stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Iconic Anti-Gay Photographer Case

by David Badash on April 7, 2014

in Discrimination,Marriage,News,Religion

Post image for Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Iconic Anti-Gay Photographer Case

The religious right has been fast at work, seemingly mass-distributing “religious freedom” bills to state legislatures across the country. From Arizona to Mississippi to Kansas, receptive anti-gay Republican lawmakers have been pushing this bills as far as they can, all citing two iconic cases thy claim prove Christians need protection from gay people and same-sex marriage.

No doubt you’ve heard about these cases.

The first, a Colorado bakery, the Masterpiece Cakeshop, that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The second, a New Mexico photographer, Elane Photography, who declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006.

The Supreme Court just announced it is refusing to hear the New Mexico case, Elane Photography v. Willock. Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade, who broke the news, reports the Court did not state why it will not hear the case — not an unusual act.

This is, therefore, the end off the line for Elane Photography v. Willock, which was decided against the anti-gay photographer, based on New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. At the time, New Mexico did not have a law supporting same-sex marriage, yet the religious right claimed this case as “evidence” of how marriage equality hurts Christians.

The case will stand as decided, against Elane Photography, against anti-gay religious discrimination, and in support of equal treatment.


Image, top, by Chris Mancilla via Instagram.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!


BJLincoln April 7, 2014 at 12:04 pm


moriori April 7, 2014 at 11:10 pm

How much do they have to pay , thats what I wanted to know ?

peterblaise April 8, 2014 at 12:00 am

It's not about gay rights, it's about equal rights and non-discrimination.

Read the decision:,…

It tells a complete story of the situation that so many apparently have ath-backwards.

C'mon back after reading all 20 single-spaced pages, and after thinking about some non-spin real information in this topic.

Anyone who wants to serve only a portion of the "public" can go private instead, and discriminate all they want to.

Anyone can refuse service to anyone for cause, but no one can refuse service to an entire class of people, especially a statutorily protected class of people — duh!

Kudos to Wilcox who reported Elaine — Wilcox is a saint for everyone's freedom, yours and mine.

Shame on anyone for thinking gays or anyone should be second class citizens, denied equivalent consideration, equal protection and due process, shame on any of us for inflicting our fears and personal choice of what is a sin for us onto others.

No more second class citizens, ever, please.

Meri70 April 8, 2014 at 5:39 am

If you own a public business, you should NOT be able to discriminate against any group of people. because once we start down that slippery slope, sure they would start with the LGBT community, but then it would be any one with different religious views, then any one with a different skin color, and on and on until they would only serve who they wanted to. It's all about hate. if you only want to wait on certain,people make your business Private. have the people you want to wait on pay membership fees, that way you only have to serve members.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: