A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.
The primary reasoning behind the court ruling is that sexual orientation, under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, is a protected category. As such, no one offering a public service – which this photography business is presumed to do – can lawfully refuse services on the grounds that those seeking them are homosexual. As abhorrent and Orwellian as I find most “human rights” legislation to be these days (its always some secular militant view of what constitutes “human rights”), not even the law ought to prevent the photographers from refusing service.
There must be, logically, a difference between one’s sexual orientation and one’s actions. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way), absolutely no one has to get “married”, or in this case, to have a public ceremony in which two people claim to be married. The real test of New Mexico’s law would have been if a homosexual individual sought photography services, or even two homosexuals who weren’t asking for wedding photos. It was specifically the act of a “marriage” that the photographers sought to abstain from. Are gay “weddings” a protected category of actions? What if they asked the photographers to take pictures of them performing lewd sex acts, or implied sex acts? Moreover, if for instance religion is also a protected category, would the photographers have a legal obligation to photograph an occult ritual or a sacrilegious desecration of holy objects conducted by Satanists?
The court’s decision was presumptuous, ideological, and outrageous. It constitutes a violation of the private property rights and religious liberty of the photographers. It destroys the social fabric by forcing people to act against their moral convictions when there are plenty of reasonable alternatives available. More perversely, however, it serves to reinforce the utterly dishonest narrative that equivocates historical discrimination against black people with efforts to oppose the legitimization of the radical homosexual agenda. There isn’t a good or service or actual right being denied to people who identify as gay. There are plenty of photographers who will participate in a “gay wedding.” But this isn’t good enough. This vindictive movement will hunt down every dissenter until the world is purified and remade to their liking.
This is oppression. It is part of a concerted effort to invade the thoughts, beliefs and values of American citizens and particularly Christians and force them in a different direction. It is about thought-policing and ideological conformity. We must oppose it, and refuse to stop until the line is so firmly entrenched that none would dare attempt to cross it.