Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court turns deaf ear on New Mexico gay wedding photo case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 9:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Furry – Jim Lynch
Licensing laws that force someone to abandon their faith just to legally operate are contrary to the intent of the 1st amendment. But we know liberals despise the 1st amendment. Furry, you’re right, liberals definitely are NOT tolerant.

Tekakaromatagi,
Why is it OK for Mozilla to fire their CEO for his beliefs but not OK for this small business owner to stand by her beliefs?

Because only liberal beliefs are to be tolerated. You see, liberals cannot function in a world without a double-standard that heavily favors them.

USU-Logan,
Stepped down of his own accord – you mean like the coach who “resigns” after a 5-77 game season? No, he was forced out.

The NM law IGNORES the 1st amendment to the constitution. Plain and simple

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Darrel,
How is it being mean and spiteful to politely decline to photograph a ceremony you personally believe is wrong?

I guess had she been hired to photograph a stripper at a bachelor party and she refused, she would somehow be OK? You mean strippers’ rights are less important than gays’ rights?

Many of you are saying she should LIE and say she is booked? You advocate LYING? MUST be BO supporters!

Substitute the word “Mormon” for “Gay”… tell me where in the constitution it specifically delineates protections for homosexuality as it does for religion. It does not exist but by convoluted, tortured judicial gobble-d-gook.

CDM1525,
“go thy way and sin no more” does not seem to be the language of one who condones sin. Adhering to an unalterable standard is discriminatory freedom? Talk about calling good evil and evil good.

Aephelps14
San Luis Obispo, CA

I don't feel like she is standing up for anything but an inability to empathize with and love individuals who make different choices than her. I know this is a harsh statement, but she is materially damaging the ability of individuals to protect real religious freedoms in the future by damaging the credibility of religion in general by focusing on issues that are so, well, petty/small. I worry about people being forced to perform abortions if they object to them, pastors being forced to perform marriages, physical harm coming to individuals because they practice a religion or not being allowed to practice them at all. If you want to share the truth in your life that makes you happy, refusing to participate in a commitment ceremony will not achieve that objective, it is achieving the opposite. This behavior indicates someone who wants a fight instead of someone who wants to love and share what gives them joy in their life.

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

@USU-Logan:
@techpubs
"do I have the right to refuse from time to time?"

"It depends on why you refuse. if you refuse because the customer is gay, or black, or woman, or Mormon etc, which are covered under anti-discrimination law, then No"

So basically you are saying that since there is no way to prove that I am not discriminating against anyone in a protected group I must write up a contract and accept their business if I do not already have a contract with someone else that prevents me from doing what they want me to.
Just saying to the Judge, "I just didn't want their business" without a specific reason is not likely to be accepted as proof that I didn't discriminate. Sometimes it could be as simple as not liking their attitude when you meet them.

Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

I think those who support SSM might want to reconsider their views if their cause is bent on frivolous lawsuits and ruining people's lives and defaming their characters. I supported SSM but then saw how the people were treating those who were politely against it for reasons of non bigoted beliefs. I told myself that I cannot align myself with people who cannot reason or be civil.

It seems the saying rings true to those who support SSM (and all of us who don't see our own problems): "You got a finger pointing at me but three are pointing back at you."

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Pretty Simple: Gays say Mozilla corporation can fire their CEO because he doesn't "uphold their standards." But that this poor businesswoman cannot have standards and uphold them.

The common thread: The only standard is what is acceptable to the gay community. Like the borg, you cannot resist. On another site, I ran across a gay rights advocate saying his goal is to make it child abuse for anyone, including religious people, to teach "bigotry." By which he meant the standard doctrines of most any Christian religion. He stated he will work hard towards that goal. I.E. to get families torn apart and their children removed if they so much as open a Bible. That's the real goal here.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@ Vanceone
As someone who served a mission for the LDS church, reads scriptures everyday, teaches the young men at church and sat through 10 hours of conference this weekend with friends and family who I invited over to listen and who supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, I can assure you that my goal is not to get "families torn apart and their children removed if they so much as open a Bible."
My goal is completely the opposite. My goal is to support marriage for all people, strengthen families that exist--even if they are step parents, adoptive parents, or gay parents.
I think you are misunderstanding why many people support SSM.
If you are LDS, I encourage to review Elder Zwick's message from conference about his wife in the truck. His wife acted in a way he thought was wrong. His first impulse was to think it was irrational. When they both stopped and asked each other why they had done what they did, they realized they were both acting out of love with the information they had.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@techplus

You are right, if you rejected a customer but he has no proof that you rejected him due to his race, age, sexual orientation, etc, he can not win in the court.
This is certainly not the case for that NM photographer.

@lost in DC
"you mean like the coach who “resigns” after a 5-77 game season? No, he was forced out."

You are exactly right. Just like a coach who has negative impact to the team, fans can exercise their free speech to force him stepping down.

Because of Brandon Eich's controversy, Mozilla's employees and customers can also practice their free speech to force him stepping down.
and in the end, Brandon Eich understood that his resignation would be the best for the company, so he chose to resign.

Plain and simple.

CDM1525
West Point, UT

I can tell you this, Jesus definitely wouldn't have discriminated against anyone. Way to go, once again, trying to justify discrimination. God bless

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@Pianoman
I find all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth very interesting. As someone who has held minority views(like being an atheist) for a long time, it's really interesting to watch Christians squirm now that the shoe is on the other foot, and that they no longer have a majority of opinion, that we are now supposed to accommodate them. You've treated non Christians like second class citizens for a long time, why do you expect them to treat you with the utmost respect?

Mayfair
City, Ut

Oh techpubs (page 2 of comments) Well Said!!

So-CalAggie
Park City, Ut

I'm still perplexed as to why the Desnews is so enthralled with this case? This seems like a good thing for members of the LDS Church; imagine being discriminated against like that because you are Mormon? "Hey can you take some pictures outside of the temple after my wedding?" "Nope, sorry, we don't take pictures of Mormons!" Come on, this should be a no brainer; discrimination of any kind is never good. Imaging all the chaos we invite when we start allowing everyone wily nilly discriminatory practices based on some sort of personal religious bias! Are we some backwards Middle Eastern Country? Or is this the United State of America, where we come together and celebrate our differences? This kind of behavior seems almost barbaric, if not downright immature.

rok
Boise, CA

If money donated for political causes can be considered a form of speech and constitutionally protected, can't one argue that discrimation and using money to discriminate can be constitutionally protected? Like the people that are boycotting the organic farmer in Oregon because of his views, aren't they doing the same thing the wedding photographer did? They are perfectly within their rights to do so. We all do a little bit of discriminating every day for a variety of reasons in our variety of choices we make.

K
Mchenry, IL

Darrel. The photographer at the wedding isn't contributing to the woman being pregnant before marriage.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Lets face it this is just a phony scamjob to refuse services to homosexuals in the name of preserving religious freedom. People get a life . marriage equality is here to stay ,this fitght is over the gay community won!

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@lost in DC
I guess had she been hired to photograph a stripper at a bachelor party and she refused, she would somehow be OK? You mean strippers’ rights are less important than gays' rights?

=====================

You really don't see a difference between photographing something adult and obscene (which is not protected under the first amendment) and a wedding?

I would be much more inclined to be on her side if she can site where it is an abomination to photograph a same sex wedding. If she could also show me were she had declined serving a couple with a child out of wedlock, or a couple for whom this was not their first marriage, or a couple with tattoos, or a wedding on the Sabbath.

It seems rather a selective enforcement, in my opinion of her views. The Jesus I worship extended his hand to sinners, ate with them, was seen with them, healed them, allowed them to anoint his feet; suffered for them.

The two great commandments are Love God, and your neighbor; how exactly was she showing that?

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@K

Darrel. The photographer at the wedding isn't contributing to the woman being pregnant before marriage.

===========

Nor did she contribute to the couple choosing each other to marry in the real life scenario. The point I am illustrating is that nobody is perfect, and refusing service to someone because you think yourself above them (very UnChristLike) is a mockery of what I hold sacred.

I can disagree with my daughter's choices, and still wish her all the happiness in the world in my heart.

If your child was marrying someone of the same sex, would you go to their wedding? Would you as a parent "Give your daughter away"? Or would that be against your religion? What would Jesus do?

ImaUteFan
West Jordan, UT

CDM1525 - Jesus told the adulterous woman "Go thy way and sin NO MORE."

He did NOT say "Go thy way and do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy."

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

@SO-Cal Aggie:
Difference between asking for pictures after the ceremony and outside the Temple as opposed to during the ceremony and being a part of the ceremony as a result of that.

@Willem:
From most of what I have witnessed over the last 5 years this fight will not be over until everyone agrees that SSM is not only allowed but is approved of by all. In my opinion the LGBT community appears to not be willing to stop at just being allowed to marry, but insists that religious people who do not believe in SSM must also approve of and support it.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Article quote: "Huguenin argued that wedding photography is storytelling, and that coerced “expressive speech” violated her First Amendment protections. “Something that should never be beyond the pale in this country is free speech — no matter what the speech is, whether you agree with it or not,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizon-based religious liberty legal organization, which represented Huguenin in the case. Noting that the Supreme Court has long upheld rights to engage in “the most vile and disgusting speech,” Nimocks argued that a court that upholds the right to anti-Semitic or racist speech would be oddly positioned if it allowed a state to coerce speech from an artist."

That is an incredibly simple and logical argument.

And, of course, the pro-homosexual crowd reguses to see it.

To those on the left, don't blame me, I'm merely saying what is true; it IS a clear argument and your side refuses to acklnowledge it. This is just one more irrefutable proof that the left does not really want "free speech" or "tolerance".....they really want "control".

to comment

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