Say Anything Blog

I’ve been curious ever since this story came out 3 weeks ago.  Every single article mentions the name of the phographer, but none that I’ve found—and I’ve looked—mentions the names of the “same-sex couple”.

Just one of those things that makes you go “Hmmmm...”

[Feet make good soup!]

Unbelievable.

I mean, are we actually saying that this gay couple has a right to be photographed by a particular photographer?  That’s is discrimination for a photographer to refuse to take their pictures?

What about tolerance for this photographer’s beliefs?

“Live and let live” cuts both ways.

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think this is more a First Amendment/religious freedom argument, although the 13th Amendment argument is interesting.

Can a person be forced by the state to do something that is prohibited by their religion?  Shades of the pharmacist and the morning-after pill controversy.

Even during wartime, when the country had instituted a military draft, exceptions were made for those (conscientious objectors) for whom armed military service was a violation of their religious principles.

But let’s take this a step further.  If the state can force the photographer to accept a commission for something that violates the photographer’s religious beliefs, could the state then force a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork, or to work on the Sabbath?  Could either the orthodox Jew or the devout Muslim male be forced by the government to shave?  Could an Evangelical doctor, an Ob/Gyn, be forced to perform abortions?

The fact that a state agency is pursuing this is inherently dangerous to us all.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Ok so the name of the lesbian plaintiff is out there now.

A Ms. Vanessa Willock filed these 2 documents (pdf, pdf)

Well guess what, it seems Ms. Vanessa Willock is something of an expert on the matter, as she is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment.  Not to mention a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico…

That, and terribly thin skinned.  Serious, we expect our lesbians to be just a little bit tougher than this.  Maybe she’s just falling behind on a car payment or something…

[Feet make good soup!]

Bat One, I was going to comment on this but you said everything I was thinking.  And people say that gay marriage won’t hurt churches or infringe on anyones religious faith.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

That, and terribly thin skinned.  Serious, we expect our lesbians to be just a little bit tougher than this.  Maybe she’s just falling behind on a car payment or something…

Marty,

Your just not being cynical enough.  She’s really looking for a chance to blaze a new pathway in the struggle for equality.  She’s also looking for a high profile job in Washington, D.C. come next January.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Thought police.  Yuk.  Had the photographer said, “No thank you, I’ll pass.”

“Why?”

“Because I don’t like you.”

End of story.

If I was compelled by the court to take the pictures I would because I’m a law and order kind of guy. I’d just tkae them out of focus, offspeed, without a flash, ect. I’d switch it up for variety’s sake.

I was gratified that Marty (on February 25, 2008 at 07:03 pm) made my point before I could.  Don’t the oppressors have names and businesses?  Don’t the members of the “Human Rights” Division, as well as the legislators who cooked it up?

I won’t believe the Americans are serious about opposing their oppressors until they at least take the initiative to look up their names.  I don’t think the Americans care as much about their liberty as they do about having a chance to tut-tut about it.

Amendment arguments - shemendment arguments - irrelevant! The Constitution is but whatever those politically powerful black-robbed masters in the Supreme Court say it is. They will control the willing masses until the masses either revolt and ignore their rulings or give up. It looks like we have done the latter, since I don’t recall anyone filing impeachment papers against any SC judge that clearly breaks the Constitution.
Penumbras and emminations included.

All the so-called equal rights policies violate the most bssic and inalienable individual right to chose and select whoever they wish to associate or do business with.  Ironic that these Human Rights commissions do not recognize that human right.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

You all are apparently forgetting this:

Businessman ordered to duplicate lesbian’s videos
Christian forced to reproduce lesbian films sues

I think turn about is fair play. Demand a gay friendly business duplicate a video you shot at a Phelps rally. Or maybe some fliers opposing same-sex marriage.

Of course, I’m guessing that those businesses would be allowed to choose their customers if their sensibilities are offended.

people say that gay marriage won’t hurt churches or infringe on anyones religious faith.

It won’t! The Church is not a denomination or a group of fellow worshippers in a local congregation. The Church is the Spiritual Body of Christ; that is, all true believers together in Jesus having by faith genuinely accepted His Salvation. That can never be hurt, the Church will prevail over everything.

Every time that a dictator or oppressive government has tried to kill the Christian Church, imprison, torture and kill believers; the Church has always become stronger, it always grows stronger when it is under attack. The stories of German, Soviet, Chinese and other states of martyrs to the faith and incredible growth in believers rqeuires volumes to record. The believers that survive have surrendered their lives to Christ and they are warriors in His glorious cause and the Church is always blesed thereby.

So, why not homosexual marriages then? (a) It would involve the state officially sanctioning uncontestably perverse and dangerous lifestyle choices. (b) It undermines traditional family values by making marriage and family itself something undefinable and unhealthty. (c) The real goal of the homosexual community is not marriage, but by their gaining that right to make marriage itself obsolete, they hope to make multiple sexuals relations into socially aceptable behavior and legal.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The Church is the Spiritual Body of Christ; that is, all true believers together in Jesus having by faith genuinely accepted His Salvation.

What about the Jews, Neiman?
What about the Jews?
Do orthodox Jews go to heaven, Neiman?

I love you, Neiman. Do you love me?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

RBB: I will not allow you to take me off in one of your tangents again. I will say this and any other questions on this issue will not be responded to: The Jews are under a special dispensation, they are God’s Chosen people, the Apple of His eye, he has allowed them to suffer for their rejection of Him for many centuries, which made it possible for the whole world to be saved, if they accept God’s Salvation. Then Scripture tells us all Israel will be saved! To what extent? That is not any of our business, that is in God’s hands!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Thank you for not allowing yourself to go off on one of my tangents in 87 words.

Do you love me?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Nieman, I agree with your three main points but up in Canada right now a Catholic priest is in the process of being banned from speaking out against gay marriage.  I read it last night on the same website that Rob has linked to with this article.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Dougee: Sadly, Canada has been a leader in the global move towards hate crime legislation regarding homosexuals. I cannot recall the details, but apparently it is non-elected members of a special group that decide what is or what is not a hate crime in any sprcific case in Canada.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

and then there is John McCain

Neiman, do you love me?

(I will let B O and poof correct your spelling)

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I think what you are all overlooking is three-fold.....

1.  New Mexico DOES have a law that protects homosexuals from discrimation.  If a company CHOOSES to conduct business in New Mexico then they must abide by New Mexico laws.

2.  This complaint is not against an individual, but against a COMPANY.

3.  The photographer could have said, “No thanks” as suggested by Bour3.  Even, “I’m washing my hair” would have been an adequate response.  The fact is that the photographer would not provide pricing or availability information due to the fact that the couple is gay.  That violates the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

The photographer could have said, “No thanks” as suggested by Bour3.  Even, “I’m washing my hair” would have been an adequate response.  The fact is that the photographer would not provide pricing or availability information due to the fact that the couple is gay.  That violates the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

In other words, the photographer has to stay in the closet with his beliefs.

Great “Civil Rights” there.

In other words, the photographer has to stay in the closet with his beliefs.

Great “Civil Rights” there.

Likwidshoe, you’re still missing the point.  Once the photographer identified herself as a COMPANY, civil rights are out the window.  She CHOSE to do business in New Mexico, therefore she should have educated herself on New Mexico laws before intentially violating that state’s law.

Free speech isn’t a viable defense because Huguenin wouldn’t be required to upload the photos to her website, or display them anywhere.  All she would really have to do is provide pricing and availability information to Willock.  It’s doubtful that upon meeting Elaine that the lesbian couple would WANT to hire her as a photographer.  It’s a matter of discriminatory exclusion, which is ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO.

Serious, we expect our lesbians to be just a little bit tougher than this.  Maybe she’s just falling behind on a car payment or something…

That’s the kind of remark that provokes people such as Willock to pursue an action such as this.  Perhaps she is tired of people making such generalizations as this ignorant remark.

As for the car payment.  I’ve read on other blogs that she is also an attorney.  I seriously doubt that she is in this for the money otherwise, she would seek damages rather than an injunction.  Maybe she would just like to know that this COMPANY has been educated on the law and that they will CHOSSE to react lawfully to future inquiries whether they be same-sex, Muslim, Jewish, inter-racial, Catholic, Methodist, African American, I think you see where I’m going with this.  And if you can’t, then you’ve proven my point regarding your ignorance.