Christian wedding photographer can't be forced to work same-sex weddings, judge rules

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Christian Post

CP CURRENT PAGE:U.S. | SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 2020 | CORONAVIRUS →

Christian wedding photographer can’t be forced to work same-sex weddings, judge rules

By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor

A federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that the city of Louisville cannot force a Christian photographer to work same-sex weddings because the “Constitution does not require a choice between gay rights and freedom of speech.”

U.S. District Judge Justin R. Walker on Friday ruled that Chelsey Nelson, a wedding photographer and blogger who is a Christian, can refuse to photograph and blog celebratory messages about same-sex weddings, according to the Christian legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom.

As per a local ordinance, as interpreted by Louisville officials, Nelson would face substantial penalties, including damages, court orders and compliance reports, if she declined to serve a gay couple.

However, the court held, “Just as gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,’ neither can Americans ‘with a deep faith that requires them to do things passing legislative majorities might find unseemly or uncouth.’ ‘They are members of the community too.’”

The court wrote, “And under our Constitution, the government can’t force them to march for, or salute in favor of, or create an artistic expression that celebrates, a marriage that their conscience doesn’t condone. America is wide enough for those who applaud same-sex marriage and those who refuse to.”

It further stated, “The Constitution does not require a choice between gay rights and freedom of speech. It demands both.”

{snip}

Read more: https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-wedding-photographer-cant-be-forced-to-work-same-sex-weddings-judge-rules.html

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

Trump-Appointed Federal Judge Rules For Hate Group In Case Of Louisville Anti-LGBTQ Wedding Photographer
August 15, 2020

https://www.joemygod.com/2020/08/trump-appointed-federal-judge-rules-for-hate-group-in-case-of-louisville-anti-lgbt-wedding-photographer/

-- -- -- -- -- --

CompletePsychoHat Retweeted

https://twitter.com/Popehat

Fed. judge holds that Kentucky wedding photographer who has religious objections to photographing weddings between same-sex individuals cannot be compelled to photo such weddings or say she will on her website by Louisville public accommodation laws. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10313yCI7VzATeYWkB87xSaFKK3jHT3aG/view?usp=sharing

Link to tweet

[vercetti2021]

1. Honestly to me it just pisses me off

The fact that you own a business and you choose your stupid beliefs over making a fucking paycheck. Dumb dumb dumb.

[LiberalLovinLug]

21. I can't understand why some on the left are so concerned with this

Its not a hill to die on. And will only be fodder to be used by the right to show how the left is forcing their unGodly lifestyle choices onto good small business Christian folks.

As some have pointed out, why would you even want to pay a bigot to cater your wedding? To have them forced to do it against their will?

But also, its a private business. If they want to turn away business, and all the following business once the word gets out about your bigotry, that's on them.

If some Trump cultists barge into the office with their red caps on and say they want a yuuuuuuuuge Trump themed wedding, and the company can afford to not cater them, that should also be their choice, IMO. And that is not even based on any kind of racial or sexual discrimination.

[vercetti2021]

28. I guess its not a huge deal to me

I'm soon to be trans and bisexual. I guess to me its like these people will exist and I'd just be like. Okay we'll find another company to go to. Good luck with your views, sure they'll help you in the long run

[dbonds]

32. I agree.

Why do you want to give money to help fund these bigot's business? Find a better service where you support your own community.

[Raine]

33. I can't imagine forcing someone to do their business with me

when they don't want to, they'd probably do a crap job plus over charging for it.

[Sapient Donkey]

41. My instincts go that way too, but then I think how that plays out when applied to race

and to any other businesses. Okay, first I agree 100% with businesses that have such policies should be avoided. Why give bigots money? And they likely would do not do a good job if forced to do something they don't want to. But with these sorts of decisions we're saying some discrimination is fine and some people are allowed to discriminate. Where are those lines drawn? Can photographer refuse to take photos of a certain race? Can a cab refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, gender, or race? How about restaurants? We do allow gender specific gyms, and most people generally understand and don't take issues with that. I don't really know what I think about this, but those the paths my mind usually takes me when I think about these issues.

[Raine]

43. You make some good points, there's a lot to think about

it's much more complicated then it seems. It's more then just the rights of a business and what they think is moral or not because as you said it effects race, gender, religion and so much. It's a lot to think on. 🤔

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Consider: A Christian troll wants to sue a lesbian baker after she made an antigay cake he ordered

A rightwing troll ordered a cake with an anti-LGBTQ message from a lesbian baker, apparently hoping that she’d refuse to make it so he could cry anti-Christian bigotry.

She made it, though. He refused to pick it up for days. She eventually had to throw it away, and then the troll threatened to take her to court.

April Anderson runs the Good Cakes and Bakes bakery in Detroit with her wife Michelle. She has made a name for herself and has baked for Oprah Winfrey and appeared on the Today show.

But she’s not a stranger to bias.

“We are so used to being Black lesbian women,” Anderson told the Detroit Free Press. “You are used to people discriminating against you and saying mean things to you.”

more...

I posted it here. So, we do the right thing we are sued. We expect to be treated as citizens, and we are told to "move along" and "it's not a hill worth dying on" (though no one is saying that!). Understand, I am not attacking you, I am simply giving you something else to consider, especially since this story (above) also just recently happened.

[Ilsa]

85. If he had picked it up after it

had gone bad, he would have sued her for trying to poison him.

[yardwork]

45. So it would be fine for the business to refuse to photograph other people's weddings?

What is the difference between this and refusing to photograph the wedding of a black couple, or a mixed race couple, or an Indian couple, or a Chinese couple, or a Muslim couple?

What's the difference between putting "no gays" on her website and putting "whites only" in the window?

[democrattotheend]

90. It's wrong, but it's not a fight worth picking, IMO

If someone wants to lose out on business because of homophobic beliefs, I'm sure there are plenty of other photographers happy to photograph this wedding, and why would they want to hire someone who doesn't believe in their wedding? IMO, there is a slight difference between refusing service to gays altogether and refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Also, there's a slight difference between something like a photography contract, which is usually individually negotiated and involves a longish-term working relationship, versus someone just walking into a store and being refused service because of who they are. This becomes a slippery slope - change "gay wedding" to "white pride parade" in this scenario, and I would bet many people on here would feel differently about this case. Cases like this make bad law that are used as precedent to make it easier the next time someone wants to discriminate, such as by putting "whites only" in the window.

[yardwork]

94. This case was brought precisely to restore racist laws.

Like almost everybody else responding in this thread, you don't appear to have read the article. This photographer joined with a right-wing organization to bring a preemptive lawsuit, in the hope of creating new case law. They hit pay dirt with a Trump appointed judge who trained with Brett Kavanaugh.

No gay customer complained or brought this lawsuit. The photographer herself brought a preemptive lawsuit to win the right to put "no gays" on her website.

There is no difference between this and somebody putting "whites only" in their restaurant window.

[democrattotheend]

99. You're right, I read the OP but didn't click the link

There have been other cases, like the Oregon bakery case (I think it was Oregon), where the gay couple sued to force the business to serve them. Knowing this was the other way around definitely changes my opinion of the case. Knowing that now, I think the case should have been tossed for lack of standing, as it basically sought an advisory opinion unless and until someone actually sought to hire the photographer for a gay wedding and brought or threatened litigation if the photographer refused.

[MineralMan]

53. "Some on the left?"

Are we all not "on the left" here on DU?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

69. I guess if black people didn't want a bigot to make their lunch they shouldn't have sat in...

... at the lunch counter.

If anyone thinks that if businesses are allowed, in certain parts of the country, to discriminate then others won’t be pressured in to discriminating, you haven’t been paying attention.

Businesses in the south weren’t pressured by market forces to serve black people. Quite the opposite - businesses that desired to serve black people were branded “n*gger lovers” and run out of business.

We already had that slippery slope and we slid all the way down.


There is no such thing as a private business as it pertains to civil rights and discrimination. That’s the point. Don’t go in to business if you don’t want to abide by the law if the land.

Either congress can regulate businesses or it can’t. Either gay people are entitled to the same protections as other minorities or they are not.

[yardwork]

70. Thank you.

[Roc2020]

72. Bottom line.

[LiberalLovinLug]

86. Thanks. Those are good points

Made me rethink it.

While I still think it sets up perfect storms for the right to use it for political points, (War on Christianity!)

I concede that you make a greater overall point. I appreciate the enlightenment

[democrattotheend]

91. There is a little bit of a difference

Between going up to a lunch counter versus an ongoing business relationship with a photographer. Also, there's a bit of a difference between refusing service to gays period versus refusing to photograph a gay wedding. It's not 100% analogous, but you could make the case that this would be akin to forcing a photographer not only to provide service to white customers (a no brainer), but to be open to a discrimination suit for refusing to photograph a white pride event. It's a little different, because a wedding shouldn't be a political statement, but it's the other side of the slippery slope. As a discrimination lawyer, I personally try to avoid bringing cases like this that run a high risk of setting bad precedent that can then be used by a lower court to say it's okay for the photographer to refuse service to gays, period, for example.

[democrattotheend]

87. I agree with you

IMO this was a stupid fight to pick. Why would a gay couple want to hire a homophobic photographer to photograph their wedding in the first place? They'd be giving business to a homophobe, and I can't imagine they'd get the best pictures if the photographer is forced to do their wedding against his will. I'm sure there are plenty of other photographers who would be happy for the business and provide better service to this couple. IDK why some people keep picking these fights.

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Right.

"Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Justin Reed Walker ruled on Friday that it’s perfectly constitutional for a Christian photographer in Louisville, Kentucky to refuse service to same-sex couples even though the city has an ordinance prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination and even though no gay couples have actually asked the photographer to take pictures of anything for them."
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2020/08/trump-appointed-judge-says-its-constitution-for-businesses-to-refuse-gay-customers/

She "pre-emptively" sued! So who is picking a stupid fight?!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

92. You would think a "lawyer" would know this.

[yardwork]

96. I noticed that too.

[democrattotheend]

98. I missed that detail

I just read the OP and didn't click on the link. I didn't realize she sued pre-emptively. Honestly, I'm surprised her case wasn't tossed for lack of standing. Although it seems standing is a shield they mainly like to hide behind when it's liberals trying to enforce their rights.

I don't appreciate you putting my profession in quotes, as if you're implying I'm either not actually a lawyer or not a very good one just because I missed that detail. Yes, noticing details is important in my profession, but this isn't my case and I commented quickly while taking a few minutes break from work.

[yardwork]

101. You commented quickly with at least three posts in this thread, all blaming gay people.

I'm going to be blunt. Your response, like that of so many others here, shows a total contempt for the rights of gay people. You impugned our intelligence, our judgment, and our right to have rights.

I don't appreciate it. I think the responses to you were kind.

Other posters here have had the grace to apologize.

[yardwork]

95. Read the actual case. All your assumptions are wrong.

[LakeArenal]

2. If they won't accept LGBTQ, they should be required ...

To post it in full view on any shop or Internet address.

Big(ot) Capital letters.

[DBoon]

13. So those of us who want other types of photos know who to avoid

Maybe he doesn't mind losing straight customers who care about these things.

[LakeArenal]

24. Exactly. Tell us who we are doing (no) business with.

[noneof_theabove]

34. If they won't accept LGBTQ, they should be required ...

in most cases they do

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

[yardwork]

47. That's different from stating that they won't do business with a category of people.

Any business can refuse to do serve an individual, but the Supreme Court decided that businesses can't refuse to serve entire categories of people.

Do you want to undo the Civil Rights decisions? We'll go back to "whites only" signs in businesses.

[yardwork]

46. And what's stopping them, then, from posting "whites only?"

[LakeArenal]

56. Well, I want them too. Then you really know who they are.

I won’t have to do business ever.
May not even walk by. But then again shop at the business next door.

But that is not an argument. Never going to happen and you know it. Like saying Blue Lives Matter. It ain't white people with the aggressive discrimination.

[yardwork]

57. Are you serious?

[LakeArenal]

58. Are you? One person understood exactly what I meant.

Why are you so upset?

If someone doesn’t want to serve me, I want to know it. It’s not just illegal it’s an indication of who they are.

If it’s legal to not serve LGBTQ folks then the world should know who those people are.

Anyway, that’s enough of this discussion for me. I’m not going to spend Sunday on a discussion from yesterday. Usually it’s someone looking for an argument. Not interested.

[Initech]

3. Seriously are there no other wedding photographers in Louisville?

Why do they have to pick the fundamentalist jackass?

[PatSeg]

9. I can't imagine wanting someone like that

to photograph my wedding. Just think what the photos will look like.

[customerserviceguy]

16. To make an example out of him.

I can't think of any other reason. I wouldn't want a neo-Nazi photographer taking pictures of my kid's Bar Mitzvah (If I were Jewish).

[yardwork]

48. Nobody did. This was a preemptive lawsuit.

Nobody approached this photographer.

[appleannie1]

4. I would not want someone that hateful to photograph anything I am affiliated with.

I would hire someone else and recommend my choice to all my friends and relatives for any and all professional photographs they want taken. I might even pay for something in the local paper talking about how great the photographer I hired was. And most businesses are now listed on the internet. I would give that photographer a bad rating and state why and recommend the photographer I did hire.

[forgotmylogin]

37. Agreed. I'd make a confederate flag designed cake for a Civil War re-enactor party...

...but I shouldn't be expected to go socialize at the event and serve it to them.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Who keeps a condone list?

Seriously. Do you look at people or serve them as customers and think about condoning their marriage, lack of marriage, choice of partners? But maybe it's me, I don't understand how we got so much religion in the secular business world.

[catchnrelease]

6. I wouldn't trust her

If she is so opposed to doing this and if she were required to do it, I would never trust her to do a good job. I envision a photo album of horribly done pictures. Blurry, poor lighting, badly positioned, etc. For such an important occasion I want someone that is excited to do the best job they can, be innovative and thoughtful in what they are going to present to me.

I agree with poster above, if she doesn't want to do the job for specific groups, she should have that noted in a prominent place, in big letters so everyone will know before they consider spending their money with her. I would not hire her if I saw she based her business decisions/who she will serve, on her religious beliefs.

[DallasNE]

7. I Don't Understand The Basis For These Decisions

Where do you draw the line? What happens if the best man at a straight marriage is gay. Or if the straight couple was mixed or even black. If the standard is deeply held beliefs then that can mean whatever the person says it is. This line of reasoning leads to a dead end box canyon. it is about as logical as separate but equal. We desegregated the public schools but we left housing and churches segregated for the most part (and Trump wants to re-segregate housing). We are again headed in the wrong direction thanks to right wing Judges like this clown.

[msongs]

8. so its now legal for lgbt to discriminate against xtians. cool. btw the bible does NOT

mention gay weddings

[MizLibby]

10. Don't worry about me

I wouldn't want such an evil person at my wedding, even if she was there to clean the bathrooms, and she'd probably take shitty pictures as she was hating on me through her lens.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Aside fr legal & political issues, cake writers are technicians, photographers are artists. . . . nt

[Cryptoad]

12. Um still trying to figure out

why would u want somebody that doesn't like u and ur mate , taking ur Wedding pics? telling them to kiss ur ass and go get another photographer......

[RainCaster]

14. Do we have to support MAGAts in our businesses?

I have a religious belief that makes me feel like puking when I see a red cap or a Trump shirt.

[customerserviceguy]

17. If I'm correct

political orientation is not a protected status.

[groundloop]

15. Personally I think this photographer is full of shit, however........

I wouldn't want her anywhere near my wedding if she had so much hatred toward me for the person that I am. A wedding is such a special occasion that I'd want to be sure I was totally comfortable with the person I hired to photograph it.

On the other hand, it takes a special kind of sickness to refuse to photograph a wedding based on some made-up 'beliefs'. As far as I can recall Jesus never spoke one word against being gay, therefore I have to conclude that these people are hiding behind the Bible to condone their own prejudices.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Legalized bigotry.

The fact that people keep getting away with this shows how deep homophobia is engrained in society, but also shows a form of privilege few wish to discuss, including some on the left, and that is systemic heterosexism. As noted above, several are asking "Why even go to someone like that?" Sure, a valid question, but a better question is "Why are such people allowed to discriminate legally?" If the photographer refused to photography "mixed marriages", be they religiously mixed or racially mixed, would people be so cavalier with their suggestions of "find someone else" or would they be outraged by the bigotry and even more outraged that it is getting a legal seal of approval? I think there are some real legal issues here, including at what point to we allow bigots to operate so freely, openly, and to what level and what, if any, recourse do affected minorities have other than "finding someone else?"

[mr_lebowski]

30. I just don't think THIS particular situation is a hill worth dying on, proverbially ...

If it were a physical place of business, that would be entirely different. Or a medical professional denying care.

The whole 'weddings' thing is, for better or worse, steeped in religiosity.

And the business of being a wedding photographer requires the person to spend hours in an environment that could ostensibly deeply offend their supposed deeply-held beliefs. Then they have to spend hours working with the photos they took.. I can sorta understand why one might not want to do so if they're religious.

Don't get me wrong, I hate religion in general and think it's kinda bullshit that business people are allowed to get away with this (and that the grounds the ruling it's based on is bullshit) ... but at the same time, it's not worth a big fight over. Simply because there ARE plenty of other photographers and caterers and the like.

If the ONLY arena these assholes get away with this kind of bullshit is 'in-person wedding services' and basically nowhere else ... I think that would be a fair compromise. Put it that way.

[yardwork]

49. So you'd have no problem with a photographer posting "whites only" in their website.

Noted.

[mr_lebowski]

59. That's not what I said.

Movement towards increased rights tends to happen slower than we would like, but it's smart to pick one's battles.

Would you insist that a pastor/reverend/priest provides officiating services to a gay couple, if asked and offered money to do so?

Guessing you'd say no, but only on the grounds that priesthood is not a business like a photographer. But it kinda is, because they do take money for that service at least in some cases.

Anyways, to these people, it's the same idea in their minds.

Gay marriage is still relatively new, I think it's smart to give the resisters some time to come around AS LONG AS the ramifications are minimal. Which they are in this case. I'm thinking ... don't give them ammunition to organize resistance around, that a large % of the population are going to be sympathetic to. They're mostly all willing to 'accept' at this point. That's pretty good progress for a movement like this one. But they bristle at feeling 'forced to support'. They feel it goes against their ridiculous fantasy sky daddy-based 'way of life', and unfortunately that 'way of life' is offered some legal protections, too.

And just like a lot of people on this thread are saying 'you can find someone else who's happy to do it' ... that's what they're arguing as well.

I think most of them will come around over time. Just like nobody right now is going to refuse to photograph a 'mixed marriage' on religious grounds. But in, say, 1967 ... there probably was still a handful of stragglers.

[yardwork]

60. That's not what this case is about.

First, religious institutions are exempt. That's a matter of constitutional law. Not on the table. We're talking about businesses.

Next, this case isn't about "resisters." Nobody asked this photographer to film their same-sex wedding. She agreed to join a preemptive lawsuit to create case law, creating a precedent for overturning long-standing civil rights decisions.

This case is all about overturning laws and decisions that go back decades. This case is an attempt to use people's discomfort about gay rights to make a stealth attack on all civil rights laws.

The intention of this case is to get rid of laws that protect racial and religious minorities. Don't be fooled.

[mr_lebowski]

68. Thanks for that ... if the ramifications extend far beyond working at weddings, then it's different

My opinion was predicated on a very limited scope of application.

Thanks for cluing me in

[keithbvadu2]

19. It will be ok for Protestants/Catholics to discriminate against each other.

It will be ok for Protestants/Catholics to discriminate against each other.

P/C religionists have folks on each side that say the other is not a true Christian.

And discriminate against other religions that have beliefs you do not.

[keithbvadu2]

20. The sanctity of Holy matrimony for conservative Christians - Kim Davis

The sanctity of Holy matrimony for conservative Christians - Kim Davis

Jesus said some significant things about divorce and adultery for second marriages.

[Lucky Luciano]

29. That's actually Dick Cheney.

[mr_lebowski]

31. Pretty sure she mothered the twins, not fathered them, but ... yeah ... that's hilarious ... (nt)

[roamer65]

22. Also means that other photographers can advertise against her.

We do LGBTQ weddings, unlike Chelsea Nelson.

[jmowreader]

25. Unfortunately, turnabout is not fair play

"Christian" is a protected class, so an atheist photographer can't legally refuse to do a Christian wedding.

[msongs]

27. sure they can, atheism is a belief just like the jesus cult is a belief (not i did not say atheism

is a religion)

[Major Nikon]

35. It's more accurate to say religion (and lack thereof) is a protected class

So an atheist refusing to photograph a Christian wedding would be no different than the other way around. The difference is I doubt too many atheists would be stupid enough to turn down the business.

[Claire Oh Nette]

26. Forced? Contracting services for a fee is forced?

I don't understand the logic here.
Pre-suing for something that Has.Not.Happened. How is this not thrown out of court?

the lawsuit was a “pre-enforcement challenge” – meaning that no same-sex couple attempted to hire the photographer.

How does the fairness doctrine in Kentucky "force" her to accept money for services? She wants to bigot, she'll bigot. She isn't being "forced" to take pictures.

What my vendors thought about the suitability of my marriage, or what they thought about anything but the service I hired them for I couldn't care less about. It never came up.

Pretty sure the Pandemic's exposed these churches as the business desperate for their member support they really are. Tax them.

[brooklynite]

36. Who needs a professional photographer?

Most of the commercial wedding photographer shots I've seen are the same set of poses for each event. I had my grandfather shoot photos for our wedding.

[yardwork]

50. Good for you. Not everybody has a relative willing and able to take photographs.

We hired a photographer because it would be the last time all our relatives, including our elderly mothers, were in the same place. We are grateful for the memories, and grateful that we weren't confronted with bigotry and hatred when we sought a photographer and other services for our wedding.

[RhodeIslandOne]

78. Who needs a bigot for a professional photographer?

Is there anyone in Kentucky who knows how to use a camera who isn't a fuckwad bigot?????

[OriginalGeek]

93. A friend of mine is in KY and is not a bigot

I hope he gets a ton of new work from this.

[yardwork]

55. So she's free to post "whites only" on her website too?

Fortunately the Supreme Court said no to that decades ago. This lawsuit is an attempt to overturn those civil rights decisions.

[marble falls]

40. Of two thoughts:

No one should be compelled to work if they don't want to, excepting, of course public safety and medical personnel.

But more importantly: do I want someone who loathes me irrationally taking my wedding photos?

I don't get some people not getting that everyone else having my same rights diminishes their and my own in no way at all.

[usajumpedtheshark]

42. So are hypocrite Christian landlords allowed to refuse to rent to same sex couples and Muslims

and anyone else they are opposed to? I think I will start refusing to help these so-called Christians who apparently don't understand what the golden rule is.

[yardwork]

51. I conclude from this thread that many DUers don't give a damn about civil rights.

Apparently it would be fine with almost every poster in this thread if we went back to the days of segregated schools, "whites only" signs in businesses, and people being denied loans to buy a home in the "wrong" neighborhood (wait, we still have that. No wonder.)

If you really want to move past racism and bigotry, you can't pick and choose which type of bigotry to let slide.

Allowing some types of institutional bigotry allows it all.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. I came to a similar conclusion.

C'mon, yardie, you cannot be that surprised. I say I came to a similar conclusion because I don't think they don't give a damn about civil rights, they don't give a damn about LGBT rights; it's specific. But, like you, me, and a few others, we see something like this ruling can have a "trickle down" effect that apparently escapes others making excuses for the "errant queer couple", which of course didn't even exist! Another point many don't seem to grasp, this photographer was not approached by any gay or lesbian couple, she just decided to preemptively sue. It seems "separate but equal" isn't just for 1950's bigots anymore, but then again, it never was left in the past.

[yardwork]

64. I detect quite a bit of white privilege here, too.

There's a pervasive assumption that nobody would ever consider putting a "whites only" sign up today. This belief ignores all the daily evidence we see on cell phone footage. There are a lot of racist people in the U.S. who would love to be allowed to discriminate openly. About half the country thinks Trump is doing a terrific job - apparently because they agree with his racism. And here on DU we see dozens of posters who don't seem to understand or care that this preemptive case is all about rolling back ALL civil rights decisions and legislation.

Pathetic.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. It is heterosexual privilege (heterosexism) on display.

I don't doubt other forms of bigotry may be just below the surface, but the comments here and elsewhere are out and out "straight privilege". For all the talk revolving around "checking one's privilege", it seems when it comes to LGB people, that "privilege" is hypothetical or not real to them, and unworthy of consideration. It does make one think (or it should), for all the protests from people about how "good" or "righteous" they would have been during historical tragedies (slavery in the US, the Native American relocations and genocides, the Holocaust, etc.), they aren't being true to themselves when in 2020, that is the 21st century, they can't stand up for GLBT rights, so why the fuck do they think they would have ever stood up for the rights of others in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and even the 20th (especially the earliest parts)?!

Frankly, this news reminds me how far we still have to go!!

[yardwork]

74. It is very revealing, I agree.

[RhodeIslandOne]

77. No!

I want good people to be employed!!!

I want people who actively discriminate choked out of business! Starve! Die!

"Hey honey! These people are fucking bigots! Now please take my money! Stay in business! Thrive! I'll show you by forcing you to prosper!!!!"

Why would someone EVER do business with someone who hates them?

A dozen years ago I went to a garage in my hometown for an inspection. When the guy looked at my name he asked if I was related to so and so, and when I said yes he started making snide comments. After the third one, I told him to take my car off the fucking lift. He got upset and I told him you insulted me when you insulted my family. You do not get my money or my business ever again. I'll go down the street where I won't get shit from someone because of whatever problem this douche had. "But thanks for tipping me off, asshole!" I said as I walked out.

I get filing a complaint. I don't get why they seem to want to pursue the idea that this person simply has to take their money and probably ruin their wedding by doing a shit job. Are there no other wedding photographers in Kentucky? Are they all fucking bigots???

[yardwork]

80. Did you even read the article? Nobody approached this photographer.

Nobody complained. This photographer filed a preemptive lawsuit to win the right to put "no gays" on their website.

[MineralMan]

52. For those who are saying, "So what?"

What is a very important principle. Fairly obviously, no LGBTQ+ couple would be likely to hire such a photographer to ruin their wedding pictures. However, the principle is equality of provision of services. This is not about one particular set of people being discriminated against. The argument that was successfully made in that court is the same argument that has been applied and rejected in many other circumstances that involve racial and other discrimination.

Rulings like this, if allowed to stand, become precedents for other discrimination cases. Professional photography becomes rental property, restaurant services, etc.

Principles are universals, or should be. This was a very, very bad decision.

[yardwork]

71. Thank you. Those who believe Black Lives Matter need to pay attention to this.

This case actually has nothing to do with gay rights. This case is about building case law to dismantle the Civil Rights decisions of decades ago.

Anybody who doesn't think that at least 30% of the U.S. voting public doesn't want those Civil Rights laws dismantled isn't paying attention. They're on cell phone videos every day. It's why they voted for Trump.

[MineralMan]

75. No problem with my supporting equality from private businesses.

Inequality is inequality. Whatever the non-voluntary group that is being discriminated against, it's always the same. If legal cases allow private businesses to deny services to any group, it's just one step from denying those services for any other group. By non-voluntary, I mean groups that have no choice but to belong to that group.

You are absolutely correct, This kind of crap has nothing unique to do with LGBTQ+ rights in particular. It affects everyone's rights. We must always be mindful of any encroachment on human rights, whether or not we agree with those whose rights are being denied or not. It's one issue for everyone.

Thank you very much for your supportive reply.

[sl8]

54. Court order (PDF) :

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ChelseyNelsonOrderPI.pdf

[..]

ORDER

1. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Louisville’s motion to dismiss
(DN 14).1

2. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice the damages claims filed by Chelsey
Nelson Photography, LLC and Chelsey Nelson (together, “Nelson”).

3. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Nelson’s preliminary
injunction motion (DN 3).



PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS2 Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government; Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission – Enforcement; Kendall Boyd;
Marie Dever; Kevin Delahanty; Charles Lanier, Sr.; Laila Ramey; William Sutter; Ibrahim Syed;
and Leonard Thomas (in their official capacities) from taking the following actions against Nelson:

1. Invoking Metro Ordinance § 92.05(A) to compel Nelson to provide her wedding
photography services to express messages inconsistent with Nelson’s beliefs in marriage between
one man and one woman, such as providing these services for same-sex wedding ceremonies; and

2. Invoking Metro Ordinance § 92.05(B) to prohibit Nelson from posting her desired
statements (DN 1-2; DN 1-3) on her website and from making materially similar statements on her
studio’s website, on her studio’s social media sites, or directly to prospective clients.

Nelson is substantially likely to succeed on her Free Speech claim. She doesn’t need to
post a bond.

[...]

Much more at link.

[AmyStrange]

61. What if a gay photographer were asked to film an anti-gay rally?

-

Should they also be required to take the job?
=============

[yardwork]

63. "Anti-gay people" are not a class of people.

Any business has the right to refuse service to an individual. That's not what this case asked, though. This preemptive case (there was no gay customer who asked this photographer to do anything) is about wanting the right to put "no gays" on the photographer's website.

With this decision, the door is now open for the photographer to also put "whites only" or "no Muslims" or "no Chinese customers, please" or "Irish need not apply."

We've been through this. The Supreme Court decided decades ago that that kind of discrimination against entire groups of people is unconstitutional.

Nobody is forcing this or any photographer to accept a booking she doesn't like. All she has to say is that she's busy. But that's not what this is about. This is a concerted effort to roll back civil rights laws.

[AmyStrange]

65. You're right, and...

-

I'm wrong.

I try to read everyone's post completely, but this time, I messed up, and I apologize.
================

[yardwork]

66. Thank you so much for that!

I appreciate it very much.

[AmyStrange]

67. You're welcome, and...

-

thank you for reminding me that I should practice what I preach.
===========

[RhodeIslandOne]

76. Do not give your money to bigots

If someone hates you, do not employ them. I understand the bigger picture, but forcing a hater to work for you is just the weirdest thing ever to me. Simply spread the word about the bigot and find a person who has no objection to your life. Those people deserve your money.

[yardwork]

81. Read the article. Your assumptions are wrong.

[RhodeIslandOne]

79. They'd probably do a sister/brother marriage though. n/m

[sl8]

82. Will the same judge preside over the trial?

The case was assigned to Judge Walker last November, but since then he's been nominated and approved as a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. AFAIK the trial date for this case has not been set yet (I've only seen an unofficial docket), which makes me wonder if the case will be reassigned to another judge.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Judge Walker:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_R._Walker

From the Wikipedia info, it sounds like he's a protege of Mitch McConnell and his career is being fast-tracked.

[SKKY]

83. Find another photographer (There are plenty in Louisville), and move on...

....seriously folks. When we make a big deal about crap like this, all it does is elevate their position. She's a private business owner (Unlike Kim Davis, the Clerk in Morehead), and a photographer. I suspect she'll play the free speech angle, and she'll probably win. I think she probably should. I wouldn't want my Spouse, who is also a photographer, being forced to take pictures for a MAGA rally wedding. Just saying. It works both ways.

[yardwork]

97. Read the article. The photographer filed a preemptive lawsuit.

No gay couple complained or filed a suit. WE didn't do this.

[sl8]

84. The Christian Post probably isn't the best source.

I had never heard of it before. It appears to be an Evangelical Christian paper. Medias Bias/Fact Check says it is "Right" biased and rates it's factual reporting as "Mixed".

[Marthe48]

88. Can we say homophobic photographer

because the photographer isn't christian, not any any stretch of the imagination.

It is a big deal, because the higher in the legal system this is supported, the more it can be used as a precedent. To support any bias in the workplace.

I have a young friend who is an artist. And gay. He is auctioning some of his paintings on Facebook each week, and giving the proceeds of each auction to a specific organization. His friends can suggest worthy causes. I'm glad I have friends like this and not like the photographer.

[Polybius]

100. If this goes to the Supreme Court, the decision likely stands by 7-2

That was the the vote in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding.

[sl8]

102. "Despite ruling for Christian photographer, Louisville will still enforce gay rights law"

As Judge Walker wrote, this preliminary injunction only "protects" Nelson from enforcement of the laws in question until the trial, no one else.

From https://amp.courier-journal.com/amp/5601284002

Despite ruling for Christian photographer, Louisville will still enforce gay rights law

ANDREW WOLFSON | LOUISVILLE COURIER JOURNAL | 21 hours ago

Louisville Metro will continue to enforce the Fairness Ordinance to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, despite a federal judge’s preliminary ruling last week blocking punishment of a Christian photographer who says she will shoot only weddings between a man and a woman.

Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell said Tuesday the ruling applies only to Chelsey Nelson, and the city will try to prove at trial its “compelling interest in preventing invidious discrimination against its LGBTQ citizens.”

“The Fairness Ordinance remains alive and well,” O’Connell said in an email.

The city could have immediately appealed U.S. District Judge Justin’s Walker’s preliminary injunction prohibiting potential enforcement of the law against Nelson for turning away gay couples or advertising that she won’t serve them.

[...]

[ more at link]