7 Comments so far

1. Yoshimitsu on June 2, 2008 12:01 pm

   I wonder what would have happened if she only accepted gay weddings

2. Kevin Kent on June 12, 2008 3:40 pm

   Liberals are the lowest form of human life. They have a purposeful ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Liberals are a threat to the American way of life and need to be eviscerated for it.

3. Marie on June 30, 2008 12:50 am

   I thought we lived in a free country but I find more and more that we do not. This is a blatant attack on religious freedom. What will be next? We will not be allowed to voice any objection to “alternative” sinful lifestyles but instead will have to endure them continually being shoved at us relentlessly and we will be harassed with more law suits because of our supposed “homophobia” UNLESS we fight back NOW while we still can.

4. Matt K. on July 12, 2008 11:11 am

   “Liberals are a threat to the American way of life and need to be eviscerated for it.”

   Very Christian of you, Ken. If you’re so knowledgeable about the constitution, tell me where it says that a state may not pass anti-discrimination laws? Because states have been enforcing anti-discrimination laws for almost decades now, and I think they have been upheld. Had she refused to photograph a black wedding, should would have been violating state and federal laws.

   There is a HUGE difference between a public accomodation, like a photography business, and a church. Of course no state is going to force a church to perform gay marriages, nor could they. Taking pictures for money is not practicing your religion.

   Quit being so alarmist.

5. Matt K. on July 12, 2008 11:13 am

   By the way, the “meet gay couples” ad banner to the right fo this blog… on a “conservative” website no less… is classic.

6. King on July 27, 2008 2:54 pm

   Great Post! Just another example of the radical gay agenda trying to force their perverted ways on “normal” people.

   I must take issue with Matt K…

   Matt under your line of thinking than you would agree and support any state that passed defense of marriage laws - right?

   I would guess you are more liberal than most readers of this blog and are against the war. That being said a soldier objecting war duty could not claim his conscience as a way of bypassing his duty - right?

   Just because activist judges pass laws for “special class” citizens does not mean every time something does not go their way - they can cry foul and say their rights have been violated. The liberelazation and the indoctrination of our children by the radical gay agenda infiltrating our schools is no better than what Hitler did with the nazi youth.

   Had this photographer went out and contacted other photo studios and told them do not take this lesbian couples pictures we would have a differant story - but that is not the case.

   Would a doctor taking no more patients be subject to a lawsuit should he refuse a patient and the patient thinks it is because they are fat, ugly, black, white, or a homo?

   I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I want to wear size 32 pants. Should I be able to sue Levi’s because there 32’s don’t fit me? By forcing me to buy a larger size they are calling me fat!

   Also you moron a photography business is NOT a public accomodation - it is a private business. If the studio was receiving public funds or was renting the building from a municipality it would possibly be considered a public business and held to differant standards. But that is not the case.

   These two lesbians were not harmed by going to another photographer. This poor photographer the RGA drew a bead on has done nothing wrong.

   One last thing - why is that the left or the special classes they have created can always say they are offended, but whenever their actions offend someone else it doesn’t count?

7. agustin on August 10, 2008 3:00 pm

   MArriage beteween two people of the same sex is an abomination.
   If somebody participates on this kind of aberrations becomes a complice of this terrible sin