Judge rules for photographer challenging gay rights law

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A federal district court has ruled in favor of a Kentucky wedding photographer who challenged a Louisville ordinance banning businesses from discriminating against gay customers.

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton on Tuesday granted a request by Chelsey Nelson for an injunction against the city’s ordinance, the Courier Journal reported. The order said the city could not use the law to compel her to photograph same-sex weddings or “otherwise express messages inconsistent with Nelson’s beliefs."

Nelson sued Louisville city officials in 2019 - arguing that the city’s so-called fairness ordinance violated the First Amendment because it could force her to take on same-sex wedding assignments, which she opposes due to her religious beliefs.…










Read more news: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-rules-photographer-challenging-gay-rights-law-89172454







The judge ruled correctly. The protection of free expression and free speech as well as the free exercise there of of one’s religious beliefs in all aspects of daily life is crucial. Thankfully the Alliance Defending Freedom is a great legal group with a good track record defending religious liberty.

 

This ruling should be the model for how the Supreme Court will rule on a case like this

 

FYI:

Alliance Defending Freedom is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that supports restricting rights and protections for LGBTQ people; expanding Christian practices within public schools and in government; and preventing access to abortion.

Beautiful Christians doing God's work...

 

So good you had to spam it twice?

 

Please only reply on this one. The other identical one was self reported as the phone did not register the first attempt as going through when in fact it actually did . When that happened at the place I used to be I could have deleted the duplicate myself.

 

That sounds like the bigoted hate speech of the racist and misogynistic thoroughly corrupt SPLC being quoted here.

 

Free speech and rights work both ways don't they. You can't force a painter to paint a painting they would have disagreements just as a composer or a sign maker or anyone involved in a creative process.

 

That is the bottom line here. One can not coerce or force into involuntary servitude another to express or create something with which they disagree, especially when doing so would violate one’s religious beliefs.

 

modernpaladinWell-Known MemberPast Donor
New
I agree the judge ruled correctly. I disagree with the assessment that the photographer was "challenging gay rights law." If the photographer had refused to do a KKK or a Nazi wedding, it would not be called "challenging racist rights law." If the photographer had refused to do a gun-themed wedding, it would not be "challenging 2A law." This was a challenge to a law that violates freedom of expression and freedom of association, not a law that protects 'gay rights.' No one was preventing the gay couple from hiring a different wedding photographer.

Last edited: 5 minutes ago
7 minutes agoReport

 

I moved your comment from the inadvertent duplicate thread I’m trying to get removed to this one. You are correct.

 

So who cares who the Aliance is, a judge ruled on it. I personally would have taken the photos, but that's just me. I would also like the opportunity to not take photos of blm, ISIS, KKK, etc. Do you have a problem with that?

 

So if a business entity has religious rights, can corporations get married?

 

Interesting decision...
BUT:
Is this "decision" really worthy of TWO Threads?

www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/judge-rules-for-photographer-challenging-gay-rights-law.603449/

 

Individuals within have religious rights and can get married.

 

We are talking about business entities having religious rights. I understand the ruling and would have no issue if there were no legal protections from discrimination based on religion. I see this as creating a preferred citizen as it is not legal to point a righteous finger and say "We don't serve Christians here!" This is not equal protection under the law and also violates the "Do onto others" belief.

 

The owner does and married is local not federal law but I bet you state stipulates individuals.

 

The Democrats have to git rid of all this freedom stuff.

 

It's Louisville. There is more than one wedding photographer in town.

This particular photographer was targeted to be made an example of.

 

If an atheist declined to participate by decorating a cake or serving as a photographer for a Christian gathering...he /she would have that right. It's not the person but the event.

 

I realize that, but still have an issue with creating "preferred citizens" For example:

My sister in law is married to a woman. She is a veteran and owns a business.

She cannot legally deny employment, goods, or services based on ones religion. "We don't serve Christians here!" (Not that she would)

Meanwhile, a Christina business owner can point a righteous finger at her and say "We don't serve your kind here!" while enjoying legal protection.

 

You are incorrect. It is not the atheist; it is the business the atheist owns. That business cannot legally deny goods, services, employment, or housing based on ones religion.

 

You are incorrect. A business owner can choose to not participate in something that goes against their beliefs. There is a huge difference between a Christian coming in for donuts vs a Christian wanting an Atheist to decorate a cake with verses describing homosexuality as a sin.

 

I can understand and respect an opinion, but claiming an atheist business owner can legally deny goods, services, employment or housing on the bases of ones religion is false. You amended your statement and I agree that businesses should not be force to create or inventory something they don't want to. That is more than fair.

 

You can't force someone to do a job, though. What's next, force Christians to work for a company they believe to be contrary to their beliefs?

Should a gay photographer, wedding cake maker, etc be forced to service a Christian wedding made up of people who believe homosexuality is an abomination and that all gays are going to hell?

Where do we draw the line with all this forced acceptance?

 

It's right there on their web page. Lmao. Activists if I've ever seen them trying to reform society in God's their image.




Oh, I had to get past this nasty thing in my face.