and have no use for His law or Bible anymore. How despicable!
    +++
    America is steeped in sin and pleasure kicking God out. Wake up America – the Wrath of Almighty God is coming!

  • ziggy zoggy

    Activists for homosexual privileges claim they are helping a supposedly oppressed minority but actually they are intolerant bigots trying to force their agenda on an unwilling majority. Totalitarians all.

    • lofty_goals

      If you disagree with them, it’s always because you’re argument is righteous and they fight dirty, right? Or you’re just wrong. History will judge.

  • popseal

    I no longer willingly serve on any jury on the grounds that SCOTUS decisions have dismissed the Christian ethic for 40+ years and in so doing have dismissed me with it. I’ve been respectfully dismissed two for two so far.

    • lofty_goals

      The Founding Fathers dismissed the Christian Ethic, lol… it was only in the 1950’s when “In God We Trust” was placed on currency, added to the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

  • defcon 4

    What would’ve happened if the photographers who refused had been muslime? Gee, I seem to remember something about muslime cabbies throwing two lesbians out of their cabs on a busy freeway, in the middle of the night.

  • John Smith

    I suppose one solution would be to shoot the wedding and then discover that the camera wasn’t working – but that would be lying and another offense against the faith. Perhaps a better approach is to forget to shower for a few days before the wedding and cover it dressed in cut-offs and a t-shirt with pizza stains – just a little something to share the love. I don’t advocate ruining anyone’s ceremony, but how sexual preference became a “right” is a mystery to me. It’s something best ignored – I am not in favor of bias against those with minority proclivities – but neither should anyone be forced to work an event they find repugnant. Judge Bosson is a disgrace.

    • birdonawire

      Just being another Christian ahole.

    • Night Operator

      Yeah, right, provided the purpose is to insist they do not recognize or respect the ceremony as a genuine wedding.

    • unionville

      In 2003 New Mexico added sexual orientation to its anti discrimination law. It is absolutely unnecessary to have this expansion in the law. Its sole purpose is to thwart people from being able to exercise their 1st amendment rights in our constitution. It is why we are seeing the rise of these frivolous lawsuits against God fearing, law abiding citizens. We need to be vigilant in those states that haven’t succumbed to this idiocy. And we need to be doubly vigilant to see that ENDA never sees the light of day in this country.

  • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    Disgusting

  • birdonawire

    Of course they could have been nice and just said they were booked for that day.

  • Gee

    Bet they would not compel a Muslim to sell liquor or pork

    • lofty_goals

      False argument. If the Muslim shop owner didn’t want to carry liquor or pork in his/her store, they wouldn’t. You can’t force them to. But if a Muslim shop owner refused to sell items to a Jewish customer, THAT would not be allowed under the law.

      • Nabuquduriuzhur

        Not at all, dishonest one.

        It’s EXACTLY the same idea.

      • moneekwa

        ok, try it at walmart or target. the stores sell liquor and bacon, take it to the muslim checker, you’ll have to wait while they get someone else to ring you up.

  • Night Operator

    Compromise? Ah, yes. But then, that cuts both ways. The problem is, the lefties do not really appreciate (and perhaps do not even understand) this point. But if the basis of having compromise cut both ways were to be honored, there would be a simple solution. As for the large fine in the present case, this should be recognized and proclaimed as an act of religious persecution. But then, one is warned out front in Christianity that persecution must be expected. For future reference, they should accept such business, but with a disclaimer. They should post a large sign in their shop, that, unlike the state government of New Mexico, they believe in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” of which the Declaration of Independence speaks. (Does this mean they accuse the state government of being unpatriotic? It means they call the state government and its antics for what they are, instead of accepting their barf of what America is about.) Then they go into some implications of this point. (1) Homosexual deeds are depraved acts of perversion, not worthy of approval or protection. (2) Homosexual marriage does not exist. When people claim to set up such marriages, they are faking and pretending, just as people in Asia are faking or pretending when they have alleged marriages of cows or elephants or monkeys. Insofar as the statutory provisions of New Mexico say otherwise, all that means is that the state government is also involved in the faking and pretending. In view of these implications, (3) Pictures of homosexual couples both dressed in wedding garments will be taken on the standard terms, but any claim that these are wedding pictures is the sole responsibility of said couple. Of course, such couples would spout a whole lot of noise that they find all this extremely offensive, but then, as I said, real compromise cuts both ways.

  • Sashland

    Yep, having pictures taken is a Fundamental Right that is most important, how did they ever miss that one in 1776 – why didn’t they require every portrait painter to accept every request for work from every customer?

    Next, the Jewelry shop that is required to make obscene Jewelry…

  • Paul of Alexandria

    For all those that are going off on the sexual preference angle: the real and fundamental point here is the judge believing that he can force a private citizen to serve any customer regardless. Sound familiar? Like ObamaCare, maybe? The other tell is his setting aside of the ” New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, believing that it doesn’t apply to the courts, when the courts are only supposed to enforce the law, not make it. We need to put a stop to this fast!

    • lofty_goals

      Paul. This case is NOT about private citizen: it’s a business. Therefore, she cannot discriminate against customers. If, however, as a private citizen, she’s taking pictures of the Grand Canyon and a black person or a gay person comes up to her and asks for a picture, she’s perfectly within her right to say “No, I don’t take pictures for black people” (for religious beliefs or just because she’s a bigot).

      • Blahblahblah Noah

        I’d love to see the case law supporting that view. The fundamental point of law here is “Did this couple have another choice available to them…without violating the religious views of the company they chose?”. You’re saying one right of equality trumps another right of equality…which the courts in this country have consistently held to be sacrosanct. i.e. “Your rights end where mine begin”

        Take a look at Faith Media vs. State of Georgia, where a lower court held that a Christian broadcaster MUST allow pro homosexual programming on their broadcast network. The higher court swiftly tossed that little decision and found in favor of Faith Broadcasting because “In the absence of legislation to the contrary, a religious broadcaster is not compelled by law to offer air time to groups or individuals whose content is contrary to, or violates their basic tenants of faith. Basic laws of equality, based on gender, sexual preference, religious conviction, disability…do not supersede the rights of the business owner, a broadcaster, to determine the content of their broadcasts.”

        ANY business owner has the right to refuse service to ANYONE, based on the legitimacy of their beliefs. (not simply because they disagree with homosexuality)

        Court rulings like this case merely do a disservice to the gay “community” and as a result you’ll see businesses availing themselves of legal remedies to prevent this sort of judicial larceny.

      • Paul of Alexandria

        Doesn’t matter, all businesses are made up of private citizens. The point is that you can’t force someone to enter into a contract, or at least you shouldn’t be able to. If you do, it’s called “slavery”, or at least “indentured servitude.” Yes we’ve accepted this for race and ethnicity, but this is fundamentally bad law.

        Where does it end? At what point do you say “you are no longer free to force me to take this contract”?

  • JKomar

    Can a business turn down clients because they are Black, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Irish, Muslim, Jewish, mixed race couple? The point is where do we draw the line?

    • StanW

      Simple, we draw the line at NOT stepping on people’s religious beliefs, as was done in this case!

      • lofty_goals

        Stan, What if I open a chain of stores and my religious belief is that I should treat black people as lesser and never to let them enter my store or buy products? Because I announce it’s because of my religion, can any discrimination in the public square be forgiven?

        • StanW

          What religion are you that allows you to treat black people as lesser? I am not familiar with that religion.

          But on the very remote chance that such a religion exists, then I would suggest that the black people take their business elsewhere. That is what the gay people did in this case, even finding a photographer for a lower price. Yet they still sued.

          Now, instead of your hypothetical question, what if the gay couple in question had been turned down by a Muslim photographer due to their religious beliefs?

          • lofty_goals

            They’re suing because they were discriminated against in the public forum, contrary to that state’s law… not because the photographer is Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Atheist.

          • StanW

            First, they ARE being sued over their religious views.
            Second, Answer my question!

          • lofty_goals

            The photographer is being sued because she’s a business that refused service to persons based on a protected class. Sorry, what is the question I didn’t answer?

          • StanW

            About the Muslims.

            And why does “protected class” supersede religious conviction?

          • lofty_goals

            Because this nation was founded on. among other things, the principle of equal protection under the law. And throughout that time, our nation has made it clear that fairness of treatment means you can’t discriminate against a person based on skin color, sex, age, and yes, orientation. It doesn’t matter WHY you discriminate.

  • Night Operator

    Since what is at stake here is the Christian concern of the photographers, one must remember what Christianity really says about the opposition. Yes, they will find out how wrong they are, but one must hope they find out in the right way. The preferred way is for those people to be brought to contrition and conversion, even if only at the hour of their death. Sir or madam, I share your emotional impulse, but if we give way to it, we become the kind of vicious bigots the left imagines us to be, not to mention dishonoring the order of Divine Redemption.

    • moneekwa

      well said. vengeance is the Lord’s.

  • arizonarebel

    Perhaps Barney Fwank and one of his luvvy duvvy boyfriends will want to be photographed at Hershey Park during the fudge festival???

  • lofty_goals

    This is hilarious. True motives are revealed in stories like this. If this report was about how a gay photographer refused to do business with any Christians, some of you would be screaming bloody murder. But it’s not. If you choose to live in a state where it’s the law that you have to treat people equally regardless of their sex, race, or sexual orientation, you have to abide by the law. A restaurant can’t refuse to serve black people and claim your religion doesn’t allow blacks… because the people have decided that is not right. If your religion tells you to discriminate against a class or persons, move to a place where you’re allowed to run a bigoted business. Easy fix.

  • lofty_goals

    Easy. Pornographers are not a protected class of citizens.

  • lofty_goals

    So next time your boss asks you do run a report and you don’t want to, will you claim 13th Amendment? It’s not a catch-all for saying “no” whenever you don’t feel like doing something, LOL… You still have to obey traffic laws or you’ll get a ticket. You still have to run that report for your boss or you’ll get fired. You guys are hilarious.

    • Chavi Beck

      Yes, I have the choice to say no, only it might mean losing the job. It’s a choice I have. It’s only this judge who thinks I don’t, when the boss (or client) is of the Preferred Categories.

  • laura rubin

    how about this: i call several house painters or floor sanders for estimates. i hire who i want, based upon: price, kind of materials, time frame, repuatation, AND who i am more comfortable with. say i hire an anglo american rather than a vietnese. will i be sued for discrimation? can i discriminate w/who i hire? can they be discrimianting w/me? YES!

  • Gavin Smith

    Three nonwhite judges — are the other two Jews?

  • jordanariel

    Chik Fil A is closed on Sundays, and has a Christian outlook on the definition of marriage… i wonder when they are getting sued. The couple should appeal this and not pay a dime.

    • lofty_goals

      Chik-Fil-A is within their rights to close any days they want. They can’t be sued for being closed on Sundays. It’s so frustrating reading all these uneducated spasms of frustration that have no bearing on the case at hand other than your dislike of gay people.

  • USARetired

    I would thumb my nose at the dam courts who legislate from the bench, notifying them I am within my right to choose my own business hours, and some days I choose to be closed, and up your ‘foul weather pipe’!

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    Tell the judge “we must obey God rather than men.” That’s is what the Apostles bravely spoke to the Legal Authorities of their time and stood their ground. They did pay with their freedom, and ultimately with their lives. But they now star in God’s “Faith Hall of Fame” in Heaven. Christians are compelled to disobey human authority if it mandates disobeying God and His Everlasting Commandments. Heaven is the final authority in matters of faith and righteousness, not men. If it means paying a legal and social price, so be it. This couple is not alone. Countless men and women paid the very same price these last 2,000 years for their faith and godly living.

  • Karen

    Does this really surprise anyone? Slowly we are losing our freedom in everything as we are headed towards a one world order.

  • Nabuquduriuzhur

    The Lord curse Mr. Bosson in Jesus’ Name.

    • moneekwa

      instead we should pray for his immortal soul to be saved, the sooner the betteer so he’ll stop making stupid decisions like this.

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    It’s time for Christians to draw the line on the authority of civil officials on Divine Truth and Values. On matters of faith, morality, and doctrine, that is the Church’s prerogative, not the civil state. Caesar is not in place of God nor may play God.
    First Century Christians said “We must obey God rather than men.” The authorities of the time tried to silence the church and compel it to disobey Heaven and deny its God and Savior. For those who say that’s not what the judge was doing-in fact he was telling a couple, who were harming no one, to deny Divine truth about proper human relationships. State officials have no authority in this area.
    I hope in spite of this ruling they stand with the Word of God and do what is right in Heaven’s eyes, regardless of the consequences. It’s just a matter of time before saying there is one True God, Jesus Christ is Lord and no other, the Bible is the Word of God, and Moral Truths within its pages will be considered un-PC, offensive, and “hate speech.” The first Christians sure had backbone-they had to-their faith was illegal, unrecognized, and “politically incorrect.” And of course, they paid for it with their freedom and their lives. All but one of the original Apostles met martyrs deaths. But they stand forever in God’s “Faith Hall of Fame.”

  • rogerinflorida

    Anti discrimination laws are inherently tyrannical. If I cannot discriminate then in what sense am I a free man? I, and everybody else should be free to choose who we serve, who we associate with, who we do business with. Laws forcing us to do otherwise are collectivist, putting the “general good” over individual rights. This ruling shows just how far gone we are into a socialized swamp.

  • pupsncats

    Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. No judge and no court has the authority to demand a business owner compromise their principles and values, particularly when people have many other options. Even if there was only one photographer on the planet, that photographer still would have the right to refuse to compromise his/her principles. Lesbians and homosexuals think they have separate laws that give them special rights and privileges. They need to learn they do not. The Huguenins need to tell the judge and the lesbians to straight to you know where.

    • lofty_goals

      … except for protected classes. A business cannot refuse someone *because* of their protected class/status. EX1: A restaurant cannot refuse to serve someone because they happen to be white or black, male or female, family status, and many states also protect gay/straight. EX2: You cannot fire someone just because they’re white or black, male or female, family status, and many states also protect gay/straight. GUYS… this is like high-school civics and government common sense. You don’t need a law degree. LOL…

  • Blahblahblah Noah

    Justice Bosson…can violate the exhaust pipe of my toilet. Yet another example of the “Gay Agenda”…if you don’t get what you want…”hurt them legally, financially, physically”

    Now there’s equal rights for you. Welcome to Neutered America. Where white middle class persons of faith no longer have any rights.

  • Eris Guy

    It isn’t a amusing how libertarian values (“homosexual wedding”) so easily elide into fascism (“you are compelled to photograph it”).

    • Night Operator

      Libertarian values? What are you talking about? The concern to recognize homosexual weddings as genuine and legitimate is left wing and not lbertarian. I assume you got confused because the lefties are often miscalled “liberals.” But a real libertarian would say those on both sides should follow what they believe in and see to it themselves, on their own responsibility.

  • http://regularrightguy.wordpress.com/ Regular Right Guy

    Matt Damon decided take Regular Right Guy and several other conservative bloggers to the woodshed … Guess who played Dumb and Dumber? —Regular
    Right Guy … Full Caf Americano

  • anon

    Next thing you know NAMBLA will prosecute if you don’t agree to video or take photos of men diddling boys….or some Arab will prosecute if you refuse to show a woman buried up to her head in sand while Neanderthals hurl stones to her death.
    Or some father hires you to take pics for posterity of him doing his daughter. Or imams will force you to take pics of them checking out a woman’s hymen with black burka pulled up for all the bass tards to pique their curiosity as to what’s there.
    Or perhaps some Turk will force you to come with him to one of the famed Turkish sex slave hovels. Here you would be obliged to take photos of men acting as savages as they beat young girls, drug her and do the group rape routine…and if she gets pregnant than you are forced to take photos of them beating the baby right out of her system and putting her back on a mattress the same day to service another 20 of Allah’s faithful servants. And of course, all over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, Africa and America many sicko dads would want you to put on a video of them honor killing their wives, daughters, sisters and any other woman they wish to destroy so that she can’t reveal to the world his monstrous sins.

  • Fed up

    This is absurd!!! Since when can the government MAKE someone do a job they do not want to do??!! This country is being taken over by a communistic, islamist agenda that starts at the top. People better be waking up before it’s too late!

    • lofty_goals

      So, if you’re shopping at a store and they see you wearing a cross, approach you, ask if you’re a Christian, and when you reply yes, they kick you out and declare they refuse to allow Christians in the shop or sell anything to Christians… that would be okay?

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        It’s exactly what happened to a Republican politician in the South, asked to leave a restaurant owned by a liberal. And there’s nothing he can do legally.

        Except for a few types of services, no one should be able to force others to work for them.

        • lofty_goals

          Being in a political party or taking a political position is not a protected class. And your example is of THAT, not of being discriminated against based on religion. Yet again, people wanting to discriminate are talking around the actual issue at hand…

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            And your rational to discriminating against people who have political positions you dislike is what exactly?

            That’s my argument against the two stupid lesbians in this case. They have a shoddy political agenda for sexuality and marriage, everyone is entitled to discriminate against them because of their agenda.

            I didn’t know you agreed with me.

          • AustinBamBam

            Actually, it’s you who is stupid for not understanding our anti-discrimination laws in America. Our courts understand, which is why these bigoted anti-gay Christians always lose.

  • Samiksha Srivastava

    Some beautiful photos in this album. You are very talented. My absolute favourite is the stunning beach sunset silhouette. breathtaking stuff. You have to get the best source where you can get the ultimate love photography for you that would make you feel the best after getting the right one. ….Loversoflove.com

  • lofty_goals

    I’m praying for you to see God’s love and truth and to repent your bigoted and judgmental ways.

  • maria

    Track that judge’s mistakes, I bet you will find many and invest until he is out of the law business, he is like Hitler

  • Hugh Vincelette

    These comments are clinically indicative of sociopathic attitudes , beyond any doubt. I am fully qualified to make such a definitive statement. In the days of my youth we heard the same statements about “uppity n*****s.). Attempts to revise US history is also rapidly failing, as with the false claims that America is a Christian nation.From the Library of Congress: The Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock fame, did indeed flee Britain, seeking the freedom to practice their faith unhindered.And, they found that freedom in Holland. But Holland also had an aberration that they were not about to tolerate.It is called ‘ freedom of religion ‘ Convinced they were in possession of the only truth there ever was; they headed for the New World; to the chagrin of the First Nations people. It is regrettable that so many submitting comments were denied access to factual learning & knowledge.

    • nomoretraitors

      “I am fully qualified to make such a definitive statement”
      Where did you get your doctorate in psychology? Through an online diploma mill?

      “Attempts to revise US history is also rapidly failing, as with the false claims that America is a Christian”
      I guess you got your Phd in history from the same place. The founders were very much of a Judeo-Christian perspective. It’s in the Declaration of Independence as well as on numerous monuments in Washington DC. It’s only through the left-wing secular indoctrination over the past half century in our schools that has white-washed our rich Christian heritage.

  • nomoretraitors

    Let’s give NM back to the Mexicans

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and refusing.

    There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.

    Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against others pushing p0rnography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right.
    And so it is with people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional sexual psychologies.