TYRANNY: New Mexico Supreme Court says wedding photographers can’t refuse gay weddings

A case we’ve followed over the years has finally come to the highest court in New Mexico and the ruling from this court violates the very essence of the first amendment. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Elane Photography, or any photographer, cannot refuse a gay wedding. It is considered discrimination:

In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies.

“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court said in a unanimous verdict.

In 2008 Elane Huguein, who runs Elane Photography, refused a gay ceremony on the basis that she only photographed traditional weddings and she has been fighting for her freedom in court ever since. Now, unless the Supreme Court will take up the issue, it appears that all photographers in New Mexico will be compelled to photograph gay weddings or risk being sued for refusing.

One of the judges even wrote in their concurring opinion that this ruling is the “price of citizenship”:

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, 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. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

So we have to divorce our conduct from our beliefs once we enter the ‘world of the marketplace’? What do they think we are, politicians? My conduct is based on my beliefs and if I divorce the two then I have ripped apart the very integrity that makes me who I am.

If this is indeed the cost of citizenship, we need to change our country’s name to the United Socialist States of America. Because we are no longer a constitutional republic.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

158 thoughts on “TYRANNY: New Mexico Supreme Court says wedding photographers can’t refuse gay weddings

  1. Could you imagine if Elane Photography ended up shooting the gay wedding and then the gays made a huge stink about how bad the pictures turned out?

  2. bfunk AlessandraBarros  
    At least one very large study showed that 40% of LGBTs are involved in intimate violence, and that’s when they aren’t harassing and abusing heterosexuals

  3. jeffrey728
    The outrage comes from a group of people using politics to try and force Christians, Jews, and other people of faith to accept something that is sacrilegious. I don’t know where you are getting your info but this republic was founded by Christians.

  4. There’s not reason to disobey the laws if you voluntarily move into a regulated space, such as commerce. People of faith have always had their behaviors constrained in public settings. I don’t understand all this outrage about something that’s been going on since the founding of the republic!

  5. Ethan VanderbuiltMy allegiance is to God/Jesus even over my own life. Love is not sex. It never has been and never will be. God created us male and female for the purposes of reproduction and not a condition of love. It is you sir that is truly ignorant. Do you honestly believe this is the first time in history this homosexual experiment has been tried? Many times it has been tried and it always ends with the self destruction of the people and the nation that tries it. I am appalled that after all this time human beings have not learned the lessons of history. Homosexuality is a state of mental insanity. There is no Homosexual gene and hoping its there is irrelevant. It’s not. 
    Anyone who positions themselves against God will meet their end by their own hands. Just remember that.

  6. MattDamon Be gay.  Go in peace.  I don’t hate you.  Just don’t force me to take a sacrilegious picture of you.

  7. AlessandraBarros I think I saw an article on American Thinker last year that spoke about what you’re talking about. I think it was the result of some factual findings about abuse and violence in the LGBT community. It is a shame.

  8. MattDamonWatchman74

     I doubt that it was left out. Either the lesbian couple asked why they
    were refused service, or the opinion was offered. Either way doesn’t
    matter. In this country, we have free speech and freedom of religion.
    It’s the studio’s right to practice their religion however they want.
    They also have the right to say what they want. The same is true of the
    lesbian couple. The only two things we can say without doubt is that the
    situation could’ve been handled better by the lesbian couple and the
    photographers, and that the NM Supreme Court doesn’t have any right to
    make the decision they made.

  9. MattDamon njmom And you never have either apparently.  It’s also mentioned in the new testament.
    Matt Damon…

  10. AlessandraBarros  I know.  I get irritated when the religious right says they are going to stay at home if a conservative candidate says he wants to leave it up to the states whether or not to legalize abortions (for example).  Conservative states would shut down abortion and the liberal states wouldn’t, but it’s better than right now where all states have abortions.  But, when they stay home that candidate loses and the far worse candidate….like Obama….wins and he believes and legalizes partial birth abortions.
    People say it’s choosing the less of two evils, but sometimes the lesser evil makes one he** of a difference in law and policy.
    Even if we think a conservative is moderate, we still need to go vote for him/her, because the alternative is outright communist.

  11. stage9 So you’r saying if a person believes in sexual morality we are bigots. Homosexuality is a perversion of nature not a race. If you consider them a race then you will need to consider rapists, pedophiles and those who practice bestiality their own race protected by anti discrimination laws. 
    So tell us where is the line drawn where we can say “NO THAT IS IMMORAL” without being bigots or do you just want a national free for all?

  12. MattDamon regularrightguy
    1st of all marriage is a Judaeo-Christian established institution and our God views Homosexuality as an abomination.
    Leviticus 18:22
    “22 You shall not lie with a male as [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22%2CLeviticus+20%3A13%2C1+Corinthians+6%3A9&version=NASB#fen-NASB-3274a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
    And Yes it is also in the new testament as well”1 Timothy 1:8-11
    8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
    2nd of all hiring a photographer is not a right it is a contract between a contractor and a consumer. Both parties must agree to a mutually agreed upon set of terms to make the contract binding and legal. What you are describing is FORCED LABOR aka SLAVERY!! I was under the Impression that sort of thing was illegal and considered immoral in this country.
    3rd of all you are delusional if you think the majority of this country thinks gay perverts should have the right to defile there most sacred spiritual beliefs.

  13. MattDamon tinlizzieowner volgeek
    I know this is going to come as a surprise to you but I do have a ‘pair of balls’. With the help of a woman, they created 3 healthy, happy, ‘straight’ women and 8 healthy, happy ‘straight’ grandchildren, just like nature meant it to be. Castigate me all you will, it makes no difference to me. As much as you would like to suppress MY right to free expression, my statement from above still stands.
    “If somebody is so insecure in their sexuality, they feel the need to wear it around like a cheap (I’m Queer, and I’m here) tee shirt, they have no right to be ‘offended’ should I exercise MY right to ‘free expression’ and refuse to cater to them. It’s just that simple.” 😉
    Now, go return to your to little liberal, Hollywood, ‘Batman’, fantasy land, like a good little boy (or whatever). 😉 😉

  14. MattDamon WSobchak   I still don’t buy your argument Matt.  Most gays use other gays for professional and legal needs.  My accountant advertises in the Pink Pages and does so for his friends.  I think he is a good accountant too.  And going back to an earlier post I stand by my original statement that I think most gay people are of the opinion, and often rightly so, that gay people have more artistic flair, and therefore would have chosen a gay photographer for their most important wedding ceremony and only asked who they knew in advance to be an opinionated anti-gay photographer to do their wedding.

  15. MattDamon  Can’t answer for everyone here Matt, but as for me, I don’t care if people are gay.  But you will never get me to believe that you don’t have an agenda demanding that I accept the behavior as normal.  The required responsibility from a biological perspective is for the the human specie to reproduce and that is not a possibility without utilizing modern medicine other than by a male and female relationship.  I don;t care if you are gay Matt, but you don’t have the right to tell me I have to accept it.  It’s called live and let live, and you don’t want me to have an opinion.  You came on this site last night trashing 6 or 7 people for their beliefs, and from what I’ve read, none of those people are out to get your or homosexuals.  We just don’t think it’s right that part of yours and many other gays is to demand that we agree with you.

  16. MattDamon regularrightguy As usual you miss the point, Matt. Gays have the right to put their appendages wherever they want, within certain legal parameters; they even have the right to marry in some states. What they don’t have the right to do is force someone to work for them who doesn’t want to. That’s called slavery. But good luck with that.

  17. kong1967 -Exactly, none of this would be happening if socons got out to vote and voted for other socons!

  18. MattDamonsaid: 1) Gay people are bullied relentlessly in schools, ridiculed for
    something they can’t help, live in fear of being physically attacked at
    any moment and are persistently made to feel like the dirt of the earth.
    All this essentially because they feel affection for another human
    What a bunch of pink propaganda. The people who do most violence to LGBT indivdiuals are LGBT themselves – garbage of people that they often are. There are millions of violent LGBT people in the US today. And they harass, molest, and bother heterosexuals as well.

    LGBT are too stupid and self-serving to take responsibility for their mental problems in the sphere of sexuality and relationships, most do not seek to investigate nor treat their problem. 
     And sexual desire is not the same as affection – they are sexually perverted, when not perverse as well.
    And now they want to be obnoxious pigs to everyone else.

  19. 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 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.

  20. MattDamon — Two of the worst arguments you can make on any issue are ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments–and I would use this post as a perfect example of both. Granted, I’ve seen other examples of both on the other side of this particular issue, but yours was a shining example of how to avoid the actual issue at hand (the right to free association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech in this case) and resort to personal attacks (ad hominem) and “you either violate your own personal beliefs and values, or you’re a bigot” (straw man) arguments.

  21. MattDamon — I’m trying to figure out how exactly a private citizen’s declining to offer his/her services to an event they have personal objections to infringes on someone’s “right to hire a photograph at their wedding.” The lesbian who had asked these people to photograph her event ended up hiring someone else to do the work, I imagine without objection from the Hugueins or anyone else.
    Further, what the majority of Americans think about gay marriage has nothing to do with this case. At issue is whether any individual American should be compelled, under threat of government censure, to do work they don’t want to do or object to. Apparently, you are OK with that, as I imagine many brainwashed Europeans are.
    Finally, the argument, “Imagine a straight wedding where the bride was told she didn’t deserve her marriage because of her ancestry or her eye colour or because the photographer didn’t think she wasn’t pretty” stands on its own for absurdity. I won’t comment on it other than to say that I laughed, literally out loud.

  22. tinlizzieowner volgeek – Seriously, you people shut your eyes, cover your eyes and blind yourself to the outside world. You believe what you want to believe, or rather, what you’ve been told to believe.
    Everything you’re fighting for is essentially your ‘right’ to make other people’s lives a misery. You act as if you’re being forced into a gay marriage. No. You’re being forced to grow the hell up, act like an adult, and treat others in your society with respect. It doesn’t matter what you believe about gay marriage. Your opinion on gay marriage is no more of interest to anyone else than your opinion on skiing, Sweden or mushy peas. Fair enough if you don’t like them, but it’s not the state’s responsibility to make sure you never have to work with them. Refusing a job for someone based on the grounds they’re gay is as moronic as refusing to work with someone because they like mushy peas. But it’s worse than that, because not only are you being heinously immature, you’re telling people they don’t deserve your service because you think there’s something wrong with them. You think they don’t deserve their marriage, they don’t deserve love, they don’t deserve decent treatment, because you think your opinions are good enough that you can just demean people and treat them like second class citizen’s because “FREE SPEECH YEAHHHHH.” Even worse than that, you think your opinions are so important, the state should defend them for you.
    For God’s sake, grow a pair of balls. The earth doesn’t revolve around you. And don’t hide behind your ‘beliefs’ – they already have a word for someone who doesn’t like homosexuality – it’s called ‘straight.’ That’s all it is. No one’s saying you have to be gay or marry someone of the same sex. Hell, I’m straight too. I don’t want to marry someone of the same sex as me. That’s not what you are. There’s a big difference between not being gay and treating gay people like crap. You don’t just dislike homosexuality. You dislike homosexual people. And you want the right to make their lives difficult out of spite, then defend it out of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ – as if that makes the action itself any less hateful, and that makes you arrogant, selfish and a bigot.

  23. americalsgt – What is even wrong with you. Claw your way out your own little fantasy world and open your eyes.

  24. bfunk Watchman74 – she probably could have refused without giving a reason. But this article (purposefully, I’d bet) missed out the fact that the photographer went out of her way to tell the lesbian couple they didn’t deserve her service because she didn’t condone their marriage.

  25. regularrightguy – No, the majority of people think that everyone in America deserves the same rights as everyone else. Like the right to hire a photographer at their WEDDING, regardless of how they were born. Imagine a straight wedding where the bride was told she didn’t deserve her marriage because of her ancestry or her eye colour or because the photographer didn’t think she wasn’t pretty. That’s essentially the ‘values’ you’re fighting for. And if you think you’re in the majority, you haven’t looked at any opinion polls of late. Most Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage and have been for several years now.

  26. WSobchak – Oh no, you have to take photos! And help someone have the happiest day of their life! They’re taking away your right to be a dick!

  27. 1) Gay people are bullied relentlessly in schools, ridiculed for something they can’t help, live in fear of being physically attacked at any moment and are persistently made to feel like the dirt of the earth. All this essentially because they feel affection for another human being. They’re told they are incapable of love, the spawn of Satan, and all kinds of other horrific things, often from their own parents and friends. All they want is the right to eat, sleep, work and marry the person they love without abuse or discrimination from their fellow man.
    2) Straight people have to take a couple of pictures. They feel mildly uncomfortable.

    Oh, I wonder who’s really oppressed here. If you think it’s the straight people, you’re delusional. Painfully delusional. You’ve been spoonfed lies and propaganda to believe you’ve got it hard, when there are gay people dying because of your ignorance. If you actually, genuinely believe there is a ‘Gay Agenda’ then you’re so incomprehensibly brainwashed it would just be sad if you didn’t have the right to vote. The article writer talks about their ‘beliefs’ as if it’s something noble, but their ‘belief’ is that two people don’t deserve tolerance, respect or happiness purely because they don’t approve of their lifestyle. That’s just spite. That’s not noble or freedom of speech. It’s hateful. If that’s your view, you don’t deserve to live in a free country. You’re only using your ‘freedom’ to oppress others. Then whining when it’s taken away as if the fact you have to tolerate other people is anything even resembling the decades of abuse these people faced because you sat on your backside and did nothing.

  28. mcgurn Yes, sticking together would help. How about forming a loosely organized chain that businesses can join, one that has guidelines or principles it follows and to which the individual stores can refer? Christian Business Association of America or something simila?. I know nothing about business, but there must be a way to place oneself under the cover of a larger organization for the sake of protection.

  29. kong1967 We need to call it what it is, Progressivism, not Liberalism. Liberalism is a term the Progressives hijacked.

  30. Odd language that “lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people”.  Tell me that’ s not……  oh, well.

  31. I like your suggestion, mcgurn. But what I find really disturbing is that the artisans in our country don’t seem too offended at the idea of forcing one of their own to offend their own conscience. As a freelance writer and author (I’ve had several books published), I am horrified at the idea that any government body would force me to write about something that would offend or compromise my religious (Christian) or political beliefs (conservative/libertarian). That is what freedom of religion and freedom of speech is all about.

  32. There’s a quote by the 18th century French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville, who visited America for a time and recorded his observations in his famous book “Democracy in America,” that fits this situation perfectly: “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

  33. tinlizzieowner  I hear that, and we’ve been doing a good job at the elections aside from Presidential.  We need another wave like 2010, where the Tea Party shook up Washington.
    Obama only won because he was black.  Liberals are on this kick to be the first to elect a black and woman President.  One for two accomplished.  Hillary is next.  They came out in numbers to support the first black President, and I heard many college students say they knew nothing about him but voted for him anyway.  They will do the same for Hillary.  We cannot let that happen….again.

  34. kong1967 tinlizzieowner 
    Exactly. JFK would be a conservative these days.
    It’s like this. My Model T Ford has spring steel bumpers on it. If one gets bent in one direction, just pulling it straight won’t solve the problem, it will return to the bent position. You have to bend it way past the middle in the other direction, to get it to return to the middle.
    It’s time for a ‘no holds barred’, ‘take no prisoners’ fight against liberalism, at every opportunity.

  35. What would they do if every photog. in the state refused? What could they do? Sticking together will be the key to stopping this nonsense. What a queer ruling by the supreme court. I’m beginning to think all of them are homos. If obama’s children were all judges….

  36. tinlizzieowner  If they can wear a shirt like that then I should be able to wear my shirt that says “I hate faggots”.  Yes, I’m intentionally being offensive, because they sure don’t give a crap about forcing their offensive agenda on everyone else.

  37. tinlizzieowner  We’ve gone beyond fighting between conservatism and liberalism and maintaining somewhat of a balance.  We are now having liberalism forced down our throats and there’s no balance whatsoever.

  38. PNWShan Laurel A I agree but you see this has been manipulated into being a ‘right’ and is charged not with logic or even science…just emotion. Somehow people think they have an absolute right to the services of others. That is something I just cannot comprehend.

  39. PNWShan tinlizzieowner volgeek 
    If somebody is so insecure in their sexuality, they feel the need to wear it around like a cheap (I’m Queer, and I’m here) tee shirt, they have no right to be ‘offended’ should I exercise MY right to ‘free expression’ and refuse to cater to them. It’s just that simple.

  40. volgeek So that you can FORCE them to do it and then make a spectacle of the people who don’t believe in lesbian “marriage”.

  41. How can a Supreme Court force this kind of action when the State of New Mexico doesn’t recognize or allow for  same sex marriage?

  42. tinlizzieowner volgeek I agree. They have a neurotic need for not just tolerance or acceptance, but approval. Also, because they feel they have been victimized by Christians, God, etc., they feel perfectly justified in bullying Christians. Remember that incident with Dan Savage giving an ‘anti-bullying’ talk in which he castigated Christian students in the crowd?

  43. So now gay rights supersede our 1st amendment rights? I am so ashamed of the New Mexico supreme court. They have brought shame upon us all. What a sad sad day for all New Mexicans.

  44. Laurel A  For the judges: how about the price of citizenship is that you not everyone wants to do business with everyone else. It’s okay to be different; please allow people to have different beliefs, and don’t use your neurotic need for approval as a bludgeon against others.

  45. Fred Flint 
    “My advice is to go ahead and take the job; then do it poorly.”
    And charge them 3 times as much, to boot. 😉 😉

  46. volgeek  
    To force him to do it. That’s what the ‘Gay Marriage’ issue has been all about in the first place. Same with the Baker who didn’t want to make a ‘Gay Marriage’ wedding cake.
    These people could easily find somebody more than happy to do it but the ‘mission’ is to force EVERYBODY no matter what their beliefs, to accept ‘Gay Marriage’ as being ‘normal’, (which it isn’t).

  47. The constant chipping away at our rights as Americans. If this decision doesn’t scare you, you’re not paying attention!

  48. maynardb61 stage9 Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else or have misinterpreted my post. Read further down the page, you’ll see…

  49. This very small segment of our society is attempting
    to force their values on everyday Americans and is succeeding at an alarming
    rate. Let’s stand together and stop them! —http://regularrightguy.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/the-spooky-kaitlyn-hunt-affair-mccains-fight-for-right-under-attack/ … Full Caf Americano

  50. Dukehoopsfan SCarolina
    Speaking of bullying, did you know that in Massachusetts Kevin Jennings, (Obama’s ex-safe schools czar) fooled the Massachusetts governor into accepting homosexuality in schools by seizing upon the word “safety” claiming that homosexual kids were unsafe in public schools so there needed to be an “anti-bullying” policy teaching kids about the benefits of homosexuality?
    That’s where all of the erroneous “anti-bullying” campaigns originated from — homosexual activists seeking to gain access to schools through the back door (no pun intended). They knew that parents would NEVER have allowed their curriculum to be taught had they known the homosexual activists’ true intentions, and Jennings admitted that in a speech he gave in 1995 where he gloated about how he accomplished his goals:

    “If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,’” he told the conference.
    “We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term ‘pro-life’ allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.”
    He continued, “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.” — Kevin Jennings, “Winning the Culture War”, March 5, 1995, Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference
    The fact is “none of these so-called suicide prevention programs have any legitimate medical or psychological basis. No one with actual credentials to deal with suicide, or even mainstream suicide-prevention groups such as the Samaritans, are ever involved. Yet, they’re dealing with vulnerable children. Upon examination, you see that all of these programs are simply put together by homosexual activists to normalize homosexuality in the minds of as many kids as possible – and if possible without any parental knowledge or consent.” — massresistance.org

  51. Kevin Jennings, Obama’s EX-Safe Schools Czar:
    “Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think!”

  52. SheerPolitics stage9 The reason to do it would be to create a dilemma for the court whose ruling was not based upon law but a prescribed activist agenda. The alternative is to accept this, continue to create precedence in the courts and become slaves to the state, which is their aim. The point would be to expose the prejudice of the judge and the hypocrisy of the homosexual community.
    Besides, I don’t think you have anything to worry about; churches wouldn’t have to guts to do this anyway. It would be effective, and modern churches aren’t into that.

  53. stage9  I don’t see that as a solution–because you’re just going after other businesses that may have no dog in this hunt. We would be no better than them. What we need to fight is the tyranny of being forced to perform a service that we don’t want to perform.

  54. I think you are like most who see this as a no win situation. This is how they did it in the Soviet Union. In fact, atheists in the Soviet Union had no problem with you practicing your religion in a state sanctioned “church” under the watchful eye of informers (who were usually your neighbors who were receiving benefits and/or pressure from the government) or the secret police, but if you were to EVANGELIZE your neighbors, you risked arrest.
    The reason for this was two fold: 1) The government could control the message, and Christianity ran counter to the atheistic marxist message they needed to preserve their marxist society. 2) It’s easy to see that outlawing PUBLIC Christian evangelism, which is essential to the survival of the faith and replenishes church attendance generation to generation, would eventually lead to Christianity’s extinction in the hearts and minds of the people. As the original generation of Christians died off (those who still remembered a time when liberty and religious freedom was available) the following generations would not have the same memory; they would all be educated under the new marxist system, whose aim it was to raise a new generation of godless atheists. These new atheists would not know Christianity nor the notion of God. Thus, what was too costly for a gun to do, the law would do by outlawing public worship. Liberals now call this “pluralism” — the allowance of private worship, but the outlawing of public worship.
    And that’s what you see happening in America today. Liberals are godless atheistic marxists (remember, don’t listen to what they SAY, watch what they DO) whose aim is to drive the memory of Christianity from America’s consciousness and impose a new system of secularism.
    That’s why they ignore the Constitution — it presupposes a God, and a foundation built upon Judeo/Christian ethics and values which run counter to atheistic marxism; that’s why they are trying to collapse the economic system — to transform the economy into a marxist-style socialist state-run economy; that’s why they have gained access to our educational system — to reeducate the next generation of students to think as marxists rather than “Christian” free men; that’s why they’ve seized and infiltrated the government — to implement current and future triggers that will favor their intended marxist system; that’s why they’ve infiltrated many churches and church organizations — to counter the TRUE Christian message of individual freedom and virtue found only in Jesus Christ; that’s why they’ve seized news agencies — to control the message we receive; that’s why they’ve seized on the message that virtue and promiscuity and sexual deviancy are co-equal — to dissolve virtue in the hearts and minds of the people and create moral chaos.
    I don’t even call them SOCIALISTS anymore. That is such a narrow view of their overall plan. They are full-fledged marxists, and that’s what they need to be called. Control is their aim.
    We have GOT to stop thinking of liberals as average Americans who are just “misguided fools who don’t understand economics”. THEY ARE NOT MISGUIDED! They are guided by a plan they have had for years now. Their goal is to systematically and purposefully dismantle America one brick at a time. Obama warned us that he would do just that — fundamentally transform America — WHY DO WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE HIM??
    We need to read up on communism as much as possible, because once you do, you will be able to remove your “American hat” and put on the “marxist hat” and see exactly what they’re doing more clearly. When you do, it will astound you just how marxist all of this really is and how it so closely parallels the communist goals of the last century.

  55. I own a medical billing business. I serve only one type of doctor – Psychologists. If a podiatrist asked me to handle their billing and I turned him or her away would I be sued for discrimination against Podiatry based on “the price of being a citizen” ruling?

  56. So, if you own a video business and someone approaches you to film their upcoming porno movie, you can’t say no? And what if you’re a black owner of a BBQ restaurant? Can you not refuse to provide catering at the next Clan meeting?

  57. magdalene1951 What about the drunk in the bar who is refused another drink, what about the bad check writer who is banned from stores, or the homless bum who is showed the door, or the teenagers who are not allowed in stores with back packs –  the list could go on. I believe a business has the right to choose who their patrons will be. If someone is stupid enough to not serve blacks, latino’s, women, etc then society will decide if they stay in business by not patronizing them. If a wedding photographer refuses to shoot gay weddings in a predominately gay community that photographer will naturally go out of business and move on. Thats how our society works- or suppose to.

  58. Fred Flint  Then you end up in small claims court and they get their money back so you’re out money AND time.

  59. BS…you should be able to turn down ANY job you don’t want to do. PERIOD. No one should force you to take on a job you either don’t feel qualified to do or just don’t want to do. This is why people go into freelance businesses so they can work when they want and perform the jobs they’re most interested in. Photographers are not someone who owns a building that’s open to the public and therefore you have to serve everyone.

  60. steprock  And doing a bad job would could harm your reputation and you’d end up in a small claims court as they’d want their money back.

  61. The passive aggressive “do a bad job” approach is No good in response to this gauntlet that has been thrown down. They demand an all or nothing outcome and should receive one.

  62. Gay people take care of gay people, and as such would never under normal circumstance hire a straight person do their wedding.  They pink pages as an alternative to the yellow pages was created for a purpose.  Furthermore, the gay community believes that only gay people have a higher degree of artistic ability and would not, other than to make a point hire a straight photographer to shoot their ceremony.  At the same time, I didn’t see if there was a clause in this ruling prohibiting the straight photographer from doing a crappy job.

  63. Don’t be fooled: you are not Allowed to be tolerant. If you don’t openly support this, you are an aggressor. Thought control in full force here.

  64. M_Minnesota She should intervene if she can.  This is purely a violation of freedom of religion.  I really hate how people are being forced to go against their beliefs.

  65. Why is it that Conservatives are told to put their beliefs on a back burner? That’s not tolerance and it’s sure not freedom.
    PS, great commentary on this, Scoop.

  66. So,
    What will Gov. Susanna Martinez do?   Can she veto it like she could Legislation?  Use the Bully Pulpit?


  67. Watchman74 Well said! I would also add that a person should be able to refuse service to anyone without giving a reason. But, then, we’d have to live in a country under liberty for that to be the case.

  68. Quite a choice left to these people but when I think about what Jesus Christ did for me then there is no decision to make. I would not photograph the wedding, but I would move to a friendlier environment like Texas where my rights as a Christian would be protected.

  69. There is no more WE THE PEOPLE , the government is supposed to be working for the people ,yet it seem or rather it is doing things against what the majority of the people want, the majority wants to own a gun the gov wants to take them away , the majority dosent support Obama Care they force us to have it anyway ,the majority dosent support gay marige ,yet they make it legal in some states , the only reason this is going on is to gain VOTES that’s it our country is being broken down by the needs of one party to gain or retain POWER ,

  70. “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races”
    This is the problem, putting it on par with race. One is a choice, the other is not. So now your forced to do business with someone even if there are valid reasons not to. The right to refuse service is lost.
    “I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”
    What does citizenship have to do with anything? They speak of tolerance, but tolerance is not one sided.

  71. stage9 welltempered2
    Concur with your comments, just suggesting taking a poor picture as an interim means of protest.  I think we all know where this will lead but will not discuss it on an email format monitored by NSA.

  72. wodiej 
    The same segment of society that refuses to accept homosexuality as a norm has been trying to educate society that ALL “impulses” outside of God’s plan is harmful to the individual and society as a whole. You just haven’t been listening, apparently.

  73. stage9 welltempered2 Fred Flint  Years ago I read a book by the Italian socialist philosopher Gramsci called “Capture the Culture.” The title says it all, and that’s what the Left has done. The book is never far from my mind.

  74. welltempered2 Fred Flint Because at the heart of the homosexual movement is FORCED ACCEPTANCE. THIS is the part of the movement that the American people NEVER SEE because the media is useless.
    But here is a preview of what to expect:

  75. I was discussing this with an associate of mine, and I think we have a solution….
    What you do is have area churches host a Love Won Out conference (Love Won Out was an ex-gay conference where ex-gays working through unwanted same-sex attractions could receive help). Then petition area homosexual photographers and caterers to cover the event.
    If they refuse, sue them for discrimination.

  76. RRosen It’s becoming Europe.  Pretty soon American liberals will be pushing a “third gender” like Germany, and gays will be suing churches, which is happening now in the UK.

  77. Fred Flint  The other thing that gets me is that they won, gays can marry, but that isn’t enough. n it They have to force, i.e. rub the noses of those who oppose them it.

  78. Just a day ago there was the news here of Seattle businesses having  “gun free zone” signs in their establishments. But conceal carry has been the law in WA for years. Why then can a constitutional right be denied a citizen when he enters an business establishment but a new law, something not clearly in the constitution, must not be denied?

  79. glegakis “Why would a same sex couple want to have a vendor who doesn’t have their best interest in mind anyway?”
    This is how the gay mafia works. Force you in to shutting up.

  80. DHardy they would sue you and take you past photo’s as evidence that your are a professional and did it on prupose.
    I was thinking more along the lines of this: a quick change to your regular contract that you would sign for this type of work that says “NO notice cancalation is required by photgrapher if not able to make appoointment do to any type of illness and or any other reason and no refunds if cancalled do to this reason.”
    If they sign it, thats on ends up having a headache and was not able to make it. 🙂

  81. Amen RS! What happens when a pastor in NM won’t do a wedding ceremony for a gay couple?! Is that also going to be that pastors “price of citizenship”?!
    Sorry NM, and any other state that tries this! The price is too high!!! I will NOT seperate my beliefs from my actions! What kind of person is that anyway!! I’m so sad this morning. Isn’t this communism?! The gov OWNS your business! You just work there and do what they say! Beliefs be dammed! America, I don’t recognize you anymore!!!

  82. I live in New Mexico and I can tell you we have a huge population of Gays here…They will bait you into these issues if you are not smart….If it was me I would have taken some lousy photos claimed that the best I can do and that would be that…Don’t like my work?…Don’t come back! problem solved…

  83. If I was that photography company I would simply be overbooked on any day that was requested to shoot a homosexual wedding.  Problem solved.  
    I have a small dj entertainment company on Long Island and would never do a homosexual wedding.  
    Why would a same sex couple want to have a vendor who doesn’t have their best interest in mind anyway? 
    Either way, there are ways around laws.  Obama has proven that.

  84. Does anyone believe for a moment that this court would have ruled the same way if it had been two Christians demanding that a gay photographer take pictures at an anti-gay marriage event?

  85. I’m tired of hearing about these people pulling bulling tactics when they cant get their way. Make them wish they had never contacted you when you tell them you do not condone same sex ceremonies and they insist you take them as customers. In the future photographers should take them. (don’t get sued, get even)
    1-Require 75% deposit with a no-refund clause
    2-Do an insanely bad job they won’t and can’t share or show anyone
    Same thing with bakeries and wedding chapels, etc.

  86. wodiej
    Honesty – The first casualty.
    Christians and decent people know it is wrong to lie and to be honest in all dealings.
    Before they were sued they had the right to refuse service to anyone. By telling the truth social engineering has has fractured an already struggling Constitution. If the Constitution is supported by lies it really protects no one anyway. 
    You know this case had nothing to do with a kind homosexual couple being being refused a photographer to shoot their wedding. When someone is denied service they look elsewhere. It isn’t like there is a shortage of photographers. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they shopped for a photographer that they knew would deny them in so that they could advance their agenda. They knew it would work in this political climate.
    Our freedoms took another hit……but it could have been avoided if they lied.

  87. PNWShan Orangeone therightscoop PressWatchusa Actually, females ARE a protected class.  “Bridezillas” has no legal definition, and it would be dismissed as such.  But I catch your drift.

  88. I’ve got it. Just have a business policy that all your products are marked with verses about how God made them man and woman or other relevant passages. If they don’t like it, they can scrape it off. Too bad if you don’t have the product they’re looking for.

  89. “So we have to divorce our conduct from our beliefs once we enter the
    ‘world of the marketplace’? What do they think we are, politicians? My
    conduct is based on my beliefs and if I divorce the two then I have
    ripped apart the very integrity that makes me who I am.”
    The fatal mistake of generations of Americans has been to trust those in government when we should have been suspiciously scrutinizing their every move. Not because there are conspiracies behind every corner, but because power inevitably corrupts. As a result of generations of our laziness and inattention, we have profoundly stupid people in positions of power like the judges on the NM supreme court who make irrational, self-contradictory, thoroughly nonsensical comments like the one you quote.
    Also significant is the anti-Christian biased double standard. The purpose of the suite was to violate the rights of the photographer. And the judges permitted the injustice. On the one hand, the retarded judge quoted above pretends that Christians are free to choose what they believe while insisting they must be FORCED to do what they are told in opposition to their beliefs. On the other hand, the miscreant judge allows the deeply confused sexual abuse victims to do what they like in full expression of their beliefs AND force compliance from others who believe differently.
    Tyranny is certainly no overstatement.

  90. wodiej
    You are correct as far as logically keeping my business going. But I would say no on principle, my rights as an individual, and yes – ask for trouble.   I think it best all who can, take a stand on principles.
    I might say, “No. It’s against my religion.” and see what they do with that.

  91. There is gonna have to be a time when people say F.O.! People are gonna have to start willing to go to jail over this crap. I’m not kidding. Its not like your going to be in there for days on end and its not like you’re going to the Pen. Exercise your constitutional right to say go to hell. The Founders would be very proud of them for doing so. They would get on their horses and ride with you.
    Someone may say that its easy for me to say to risk going to jail. It is because I’ve been there over ten times at least for not paying tickets. In my young mind I thought it was unconstitutional for the cops to take my money from me for something like not using a turn signal or speeding. I would tell the cop what I thought about the whole deal and how I wasn’t giving them a dime of my money. I would happily sit in jail for a couple days to one over on them. I was wrong on this issue but it will take that kind of fervor to get change. That kind of enthusiasm for what you believe is the only way forward.

  92. therightscoop PressWatchusa did you tell the brides why you didn’t want to service their wedding? Women get discriminated against all the time and it’s typically not a big deal.  Gay people should go to a gay photographer where their business will be appreciated.

  93. Laurel A magdalene1951 Are you an expert on homosexual orientation? Why doesn’t society work on the adulterous, sexual impulses of the heterosexuals in our society? No, I guess it’s more natural to have kids out of wedlock, let society pay to educate them, give tax deductions for bringing them into the world of one’s own free will.

  94. What is wrong w these businesses-you don’t say that.  You’re going to get hammered for it.  There are always going to be segments of society that certain businesses may not want to serve.  Just say you are booked solid, thank you for thinking of us and then let that be the end of it.  If you blatantly say it’s because of a certain reason, you’re asking for trouble.

  95. so at what point does it stop?
    What if a hetro couple came to me asking their wedding to be photographed naked? Sorry but I don’t feel comfortable photographing people naked.
    In the same way I don’t feel comfortable photographing or posing 2 men kissing. Its actually a turn off and against every fibre of my being. I can perform the job to the best of my ability as I can with hetro couples.
    You can’t force me to like things I don’t like.

  96. magdalene1951
    The left has an uncanny ability to phrase their comments/arguments to put one on the defensive. 
    Sometimes it is insightful to slightly alter their statement back to them in the form of another question that does the same to them… For instance, “How is being black or a woman the same as being gay?” 
    Or, “Do you consider being black or a woman the same as being gay?” 
    Do not ever feel the need to answer their question, ask them to explain their position past a sound bite…

  97. RRosen magdalene1951 I tried to argue freedom of association with our AG’s office over the case of florist who didn’t want to do flowers for a gay wedding, but they see this stuff only through the lens “protected class”.

  98. RRosen Laurel A Which is by design. Why do you think everything is labeled as a ‘right’? Kind of difficult to counter or deny if labeled that way isn’t it?!

  99. Orangeone therightscoop PNWShan PressWatchusa Bridzeillas are not a protected class. Homosexuals are. It’s similar to trying to fire an employee who is in a protected class (minority, etc.) — you need a big paper trail of several bad reviews.

  100. Laurel A RRosen We’re becoming a nation of entitled wusses, where hurt feelings are prioritized over basic principles of justice and individual rights.

  101. RRosen Tyranny by the minority I might add.
    Welcome to California! Bet you didn’t know you moved!

  102. RRosen magdalene1951 And the Constitution.
    A lot of problems would be solved if left to the free market. Especially when you add in the social media aspect.

  103. magdalene1951

    Straw man argument!
    The argument is about dictating what an individual can or cannot do in their daily lives while going about their own business. The argument put forth, “How is this different from “we don’t serve blacks. “Or “we don’t serve women?”” is a false argument. They were not denied anything different then that of business’s not allowing concealed carry, a 2nd Amendment right that does not end when entering a place of business. It is not about their right to be photograph, they have no such right. They do have a choice to go somewhere else and seek a different photographer. If they turned down this photographers bid to be photograph can the photographer sue them based on refusing to pay the fees? After all is the photographer not being discriminated against based on his/her “choice” of fees?
    They are attempting to control the narrative. If someone walked into a diner and ask for a Coke and are given a Pepsi was anyones rights violated? The diner does not sell Coke, they sell Pepsi, if one does not want Pepsi they go to another diner, they do not force by law that diner to sell them Coke! How is this any difference, this photographer “specializes” or “serves” traditional marriage photography!
    The queer (odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar,curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, freakish, eerie, unnatural;unconventional, unorthodox, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal,anomalous, atypical, untypical, out of the ordinary, incongruous,irregular; puzzling, perplexing, baffling, unaccountable; informal fishy,spooky, bizarro, freaky. ) crowd is using the law to force the diner to sell products the diner chooses not to carry. 
    The photographers rights are being violated.There is no, zero, none correlation to “serving blacks or women”, only a leftist can make such an idiotic leap…

  104. magdalene1951 You should be able to discriminate for any reason. This issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. You own your own services.  Nobody has the right to them. Free association and property rights are basic tenets of a civilized society.

  105. The homosexual agenda is working in the courts. Soon churches will be forced to do homosexual weddings. I can see it coming, sigh…

  106. It won’t be long before it happens: A Christian church will be sued out of existence for refusing to hold same-sex “weddings.” Our culture has gone irreversibly insane.

  107. magdalene1951
    Skin color and gender have nothing to do against Judeo/Christian principles. Same sex ‘marriage’ does. Marriage is sacred. Even called a ‘sacrament’ by many.
    The state can give them all the rights as a ‘couple’ that they want – but don’t call it ‘marriage’. This is sacrilegious.  This is tyranny.

  108. magdalene1951 Because women and Blacks have no control over being women and Blacks. They are born as such. Homosexuals can claim that they are born as such but there is no science to validate that. As human beings we have control over our sexual impulses unlike animals. We can choose who to have sex with or not have sex with.

  109. “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce,
    of public accommodation, 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. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or
    not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart
    from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.
    And why does this not apply to the couple that filed the suit?!
     Consider the 1st Amendment dead. I warned of this on numerous blogs when homosexual marriage was being debated. This is the end goal of the movement. Wipe out religion in America and Western Civilization.

  110. Orangeone therightscoop PNWShan PressWatchusa Nah. At that point we don’t have a contract. Once I sign I never walk away. 
    But yeah, this is indeed tyranny and u r right, it must end.

  111. I shared this story on Facebook, and here is one of the replies I got:
    How is this different from “we don’t serve blacks. “Or “we don’t serve women?”
    Erg! How would you answer such inanity?

  112. therightscoop PNWShan PressWatchusa Until the bridzilla sues you too.  Tyranny is what it is and it must end.

  113. PNWShan therightscoop PressWatchusa Absolutely. I’ve turned down brides simply because I couldn’t break through their comfort level and make them laugh. If you can’t relax around me, then I don’t want to do your wedding. So yeah, you can turn down bridzillas…just not gay bridzillas or something.

  114. Pyrran One of the four states the RINOs want to determine that the border is secure, joined by illegal aliens receive in-state college tuition subsidized by TX taxpayers Perry, and amnest-promoter Brewer and of course CA’s own the more illegal aliens the better Gov.

  115. therightscoop PressWatchusa Right. What if the bride is just a plain nasty person that you don’t want to work with because she’s a bridezilla? You’re allowed to say no to that person, right?

  116. PressWatchusa NO! As a former wedding photographer myself, why should I have to lie to hide my beliefs? I should be able to refuse service as I did with several brides, and be done with it.
    Also, if I do what you are saying…and if they are activists they will have someone call and pretend to be straight and ask for the same day…and then I am exposed.
    I’d rather just tell the truth up front and be done with it. I shouldn’t have to lie just to avoid tyranny.

  117. Justice Barbara J. Vigil – served as
    Chairperson of the Disproportionate Minority Contact Blue Ribbon Panel between 2006 and
    Petra Jimenez Maes- received the 2012 Spirit of Excellence Award from the
    American Bar Association’s Commission for Racial and Ethnic Diversity
    recognizing her efforts to promote racial and ethnic diversity in the
    legal profession. 
    Well, there are obviously two justices on this court who ruled as expected in this attack on the Constitution.

  118. SO, the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..”  doesn’t apply anymore…  Well, it still does around here..

Comments are closed.