In the decision issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. dismissed the First Amendment claims of Emilee Carpenter (pictured), represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Geraci was appointed to the federal bench in 2012 by former President Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They just don't have to be good pictures....
ReplyDeleteThey couldn't be if they are pictures of gays.....
DeleteThat was my first thought....No one says they have to be in focus, or centered, or straight, or the right exposure....
DeleteThen they will sue and win for poor work and they already have abundant proof he don't like gays. They would take him to the cleaners. Pisses me off that the government is cramming this shit down our throats.
DeleteSo , take blurry out of focus pictures of people ,and overcharge for the bad service. Nothing at all says that you HAVE to do a great job all of the time ! Everyone has bad days !
ReplyDeleteNah...too simple. "Here's my thumb with the groom." "Here's my thumb with the other groom." "Here's my thumb with the cake" etc.
DeleteTime to start using your old instamatic again.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my camera wasn’t working, all your photos are out of focus.
ReplyDeleteI don't care about homos, but I hate these activist pukes that force themselves on people.
ReplyDeleteand obama and his tranny wife started all this shit.
They cannot force a photographer to take good pictures. What is wrong with these idiots using the legal system to harrass people who disagree with their lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteWould you even want a photographer that is forced to take pictures to actually do so? I predict pictures that will not look right.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960's there was a barber in NYC that refused to cut black people's hair. His excuse was that "I don't know how to cut that kinky stuff." He was forced by the government to accept black people as customers under the civil rights laws. As a result, those blacks that he was forced to take got extra crappy haircuts, and he soon was back to a totally white clientele.
Same with making a wedding cake for a sodomite "wedding." Would you really want to eat something that the cook was FORCED by a judge to make? Not me. It's not that they really want the baker or the photog to actually bake the cake or take the pics. It's all about inflicting their will on the unwilling, and/or getting a financial settlement, or even costing the defendant their business.
ReplyDeleteNuthin' but crotch shots.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of my posting name, I am a professional photographer, and I have commercial, advertising, wedding, glamour, and film work in my resume.
ReplyDeleteAny good, Pro-photog will take any job offered. If you do not want the work, do not post your shingle on the web. There are many photographers who live from job to job who need the work.
Post your name on the "Christian only, I don't work for people I don't agree with" sites and back away from the job market.
Why? I mean really.
DeleteWhy should the business have to choose between taking on customers it don't want or close up shop?
And "any good, pro-photog will take any job offered' Really? his is what you think?
I guess The Rev has no problem selling out his morals for a few shekels.
DeleteYou're missing the point..... completely. A fundamental right is being able to choose....no matter what the subject. The black robed pirates are ignoring that right. This is not about having pictures taken. It's about forcing someone to do something they object too. There are TONS of photographers who would do the job willingly. But the faggots are more interested in destroying someone who doesn't agree with them. The judge in this case needs to be strung up.
DeleteJumping into the pervy deep end here.
DeleteThis sounds like a minority of furry porn artists that "Will draw anything and any kink!" and most of those are little more than $20 scratch artists. I don't want an artist that draws anything, I want one that specializes in what I want commissioned.
Most artists will not take on any work available but rather declare on their price sheet exactly what subject matter they do deal in. It's absurd to demand an illustrator draw a fetish they are neither into nor have any experience with. The work will suffer for it, the commissioner or client will be unhappy with the finished product, and the artist is likely to be smeared across every community and server the client can get into. Artists can and will say no to work that they do not deal in and I expect photographers (a type of artist) to say no as well.
The further you deviate from what someone specializes in, the lower the satisfaction will be in the finished product.
Forcing a photographer to take pictures of something they are not familiar with and have no desire to be apart of is begging for poor quality. They will be more interested in getting rid of the client than taking good pictures because they were coerced into being there and have no motivation for a job they did not want. A wildlife photographer is not going to be their best at weddings, nor will a macro-photographer do well. Different types see different things, the scene composition in a macro is vastly different from a wedding and it's absurd to demand that all types of photographers fill all roles, you can't force art.
Discrimination in all the field of arts (including photography) is real and entirely legitimate to ensure illustrators (traditional or digital), writers, photographers, leather workers, blacksmiths, engravers, embroiders, etc, find appropriate work and clients find someone with the skill set and motivation to satisfy their order.
I doubt this matters to you but forcing someone to apply their craft, skill set, livelihood, what-have, to something that they do not want to, or worse, find morally reprehensible, is in direct violation of the fundamental principles (and rights) of self-sovereignty and self-determination.
Where does it end? Shall we force actors to star in films with scripts they disagree with or roles that do not suit their familiar character roles? Shall we force high fantasy writers to create works of erotica when the client demands it? Shall we force a photographer (artist) to jump to a different sub field and embroider (artist) the wedding scene?
The simplest and most right decision is to let the free market decide what ideas and positions will survive and what won't. I would take my business out of NY if I was unfortunate enough to live there; in the least I would close my business and turn it into a "hobby" which would end any coercion. No more license, no more state strings, pure freedom.
-arc
Derp, I'll also add that "living from job to job" is a large part of why I built a more traditional retail business rather than continue with the sparse and unpredictable nature of freelance work. Now I am free to continue my personal works rather than cater to others.
Delete-arc
I wonder if there are any gentile judges in northeast? This Geraci parasite needs to be a jeweler or furrier
ReplyDeleteSure was a slippery slope from “What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is nobody’s business!” to “bake the cake and make the toddlers twerk, bigot!”
ReplyDeleteIf the occasion is important to you, why would you seek out someone who does not want to take your picture. You have shit for brains to press the issue. Photos are lost all the time just due to incompetence. I can think of 2 weddings in my family where the photographer lost the pictures and it was not due to abnormal people.
ReplyDeleteBecause its not about the ceremony, it is only about forcing others by use of law to comport to your will.
DeleteWhat normal person would sue a photographer as they are planning their wedding? No one, they would just move on to the next photographer.
It isn't about the 'wedding', it wasn't about the cake; it has only been about using the law to promote deviant behavior towards the interest of normalizing said behavior. And having done so, they will move on to normalizing pedophilia and bestiality. Wait, they already have. Only the fool denies this.
TOTALLY bullshit top to bottom. " we reserve the right to not serve ugly people." Case dismissed mf.
ReplyDeleteIf they can force one to take pictures, they can force one to take "good" pictures. The quality will be decided by an impartial jury of your enemies.
ReplyDeleteThis all dates back to the Civil Rights act, which essentially decided who you can choose to associate with.
I'd jack up the price to the point that they would leave me alone. Any customer I wanted would miraculously find a coupon to bring down the price.
ReplyDeleteHave they approached any Muslim-owned businesses to bake their cakes or photog their "weddings".
ReplyDeletebut hospitals dont have to treat unvaxxed paeople?
ReplyDeleteThe judge has an equal right to a bat upside the head - the same one used to knock some sense into the heads of the fags who want to force people to bow to their perversion.
ReplyDeleteMy ex was a florist that specialized in weddings, she works straight, homosexual, goth, theme, destination and a strange christian types. She set the prices for her work according to their wants and always delivered more than they paid for.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't have an issue with what anyone else does as long as it doesn't effect me. That said, forcing any creative style businesses to take work they don't want is ridiculous and illegal no matter what some judge rules.
Personally if I was contacted about a job I don't want I would simply say I am booked up and thank them for inquiring with me along with a suggestion of a couple other possible businesses to consider
JD
It's a solvable problem.Take the pics with a guy in the background giving the finger.
ReplyDeleteIs there any LEGAL difference between refusing to serve someone because they are black than refusing because they are gay. Many of us accept refusing services to someone for race or religion isn't right but don't feel the same way about da geys. Before anyone makes assumptions about me, I'm a fairly conservative, heterosexual, Christian white male, who does have a gay daughter.
ReplyDeleteNo one has ever successfully proven that "sexual orientation" is genetic. That's a big, fat difference right there. Black skin? Yup, genetic. You're welcome.
DeleteNow class, can you say "Malicious Compliance?"
ReplyDelete