In March, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a “pre-enforcement lawsuit” on Lawson’s behalf challenging a Madison “sexual orientation” for “public accommodation” law, which it said could open Lawson up to being sued if she continued to tell potential customers that she would not promote same-sex “marriage.”
At a hearing Tuesday, the Dane County Circuit Court announced that it will issue an order declaring that Lawson and her business are not subject to city and state “sexual orientation” laws affecting “public accommodations” because she does not have a physical storefront:
“The court’s announcement has important implications for everyone in Wisconsin who values artistic freedom. It means that government officials must allow creative professionals without storefronts anywhere in the city and state the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote,” said ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs.
“The court found — and the city and state have now agreed — that such professionals cannot be punished under public accommodation laws for exercising their artistic freedom because those laws simply don’t apply to them,” Scruggs said, adding, “No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.”
Good. Christians, or others, should not be drafted into supporting homosexuality.
Alexander Barnes
Sanity creeps back into the US judicial system. Persecutorial fags finally BTFO.
Christopher Nelson
Good
Levi Bell
freedom of association needs to make a comeback, i hope it continues under the trump presidency. this is really the start to getting things back the way they need to be.
and you can get most normie conservatives and even lolbertarians on the freedom of association train (gary johnson notwithstanding)
this is a winning issue, and is one step in moving the overton window to the right. ideally, a repeal of the civil rights act would occur but we are too far away for that.
William Gonzalez
fuck yeah >order declaring that Lawson and her business are not subject to city and state “sexual orientation” laws affecting “public accommodations” because she does not have a physical storefront: good law work on behalf of her lawyer
Connor Brooks
Thats nice. She's a fake ass. Ruth and naomi literally cleaved their ribs together and the Bible literally says IN THE MANNER OF ADAM AND EVE. Much else to say about this. Either gender. And people are rightfully fighting back. You can't openly do this in a fiat money society and money is legally defined as free speech
Kevin Butler
ayy
Cameron Phillips
So basically the bakery needs to move the custom cake designs to a "through special request" format by internet or phone while just doing the normal stuff within the store?
William Thompson
checked and keked
time for the idea to circulate
Nicholas Evans
>does not have a storefront
Nigger, the Hobby Lobby case pretty much set the precedent for this, even for (((storefront))) businesses.
The Wisconsin Court's just a bunch of pussies who weren't willing to explicitly extend Hobby Lobby to people who don't want to deal with gay shit, even though that's exactly what the SCOTUS wouldn't have done.
Andrew Anderson
The ultimate jew dilemma. Promote degeneracy or get law shekels representing goyim.9
Justin Gray
anybody can be a lawyer
Charles Lopez
faggot here, clapping my hands, a ruling that blows out whiny faggots while reserving the sanctity of public accomidations and human rights.
this calls for the gayest image i have.
Zachary Bell
Bring back /mlpol.
Nolan Cook
this would be fine in theory. If they allow any cake orders in the store though they have to allow faggot orders as well. public accomidations are for the public.
writing though shouldn't be protected. for example. this
The court hasn't actually issued a ruling yet though...
William Ramirez
...
Ian Jenkins
Is that a 70-200 2.8?
Christopher Powell
Literally fake news:
The Alliance Defending Freedom is declaring a victory after a Wisconsin court said they would clarify that a nondiscrimination law doesn’t apply to an anti-gay photographer because she operates a home business. The bombastic law firm, however, is pretending that they succeeded in overturning an inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance meant to “punish” their client.
Amy Lawson, who owns Amy Lynn Photography Studio, doesn’t want to serve gay couples who are seeking a wedding photographer. No couples have actually approached her and she doesn’t have a commercial space open to the public. There was no “punishment” to overturn because she had no standing to sue since she wasn’t harmed and couldn’t be.
Except Lawson wasn’t punished. She had nothing to “fear” because the law doesn’t apply to her under the definition of “public accommodations.”
“Amy has stopped accepting all requests for weddings and organizations and refrained from posting a particular statement on the studio’s website to avoid violating the law,” the firm said in their bio of the bigoted shutterbug. “Simply put, Amy has stopped speaking for fear of violating the law and loses her right to speak every day she cannot obtain relief from a court.”
There’s nothing stopping Lawson from speaking up. She just can’t sue when one of her customers speaks up too. Any good law firm would know that – and the Alliance Defending Freedom does too.
Juan Rodriguez
I believe so. We should have a Sup Forumstography thread sometime.
William Scott
...
Jace Smith
She's a wedding photographer, which implies her business is only to photograph marriage. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage just because it uses the same word. Christian marriage is implicit in marriage since the 14th century. If only the obvious equivocation were recognized, this wouldn't even need a court ruling.
Luke Barnes
this, basically. "gay marriage" is the faggot equivalent of "i was born in a stable so i'm a horse."
Josiah Garcia
“Amy has stopped accepting all requests for weddings and organizations and refrained from posting a particular statement on the studio’s website to avoid violating the law,” the firm said in their bio of the bigoted shutterbug. “Simply put, Amy has stopped speaking for fear of violating the law and loses her right to speak every day she cannot obtain relief from a court.”
She doesn't do weddings anymore.
Why do Christians have a monopoly on dictating what marriage means? We do not live in a theocracy. Marriage existed prior to Christianity and not everyone is Christian. Regardless this is a big fat nothing burger of a story because she never refused service to a gay person and thus never had standing to sue in the first place. Also the judge hasn't issued a written ruling yet. This is a preemptive PR victory for gay-hating Christians.
Gavin Clark
Marriage is a legal contract between two people. There is no logical reason it has to only be a man and a woman.
Lincoln Sanchez
This is bullshit.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason!
These "storefront" and "faith-based" arguments sidestep the issue.
Jace Williams
Let me know when there are restaurants that refuse to serve Blacks.
If I am a gay baker I cannot refuse to make a cake for a Christian wedding because religion is covered by the Civil Rights Act.
It is a one-sided bias.
Nathan Clark
the gay baker can't stay in business
Ayden King
Masterpiece bakeshop is still in business. The whole point of anti-discrimination statutes is to protect minority groups against the coercive will of the majority. If gays were a large enough group for boycotting bakeries to shut them down, this wouldn't be an issue.
Mason Evans
Who "dictated" what marriage means is irrelevant. No single group of people, like you disgusting, immoral faggot-fuckers, can dictate that its meaning should be changed. There is no reason not to use a different word, like perhaps AIDS-union, for clarity, other than to try to subvert the holy institution of Christian marriage because you're literally evil.
Kevin Ramirez
Exactly Christians don't have a monopoly on the meaning of marriage and your disgust of homosexuals does not matter.
