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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dr. Thom
Long Beach, CA

Well, there is the option of taking really bad photos of the wedding and then refunding the money when the customers are not happy with the results. That way the homosexual wedding get their pictures taken, the photographer complies with the law and everyone is satisfied. I would have a backup photographer just in case.

Are there no "Gay Friendly" photographers known to the Gay community. When a Jewish friend got married, they hired a Jewish photographer/caterer because they were familiar with the culture and the same can be said for those who provide services for LDS or Catholic couples. When LDS women look for formal apparel (wedding and prom dresses), they go to stores that support their values of modesty, why doesn't the "Gay" community do the same?

If I were homosexual, I would prefer giving my business to a company that supports my chosen lifestyle (race is a product of genetics) and stop tilting at wind mills. Sooner or later this will spillover to churches who refuse to acknowledge or perform SSM. Just wait, it will eventually be in the courts.

West Jordan, UT

Businesses have the right to refuse service. A smart business will refuse to disclose the reason why they are refusing to do a job. A stupid business looking to get dragged into a lawsuit will be frank and tell people why they are not doing business with them.

Be the smart business and conceal your reasons for denying service. Take a small fragment of the money you have now saved from dodging a lawsuit and treat your employees to lunch. =)

Brent T. Aurora CO
Aurora, CO

Yes, the current laws are messed up. Just saying that up front. But the line should be drawn between private and public -- that is between private enterprise and government business. A school or library should not be able to discriminate; fire, police and legal protection should be available to all without bias; services private or public which if denied threaten life or well being (IE medical services, the only food in town, shelter in adverse conditions, etc). But private business outside of this should be able to discriminate for any and whatever reason, no matter how repugnant -- including race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, appearance, handicap...

The remedy is the marketplace -- IE others boycotting said businesses because of their discriminatory practices -- not the court system. Successful businesses will cater to the widest possible pool of customers and patrons -- reserving their right to discriminate to only those things which their conscious or other needs dictate because it limits THEIR business.

In other words, despite the nobility and intent, and the greater good it would seem, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- they got it wrong.

Sioux City, IA

Two things that the photographer can do in the future.
1. As Dr. Thom suggested taking really lousy photos, out of focus, too high, too low, et cetera and just refund the money and refuse to re-take.
2. When the person officiating says "If anyone objects let him speak now ..." immediately spend the next 10-15 minutes explaining why you object to a SSM ceremony.

Here, UT


Does it really make a difference to the person you're going to discriminate against if you "nicely" tell them "why I'm going to discriminate against you is...."?


It is still discrmination. It is still against the law. You are NOT A GOOD CHRISTIAN if you refuse to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Period.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

They won't stop attacking religious liberty until we are forced to change our doctrine cannot teach that homosexuality is a sin.

They won't stop until we are forced to allow them into our sacred temples for sealings and use of our facilities to perform that which is ungodly.

They will prosecute us in a court of law if we attempt to excommunicate or shun them for their civil marriages.

Provo, UT


It also says pray for them that despitefully use you. I guess this applies when one side gets sue happy


Maybe the Supreme Court's ear wasn't so much deaf as it was cognizant to hearing reality.

Lehi, UT

I really struggle with this one. I have family that I love and care about deeply that are gay and are waiting to get married.

However, I still view homosexual relations as completely immoral and against my religious beliefs.

I doubt the government would have an issue with a camera person refusing a request to take nude photos of a man and a woman on their wedding night. Morally I view this as the same thing. This lady was asked to take photos of acts that she viewed as immoral and she refused. I completely back her in her decision to refuse this service.

For me, it would depend on the service being rendered. Baking a cake for a homosexual couple I would not have a problem with.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Utah needs to take the lead of Mississippi that just passed their religious liberty protection bill. The bill protects any business from legal action that decides to refuse service to homosexuals based on sincerely held religious belief. Photographers, wedding cake makers, restaurants, doctors, etc. that may for religious religions, object to homosexual conduct.


The bottom line here is that since 1964, the Supreme Court has essentially refused to acknowledge that private business owners have ownership over their own, private businesses. The argument that because a business claims to be “open to the public” that it must serve every member of the public, regardless of the objections of the business owners themselves, is full of fallacy and has no legal basis. A private business owner ought to be entitled to provide or reject service to anyone, for any reason, and an individual should not be able to find any legal recourse that would allow him or her to force that business owner to provide him or her with service. The purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to end the state-mandated discrimination that existed as a result of Jim Crow, which directly interfered with the free market. Those who object to a business’s practices are and should be free to patronize its competition instead. The state should have no role in these matters at all.

to comment

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