The War Against Christianity: The “Gay Mafia” Vs. Elaine Photography

gay marriageSuppose that you are a small business owner, who just happens to be a Christian, and you own a doughnut shop. Through your door walks a young man, positively reeking of marijuana usage, cursing at the top of his voice to someone on the other end of his cell phone, with his pants “saggin'” half-way down his rear,showing his boxers to everyone who sees him..

Do you have the right to to refuse service and ask him to leave?

Most Americans would say that you do.

In fact, according to RasmussenReports.com, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that free exercise of religion extends to how you run your business.

For example, if a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

That being said, have you heard about what happened in New Mexico?

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of New Mexico decided that a small business, Elaine Photography,  violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The judge ruled that their refusal to phtograph the “gay wedding” of  Vanessa Willockand her “partner”, violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation”.

According to Justice Richard C. Bosson, the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” He also said that the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Bosson wrote in his ruling that the owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson wrote, is “the price of citizenship.”

The ruling upholds a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.

The Hugueins were made an example of because they stood strong in their Christian Faith. They believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Guess what? New Mexico law agrees: it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.

And, you know the kicker? There were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

The Free Exercise Clause,found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, protects our absolute freedom of belief. According to our Founding Fathers, religious liberty is a natural right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment ensures that all people have an equality of rights to practice their faith. Although it was originally written to apply to actions of the federal government, it was incorporated into state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in the case Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).

The Free Exercise Clause was a direct descendant of the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The English Bill of Rights expanded religious freedom for Protestants who did not attend the Church of England, but not for Catholics or non-Christians. The Virginia Declaration of Rights held that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion.” The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom asserts that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.

The First Amendment also guarantees all Americans the right to Freedom of Association.

All Americans, including us Christians, may peacefully assemble with whomever we choose, whether it’s in a church building on a Sunday morning, or a church-sponsored small group in someone’s home on a Tuesday night.

As Americans, we have the right to practice our faith 7 days a week, at home, in our community, and in our business.

This activist judge, as in the case of the homosexual activist judge in California overruling the vote of the people, who had voted against allowing gay marriage in that state, overstepped his bounds, trumping the Free Exercise Clause for the sake of Popular Culture and his own Political Ideology.

Remember when the whole gay marriage brouhaha started being the cause celebre for Gay Activists and their Liberal supporters? They went around assuring us that they would not force anyone, whether small businesses or churches, to be involved in the organization or performance of their phony “marriage” rituals.

They lied.

As I, and others have insisted all along, this is a political movement, spearheaded by a political ideology, whose express purpose is the remake the fabric of our society. They wish to make what was once considered deviant behavior by both popular culture and academia, by the use of the word “marriage”, “normal”.

Ask the Roman Empire how that worked out for them.

Heck, ask Modern European Nations, who have put God in a box in their “enlightened” societies, how things are working out for them, as a Modern version of the Barbarian Hordes who destroyed Rome, radical Muslims, install Sharia Law in their countries,

American churches and their leadership will be sued, next, and forced to perform gay marriage rituals or pay an exorbitant fine. 

Don’t be surprised if a ruling comes down from the Halls of Power that preaching against Homosexuality as a sin, becomes a “Hate Crime”.

America’s free-fall down the oft-referenced “Slippery Slope” of Relative Morality and Situation Ethics has kicked into high gear.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

6 thoughts on “The War Against Christianity: The “Gay Mafia” Vs. Elaine Photography

  1. Gohawgs's avatar Gohawgs

    Riddle me this Batman, how does…“prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation”…a private business become a public accommodation?

    Like

  2. The World Hates the Disciples

    18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.

    John ch.15, vs. 18 – 25

    Like

  3. alessandrareflections's avatar alessandrareflections

    I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda.
    These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than
    freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of
    compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society
    because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked
    to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and
    refusing.There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.

    Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against others pushing pornography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right. And so it is with people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional
    sexual psychologies.

    Lastly, given the zeitgeist then, it was a nice surprise to see that a
    poll taken recently says 85% of those asked are in support of Elaine! A wonderful turn of events for the stupid lesbians using the State to harass this wonderful couple. With Kennedy and the lipstick-on-a-pig Kagan though, I’m not hopeful at all about the Supremes.

    I have been blogging on how the liberal homosexuality agenda is incompatible with democracy for awhile.

    Like

Leave a reply to Axe Cancel reply