Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court turns down appeal in New Mexico photography, same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
AllBlack
San Diego, CA

She'd be better off just snake rubbish photos and risk being sued for that instead...cheaper in the long run..

Frustrated Mom
Plano, TX

She should have a right to take whatever pictures that she wants. Keep fighting Elane.

Sal
Provo, UT

This is a sad day for freedom of religion and for the country. As the nation pivots away from God's commandments His Spirit will be withdrawn from the people. Our country will increase in violence and natural catastrophes, and decline economically. God will no longer be able to bless America.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"The justices on Monday left in place a state Supreme Court ruling . . . "

And this is what they likely will do with the ruling of Judge Shelby and others that permit same-sex marriage.

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

I cannot believe that any aspect of this case represents more than a pyrrhic victory. That the Supreme Court now declines to hear the appeal has far more implications than punitive damages for a photographer or whether or not one can decline to take pictures at a homosexual celebration. Perhaps the greater question to deliberate on is whether we are still justified in considering ourselves a "free people", and what are the qualities that would make us truly free.

Old Farmer
Croydon, UT

So, if you believe in God's plan for marriage and don't want to; bake a cake for a gay wedding, take photos at a gay wedding, rent a room at your bed and bath to a gay couple, or you want to donate some money for a proposition that supports traditional marriage, stand by to be attacked by gay rights activists. Seems like all the hate they talk about is coming from them.

Stop The Nonsense
El Paso, TX

Can't all businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? What makes this any different? So if I'm a caterer and someone asks me to cater to a bachelor party with strippers, do I have to do it even though it violates my religious views? By refusing their service, could I be sued for discriminating against the practice of immorality in bachelor parties? What a sad day for religious freedom.

As If!
Layton, UT

Bummer. I guess if I wanted to run a business like her, I'd have to stop advertising. These courts are out of control. These judges have too much power. What a sad commentary on the state of our country.

apm22
sparks, NV

It becomes more apparent everyday that "rights" are now privileges for certain "protected" classes. Gone are the days of natural rights being protected by our laws. We now live under a system where those with power rule according to their desires, without any restraint but self-restraint.

yodak
Dallas, TX

Easiest way to solve this issue: "I'm sorry, I'm not working that day. Here are three of my competitors you should feel free to contact."

BoringGuy
Holladay, UT

In a free society, businesses cannot practice institutional discrimination. The system won't work if individuals are denied services based on religion, race, or sexual orientation. This same debate happened during the civil rights movement when businesses wanted to retain the right to decline serving minority groups, and the nation took a big step forward by ending such a horrible practice.

It's time to extend the same rights to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. It's the right thing and American thing to do.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

For all those bemoaning the "assault" on individual religious freedom, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. As an individual, this person still has the right to believe how she chooses. When, however, you seek a license from the state to open and run a business you do so with the understanding that your business must comply with the laws of the state in which you plan to do business. If those laws prohibit discrimination in the conduct of your business based on gender, as was the case here, then you have broken the law. Period. Jesus understood that and for those of you who seemed to have missed that in Sunday School, I'd suggest you take a look at Matthew 22:17-21 or Mark 12:14-17.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

I wonder what would happen if she took the pictures but didn't seem as enthusiastic about it as the client wanted. Would she be liable for a failure to smile? Or, not smile broadly enough? What if she actually voiced her reluctance? Would her right to express her opposition to being forced to do something she felt was wrong be something for which she could be penalized?

The fight for the freedom of thought and expression is something that effects **everyone**!

I hope the fight continues!

I know I'll never stop.

belgie
Tualatin, OR

Declining to serve someone dinner because they are gay is completely different from declining to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

This is about revenge, not justice.

I avoid giving my money to people that bash Mormons. Why would a same sex couple want to give their money to photographers or bakers that oppose their life style? It isn't like they can find photographers and bakers that are willing to take their money.

These people want to punish those who disagree with them. That is called revenge.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

I couldn't agree more with Yodak. What's wrong with "I already have a commitment that day."

Here
Sandy, UT

I believe we do not have to agree with the SCOTUS in our hearts. We do have to obey, yes. But agree, not so much. God is the ultimate judge. Making this woman violate her conscience or go out of business is not appropriate. It truly is part of the slippery slope, which, I believe, the GLBT community knows, but won’t mention, hoping we won’t notice either.

Up until about 10-20 years ago, gay-rights were not even an issue. Citizens, politicians, and judges all recognized that gay behavior is unhealthy for individuals, organizations, and societies. Somehow, the GLBT community has convinced them all that gay behavior deserves “equal protection” under the law. At least in this country, they never HAD the right to engage in such behavior (or institutionalize it) so I don’t believe anyone is taking away their rights. They never had them to start with, not in this country.

There is an undergirding premise that you must buy into to accept gay behavior as an equal rights issue. It is that it is genetically uncontrollable. I for one don’t buy it.

BoringGuy
Holladay, UT

Bigotry comes from the same place and is wrong and un-American in every form. Whether the bigotry is against Mormons, gays, women, men, minorites, or any other class -- it's wrong and has no place in our free society. The Courts recognize this and are acting exactly how they should in the spirit of the Consitutuion.

Here
Sandy, UT

I think same-sex attraction may be complicated and exist to some degree, but it is not uncontrollable. Nor is desirable for a nation that wants virtue to rule it. How could such a small faction convince so many otherwise? Through smoke and mirrors. While all were talking about equality, few were questioning the appropriateness of BASING equality on an unhealthy and controllable behavior.

I also believe that if you don’t believe in God Who has some absolutes (and a prophet as well), then anything goes. Any argument can be made attractive enough as a philosophy of man that people will buy it. I respect your right not to believe in God or His prophet. But then you can’t be guaranteed the safety of obedience if you choose not to follow them.

Why do we hesitate to say these things? Because some angry person will call us a bigot or some other equally-inaccurate label.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Too bad the SCOTUS no longer values the 1s amendment.

Next time she should take the photos, but make sure none of them are in focus. Or improperly frame the subjects.

Boring guy,
Yes, the system will work – the “couple” had plenty of other options. ANY law that requires one to violate their religious conviction is totally contrary to the 1st amendment. ANY! So the constitutionally delineated, named rights of freedom of religion are trumped by a convoluted, tortured piece of judicial mumbo-jumbo.

my_two_cents_worth
yep, this IS the right tree – any state licensing requirement that requires one to violate their convictions is contrary to the 1st amendment.

militant gays and their radical supporters who continue to use anti-discrimination laws to punish people of faith for following their convictions should consider whether their actions help or hurt their efforts to have such anti-discrimination laws pass in Utah.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments