This is an abomination and perversion of justice. Neither the supreme court of NM or of the US has any authority to do this... they have just committed individual, not official acts violating this photographer couples' rights; this is not an official act, it is not a legal ruling; no action can arise out of fraud; no one need obey an unconstitutional law; an unconstitutional law is void ab initio; can incur no penalties; no judge is bound to enforce it and no individual bound to obey it; any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void and is no law; Jefferson said the judges are not the ultimate arbiters of the law, but the people.
The queer couple were not injured (an injury would be if they were beaten up for asking). Would a black photography couple be punished by the court for refusing to do a KKK wedding? Would a Jewish photography couple be persecuted by the court for refusing to do a Skinhead or neo-Nazi wedding...?
People have the right to contract and the right not to contract and that right exists on both sides (which is another reason Obamacare is unconstitutional). People have a right to buy what they want, if they can purchase it (but I can't sue Rolls Royce because I want to buy a Rolls but they have the price set too high to discriminate against poor people). People have a right to sell.
Try going to a dog breeder to buy a puppy. I wanted to buy a Rhodesian Ridgeback at one time... the owners are PSYCHOTIC. She asked me more questions and probed deeper than the average proctologist. She asked, are you going to have the dog as a pet or a show dog? I replied, I had not thought about it, for a pet, but maybe show, who knows...? She said, you can't do both it has to be one or the other. (first shock). Then she asked how I would keep it. I said chained up by the dog house in a nice area, to prevent the dog from chasing cars. She said no, chains are cruel. (second shock). I forget what else she asked, but then the clincher... get this... she said, "Even if I let you buy one of my dogs I will still have legal rights to the dog and can repossess it at any time I feel you are not treating it right." (I said, have a nice day, [click]; I felt like saying, oh, you still have legal right to the dog, great, you can come clean up its poop on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and I'll expect your monthly check for part of the food bill, veterinary care, and obedience school.)
People have a right to sell to whom they want to sell. People do it all the time. If they don't like the philosophy or religion of a certain group (that is, if they are conservative, moral Christians, then they are open game to discriminate against), the liberals will not let some be distributors for their product if they maintain a traditional, conservative, Christian moral code.
And, likewise, groups like Wal-Mart and others discriminate against people like Maurice Bessinger, who has a restaurant in the South and had a popular line of bbq sauce Wal-mart and most other large chains carried, UNTIL they learned of his conservative, southern Christian views, and they dropped all his products which cost him MILLIONS... yet that was not considered a damage...? the only reason they dropped his products was political/religious.
--yet a perverted couple is suing a Christian photographer who declined EVEN THOUGH PLENTY of other photographers said YES... this CLEARLY is not a damage and they CLEARLY were never going to use this photographer... THESE TROLLS WERE TROLLING for a lawsuit and THAT shows BAD FAITH.
There were plenty of others willing to photograph their perversion. It seems now every religion EXCEPT the Christian religion--the FOUNDING religion, has rights. Imprecatory prayers are in order for all evildoers involved who are persecuting and robbing this godly couple, and stripping them of their God-given rights... the perversion of the court is abominable and a violation of the Constitution, to suggest that this godly couple's surrendering their Christian faith is the price of citizenship... that is blasphemy against Christianity and a violation of the public servants, the judge's oath to uphold the constitution of the US and NM and the PRESERVE the rights of the lawful people... those deemed lawful at the time NW wrote its constitution and those deemed lawful when the US constitution was drafted.
Declining to serve someone for any reason is not a damage... (if the couple's photography business was incorporated, then they need to unincorporate and then carry on their business as unincorporated, because corporations have no rights but are at the mercy of the whim of the corrupt state)...
Supreme Court Will Not Hear Case of Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding
The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington March 5, 2014. U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared to look for a compromise that would enable them to avoid overruling a 26-year-old precedent that made it easier for plaintiffs to negotiate large class action settlements.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case, Elane Photography, LLC vs. Willock, in which a wedding photographer was punished for declining to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony.
"This essentially means the end of legal options for John and Elaine Huguenin for now," Alan Sears, president, CEO and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said. ADF represented the Huguenins, owners of Elane Photography.
In 2006, Vanessa Willock sent an email to several wedding photographers in New Mexico asking if they would be willing to photograph her same-sex "commitment ceremony." (New Mexico did not redefine marriage to include same-sex couples until December 2013.)
"This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information," the email stated.
Elaine Huguenin informed Willock via email, "We do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day."
In court testimony, Huguenin made clear that she would serve the couple in other contexts. She was not declining to serve gays. She was declining to serve gay weddings because she believed that doing so would be in violation of her religious beliefs. Huguenin had also previously declined service to clients who asked her to photograph nude images and violent images.
Willock filed a complaint against Elane Photography, arguing that the company violated an anti-discrimination ordinance. The case made its way to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which found Elane Photography guilty and ordered the company to pay close to $7,000 to Willock.
"The injustice is difficult to overstate," Sears of ADF stated. "Make no mistake, this issue is all about the government forcing a citizen to communicate a message against her will and against her beliefs.
"To add insult to the outrage, a justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court has even gone so far as to tell the Huguenins that surrendering their freedom is 'the price of citizenship.'"
Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, also expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court's decision to not hear the case. The case is about freedom of conscience, he argued.
"At issue is the fundamental question of whether the state can pretend to be a god over the conscience," Moore said. "No one is seeking to outlaw photographers from working at same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies. At issue is whether these persons will be forced by the coercive power of the state to participate in something they believe to be sinful.
"The audacity of the New Mexico Supreme Court in saying that the crucifixion of conscience is the price of citizenship is breathtaking. This ruling is more in the spirit of Nero Caesar than in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. This is damaging not only to the conscience rights of Christians, but to all citizens. When we decide, as a country, that state power trumps the rights of conscience, we are treading on self-evident, inalienable rights, granted not by government but by God."
ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, on the other hand, argued that the case was about freedom of speech.
"The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle ...," he said.
Lorence added that ADF has several other clients in similar cases which the Supreme Court will have opportunities to weigh in on the issues, including wedding florists and bakers, and a t-shirt printer who declined to design a "pride festival" shirt.