Gay Couple Sues to FORCE Christian Photographer to Take Pictures of Same Sex Marriage

Eugene Volokh has been doing extensive blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy Blog about Elane Photography v. Willock.

That is where I heard about this case of a photographer being forced by the government to take pictures of an private event that violates the photographer's beliefs.

This case is about a photographer in New Mexico who did not want to take pictures of a gay marriage wedding because it violated her beliefs. This gay couple could have gone with another photographer, but they decide to go to court to force this photographer to take their money and take pictures for them at their marriage ceremony. The photographer contended that she cannot be forced to engage in speech that she does not believe in by taking pictures that will be used to promote gay marriage. The court ruled that the constitution did not apply to the photographer and told the photographer that she must take the pictures.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is what I have been talking about for awhile now. The liberal agenda does not just want tolerance. They want acceptance. They want you to be forced to engage in their actions. They want you to be forced to engage in their speech and not be allowed to have beliefs or speech of your own.

This case has been appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court where hopefully the judges there will have some sense.

What is next? Force a Jewish writer to work a job writing a blog for an anti-Semite website praising Hitler? Force a black American caterer to serve punch at a Ku Klux Klan Rally? That might as well happen because that is exactly what is happening here. SERIOUSLY, how can the government try to force this photographer to participate in a private gay wedding when the photographer does not believe in gay weddings and does not want to take pictures at one? This gay couple has NO right under the Constitution to have pictures taken by this individual of their wedding. This photographer DOES have the right to believe gay marriage is wrong and not have to be forced to participate in a private gay wedding that violates her religious beliefs.

I have written about a ton of crazy things recently, BUT THIS SITUATION IS NUTS! There is a clear war against Christianity raging in America. Soon enough we will be put in prison for even simply believing and speaking about Christianity because it will be labeled hate speech.

I thought it was bad enough that the atheists and liberals in America want to do things like remove a cross from the 9/11 memorial. The cross at the 9/11 memorial does not force anyone to engage in an activity that they do not believe in. All it is anyway is a support beam that was left standing after the towers fell that looks like a cross. They want to finish what the terrorists started and tear the rest of the twin towers down by removing this section that was left standing after the terrorists crashed their planes. How does this cross-looking support beam at a museum that no one is forced to go to violate an atheists rights? Does this cross force the atheist to be a Christian? These atheists have no right to try to get a court to remove it.

Hypothetically, it would be wrong if Christians did something like force an atheist actor to render his acting services because someone wants him to be a hired actor in a Sunday school Jesus play. BUT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN AND WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. Christians want to just be allowed to practice our religion publicly and not have atheists take away that right or to re-write history simply because the atheists do not like the Christian foundation of America. Atheists and liberals do and have been doing these kinds of unconstitutional things for some time now. It is okay if they do not want to spend money at Chick-Fil-A. That is their choice. I do not spend money at Home Depot because I do not like what they publicly promote. I would not try to ban home depot from building in my city though just because I do not agree with the religious beliefs of the owners. If I did I would probably be put in jail by Obama and Eric Holder's Racist Godless Department of Justice. The liberals, on the other hand, have no problem trying to ban Chick-Fil-A from building in their cities because of the Christian beliefs of the owners. Somehow it is okay for them to be intolerant bigots and do things to Christians like that, but if the tables were turned they would be crying foul.


We must stand up America. We must fight back against these unconstitutional attacks on out freedom of speech, expression and religion. If we don't, then pretty soon we won't have those rights anymore.


Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

I wouldn't do it regardless what the court said.  Would I be in contempt of court, you bet.  I usually am pretty contemptuous of these liberal activist courts anyway.

I just read the "article" expressing outrage that a Christian photographer was forced to photograph a same-sex marriage. Suppose it was a Muslim photographer who refused to photograph a Christian wedding. Suppose it was an African American who refused to photograph a caucasion couple's wedding. Would there be as much "outrage?"

As a gay person, I find it offensive that you say all gay people are trying to force acceptance. Actually, people already accept me for who I am once they get to know me. So no, that isn't forcing anyone. And you're right, Christians should have the right to refuse service to same sex ceremonies, but at the same time, gays should have the right to get a CIVIL marriage license under the law without having people shove their religion down our throats.

I agree.  It is wrong that someone be forced to take pictures of a gay wedding, although I don't know how that could have happened in New Mexico, because same-sex marriage is not legal there.  It could only have been some sort of private commitment ceremony, not a wedding.  Moreover, I cannot imagine why a gay couple would want someone who is anti-gay at their ceremony in the first place, because I would certainly not want that at my wedding.  I made sure where I was having my wedding would be accepting because I would not want to feel uncomfortable, and also because I would rather give my business to someone who respects me and is supportive of my rights.  That being said, if this were a black couple, and she refused to take pictures of a black couple because she is a racist, you might not be so sympathetic to her cause.  Also, the harm to this woman who is forced to do the photos is not going to be the sort of life-altering harm that the inability to marry the person of your choice can cause.  Because my husband is Australian, I cannot get him a greencard like I could if I were married to a woman (New York recognizes my marriage but the federal government does not under the Defense of Marriage Act).  I am therefore forced by current federal law to choose between living in my own country, where my family has lived since the Mayflower and fought in every major war to protect, and where I pay $250k a year in income taxes because of a successful career that I built up after coming from humble roots, or living in exile with my chosen spouse.  I sympathize that this woman absolutely should not have to take pictures of something that she does not like, but it is nothing like the tremendous harm being caused to me, and my mother, who after my fathers passing of Alzheimer, has now fallen into ill health as well and really needs me around for physical, emotional, and financial support.  ( has stories of lots of same sex bi-national couples in my situation)  When they discussed same sex marriage here in New York, they thought about changing the human rights law such that private businesses could not be sued for failing to accommodate same sex marriages, and I supported that move because to me it seems like the worst thing we can do is run around suing people if we want to get equal rights.  However, members of the New York State Senate rejected that option because changing those laws could open up discrimination against other groups as well.  What if a photographer hated Baptists?  Would you think that it was okay to discriminate against Baptists and not take pictures for their wedding?  Maybe that would not bother you too much, but what if it were an employer? Should an employer be able to fire someone for being a Baptist?  I don't think they should.  However, if you don't think they can fire someone for being a Baptist, so no employment discrimination, then how can they discriminate against certain groups of customers?  Could McDonald's refuse to serve a Baptist?  I don't think they should be able to do that either.  So if McDonald's can't discriminate against its customers, how can a photographer?  Maybe because she is a single freelancer, and not a major corporation, but it is a fine distinction.  The issue is not that cut and dry. 

Did you seriously just compare gays and lesbians with Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan? That's some serious hate there. Let's try it this way. What if a photographer refused to take photos for an interracial wedding? Not the same thing, but it's a lot closer than your hateful examples.

It's fine if your views are private, but any time you run a public business, you have a responsibility to serve all regardless of your personal views of the people.

As for the rest? You lump a bunch of people together. Gay does not equal atheist or liberal. And you are trying to stomp on my religion, which consecrates same sex couples in marriage.

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy