Court: Photographer who wouldn't work...

Court: Photographer who wouldn't work a gay wedding violated anti-discrimination law

There are 28 comments on the www.abajournal.com story from Aug 22, 2013, titled Court: Photographer who wouldn't work a gay wedding violated anti-discrimination law. In it, www.abajournal.com reports that:

A Christian photographer who refused to photograph the wedding of a gay couple violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.abajournal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Aug 22, 2013
Throw him in the slammer for 20 years and see how he likes it !

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Aug 22, 2013
The only penalty she ever faced here, was the couple's attorney fees in bringing their case to the HRC and the couple waived that ages ago. Next stop SCOTUS.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Aug 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The only penalty she ever faced here, was the couple's attorney fees in bringing their case to the HRC and the couple waived that ages ago. Next stop SCOTUS.
LOL

SCOTUS won't hear this.
Tyler

United States

#4 Aug 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The only penalty she ever faced here, was the couple's attorney fees in bringing their case to the HRC and the couple waived that ages ago. Next stop SCOTUS.
BIG BOSS MAN is watching you, take heed.

You have been warned!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5 Aug 22, 2013
Seems that the Alliance Defense Fund doesn't understand the DIFFERENCE between having the right to one's religious beliefs and plain azz discriminating against a group of individuals just because you don't agree with who they are or who they love!!!

Clearly her Freedom of Speech, nor Expression nor her Religious beliefs were violated......and she has lost at every level........I seriously doubt she will win on any appeal at this point!!!

Others who do business as a PUBLIC entity might take a lesson before doing what they think they can do!!!

The Carriage owner in Maryland had it right, if ya can't provide the service for Same-Sex Couples.......then ya can't provide the service for opposite-sex couples......it's that simple and easy to avoid any legal mess!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Aug 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
LOL
SCOTUS won't hear this.
They may take this one on just to head the rest off at the head of the pass.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Aug 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>They may take this one on just to head the rest off at the head of the pass.
I think that SCOTUS has had it's fill of gay cases for a few years (at least a decade I would guess).

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Aug 22, 2013
btw, some people in Congress are already talking about impeaching The Obamaniac, and before you get all hyper on me, let me remind you that The Obamaniac as presided over the BIGGEST INTRUSIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF AMERICANS' PRIVACY AND LIBERTY than any man in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD !

THIS is what DEMOCRATS stand for and endorse and approve of and this is what you guys WANTED when you elected this BUM ???!!!

IMPEACH THIS BUM !

THROW STUMBLEBUM JOE IN THERE !

NEXT !

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9 Aug 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Not GONNA happen.......and you are free to believe it may, but it won't!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Aug 22, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not GONNA happen.......and you are free to believe it may, but it won't!!!
So then you APPROVE OF The Obamaniac demanding and supervising the BIGGEST INTRUSIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF AMERICANS' PRIVACY AND LIBERTY than any man in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD !

No surprise. Typical socialist Democrats. Stalin would be PROUD and ENVIOUS of what your Obamanaic as accomplished.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11 Aug 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Sorry, Bush already did that when his administration VIOLATED our rights with the PATRIOT Act!!!

You keep trying to blame President Obama, but you fail to understand that some of the stuff he has done was given to him!!!

I know you think you could do a better job.....so, why don't you run in 2016?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Aug 22, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Bush already did that when his administration VIOLATED our rights with the PATRIOT Act!!!
You keep trying to blame President Obama, but you fail to understand that some of the stuff he has done was given to him!!!
I know you think you could do a better job.....so, why don't you run in 2016?
He's the POTUS.. He can order the NSA to do, or not do, like STOP violating Americans' privacy and liberty, anytime he wants to. Why hasn't he ordered the NSA to stop doing those things ???

You guys ALWAYS make excuses for these Stalinist, because you ARE Stalinists.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Aug 22, 2013
Back on point.

If the Supremes don't shut down these cases soon, they're just going to keep happening. Why not take on an easy one?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Aug 22, 2013
Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>BIG BOSS MAN is watching you, take heed.
You have been warned!!!
ARTICLE VI U.S. Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

ARTICLE IV
SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

SECTION 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Aug 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
He's the POTUS.. He can order the NSA to do, or not do, like STOP violating Americans' privacy and liberty, anytime he wants to. Why hasn't he ordered the NSA to stop doing those things ???
You guys ALWAYS make excuses for these Stalinist, because you ARE Stalinists.
At least we know that St. Johns Newfoundland isn't in the USA and therefore they don't have a Constitutional right to bear arms!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16 Aug 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
He can order the NSA to do, or not do, like STOP violating Americans' privacy and liberty, anytime he wants to.
The President DOESN'T have as much power as you give him credit for.....and I thought you were a smart person regarding Constitutional things!!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#17 Aug 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Back on point.
If the Supremes don't shut down these cases soon, they're just going to keep happening. Why not take on an easy one?
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Aug 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Back on point.
If the Supremes don't shut down these cases soon, they're just going to keep happening. Why not take on an easy one?
Not sure they'd have jurisdiction since it involves a state anti-discrimination law and not federal.

Either way, the NM Supremes slapped them down pretty hard.
Frontline Fighter

Blairsville, PA

#19 Aug 23, 2013
The government gets dumber and dumber. Actions like this will contribute to the growth of the black market. That will be people providing their services in a non-public way - they'll work only with people who come to them through word of mouth and personal references. You can be sure that any payments will be under the table and may be even done with bartering. Taxes will not be paid, and the government will not get their money. I've come to see this as a really good thing.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#20 Aug 23, 2013
Frontline Fighter wrote:
The government gets dumber and dumber. Actions like this will contribute to the growth of the black market. That will be people providing their services in a non-public way - they'll work only with people who come to them through word of mouth and personal references. You can be sure that any payments will be under the table and may be even done with bartering. Taxes will not be paid, and the government will not get their money. I've come to see this as a really good thing.
Wow I didn't know there was a black market for wedding photos!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How could a hunter shoot a red-tailed hawk? (Jan '09) Aug 14 Captgetaway 20
News Couture Paper Doll Photography - Ajax Lee Reima... Aug 8 TW_sugar_daddio 2
News Photographer Aims To Combat Negative Imagery Of... Aug 5 Oh No You Di-nt 2
News Photo of "ghost" at scene of fatal motorcycle w... Jul '16 concern 1
News A push to help gay couples find wedding joy - w... Jul '16 TYRE 6
News Fiery "mushroom clouds": apparent Independence ... Jul '16 use vid in a movie 1
News French Art Colony doles out numerous art honors - Jul '16 Big Johnson 1
More from around the web