Art Bites Liberals On The Butt

[Flanders]

This case is moving along quite nicely:

In a procedural notification signed by Joey D. Moya, the chief clerk of the New Mexico Supreme Court, the owners of Elane Photography and Vanessa Willock were told of the next step in the long-standing case, a schedule for briefs to be filed with the high court.

At issue is the demand from Willock and her then-partner that Elane Photography, owned and operated by Christians, provide their artistic talents for a same-sex commitment ceremony, even though the state does not recognize either civil unions or “marriage” between parties of the same sex.

XXXXX​

“The Constitution clearly prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to advance a message with which they disagree,” he said.

State's highest court to review fine for faith
Justices agree to reconsider penalty for New Mexico photographer
Published: 16 hours ago
by BOB UNRUH

State’s highest court to review fine for faith

This is an extremely important case if it ever gets to the SCOTUS.

One possible ruling says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists put out with tax dollars.

Another possible ruling says artists decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but it flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, and liberalism's blah, blah, blah.

A third possible ruling says that there are two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of rules for private sector artists.

For once in my life I would like to hear the ACLU’s take on a case in progress. I’d also like to hear what that old ACLU hack, Ruth Ginsburg, has to say if she writes the majority or minority opinion.

 

[Katzndogz]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

 

[whitehall]

"Owned and operated by Christians"? Are courts now going to rely on (only?) Christian religious faith to judge violations of the law?

 

[Katzndogz]

It could be just advertising. Meant to attract Christian customers. No different than a sign in a store saying "black owned".

 

[Truthmatters]

art is art and business it business.

I think you are allowed to put up a sign that ways you can refuse business to anyone you choose right?

 

[Katzndogz]

Personal service should never be subject to civil rights laws. It doesn't matter whether the decision is sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other criteria, personal service should be separate and art the most separate of all.

As it is, more and more artists are opting out of offering services to the general public.

 

[Katzndogz]

art is art and business it business.

I think you are allowed to put up a sign that ways you can refuse business to anyone you choose right?

You can refuse to provide service as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights. Otherwise we'd still have white only lunch counters.

 

[Truthmatters]

all you would have to say is you thought they rude to you right?


Hell you can say you thought they were someone else when they walked in.

"I thought the one woman was the person who tried avoid paying me ten years ago".

that would be all you need to do.

 

[Truthmatters]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

Did you tell them out right why you refused to do it?

 

[Katzndogz]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

Did you tell them out right why you refused to do it?

They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the fuck out of my shop before I threw them out bodily. I had a right to do it too! I was fully within my legal rights to throw them out.

 

[Katzndogz]

It took me five months of litigation to demolish them and the gay lawyer they hired.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

I always have trouble understanding why anyone would WANT to work with someone who doesn't want to work with them. Is there some sort of shortage of qualified photographers in New Mexico? Or is it, perhaps, that using the law to force acceptance, agreement, and silence on others is the REAL agenda behind homosexual "marriages"?

 

[AmyNation]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

Did you tell them out right why you refused to do it?

They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the fuck out of my shop before I threw them out bodily. I had a right to do it too! I was fully within my legal rights to throw them out.

They caught you at a bad moment so you spewed hate all over them? Classy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did you tell them out right why you refused to do it?

They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the fuck out of my shop before I threw them out bodily. I had a right to do it too! I was fully within my legal rights to throw them out.

They caught you a a bad moment so you spewed hate all over them? Classy.

Yep, threw them right out on their asses. Why? Because I could and I knew I could. They came in demanding what they were not entitled to demand and claiming discrimination when I wouldn't immediately roll over.

 

[AmyNation]

They caught me in a bad moment and I told them I didn't feel like it and get the fuck out of my shop before I threw them out bodily. I had a right to do it too! I was fully within my legal rights to throw them out.

They caught you a a bad moment so you spewed hate all over them? Classy.

Yep, threw them right out on their asses. Why? Because I could and I knew I could. They came in demanding what they were not entitled to demand and claiming discrimination when I wouldn't immediately roll over.

I agree you have the right to be an ass.

 

[Katzndogz]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

I always have trouble understanding why anyone would WANT to work with someone who doesn't want to work with them. Is there some sort of shortage of qualified photographers in New Mexico? Or is it, perhaps, that using the law to force acceptance, agreement, and silence on others is the REAL agenda behind homosexual "marriages"?

That's why. They specifically targeted this photographer, probably because he used Christian in his advertising. That's like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

 

[Katzndogz]

They caught you a a bad moment so you spewed hate all over them? Classy.

Yep, threw them right out on their asses. Why? Because I could and I knew I could. They came in demanding what they were not entitled to demand and claiming discrimination when I wouldn't immediately roll over.

I agree you have the right to be an ass.

It gave me a lot of satisfaction. They should have apologized for asking and left, instead they begged for trouble. Paint our portrait or we'll sue you! They were practically on their knees begging to be thrown out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two years ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost but not on any religious grounds, they just couldn't prove up a case. They had no argument. Even though I unceremoniously threw them out of my shop in no uncertain terms.

Art and photography is art, is subjective. That's why photographers hope for the best whenever they take wedding photographs. Many couples complain that the photographer did a bad job anyway and ruined their "special day". Turning over the most important photographs of your life to someone that disagrees with the subject matter is a guarantee that the photos won't be acceptable.

To have a law that says artists must work for whoever will hire them and paint anything demanded of them would completely destroy artistic freedom. Totally. Is the government willing to go that far? I hope not.

I always have trouble understanding why anyone would WANT to work with someone who doesn't want to work with them. Is there some sort of shortage of qualified photographers in New Mexico? Or is it, perhaps, that using the law to force acceptance, agreement, and silence on others is the REAL agenda behind homosexual "marriages"?

That's why. They specifically targeted this photographer, probably because he used Christian in his advertising. That's like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

Very likely. Photography is an art, and you can't tell me there isn't a preponderance of liberals in ANY art field, so I really doubt they were unable to find someone accommodating of them and their relationship, had they wanted to.

 

[AmyNation]

Yep, threw them right out on their asses. Why? Because I could and I knew I could. They came in demanding what they were not entitled to demand and claiming discrimination when I wouldn't immediately roll over.

I agree you have the right to be an ass.

It gave me a lot of satisfaction. They should have apologized for asking and left, instead they begged for trouble. Paint our portrait or we'll sue you! They were practically on their knees begging to be thrown out.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Katzndogz]

I know of two photographers in my art group that have totally stopped all commercial advertising. They have a website showcasing their work but there is no advertising that they are soliciting business. They rely on word of mouth only. To get either of them to photograph your wedding, you have to know or be known to them personally.