INSANITY Wedding Photographer Sues Louisville Over Law Forcing Her To Write In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage

Jonas Parker

Hooligan


Wedding Photographer Sues Louisville Over Law Forcing Her To Write In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage
MARLO SAFICULTURE REPORTER August 07, 2020 6:07 PM ET

A wedding photographer has filed a lawsuit challenging a Louisville, Kentucky, law that forces her to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies against her religious beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Chelsey Nelson against the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government in a lawsuit, which forbids her from publicly explaining to clients and potential clients through her studio’s sites the religious reasons why she only celebrates wedding ceremonies between one man and one woman.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Chelsey Nelson. Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Because she photographs and blogs about weddings between one man and one woman, under Metro Ordinance 92.05, Nelson would also have to promote same-sex weddings to avoid being accused of discriminating between the two.

Communicating her beliefs on marriage would indicate that same-sex couples who want to use her services would be “unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable,” according to the ordinance.

“Everything she does is in accordance with her religious beliefs and really motivated by her religious beliefs,” Kate Anderson, senior counsel with ADF tells the Daily Caller. “That’s why she loves getting to participate in weddings and using her photography and blogging skills to celebrate marriage.”

If Nelson doesn’t obey the law, she could face hefty fines.

“The law also tells her that she can’t talk about her religious beliefs and how they impact her photography and what she can and can’t photograph on her own website,” Anderson adds. “The law is both compelling her to create messages that violate her own convictions, and banning her from talking about those convictions in the way that she wants to.”

The case is similar to several other First Amendment-related lawsuits, including the recent “Virginia Values Act” approved by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam and put into effect in July. ADF filed a “pre-enforcement challenge” on behalf of wedding photographer Chris Herring, who is a Christian that would be forced to provide his services to same-sex couples against his beliefs, or be subject to fines of up to $50,000, with a $100,000 fine per additional violation.

The foundation for the case also echoes that of Masterpiece Cakeshop, which the Supreme Court rules in favor of after an anti-discrimination law was ruled to not have been applies in a neutral manner.

Jack Phillips, the owner of the shop, refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs.

“This is happening across the country,” Anderson tells the Caller. “The Supreme Court sent a very clear message to Colorado and other governments that you can’t act with hostility towards other religious beliefs. You can’t apply these laws in a way that’s going to force people to violate their religious convictions.”

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Nelson’s case, which Anderson says is highly unusual at this level in the court system.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

“Louisville is trying to do the same thing Colorado is going, we’re hopeful that the court here will step in as the the Supreme Court did in Masterpiece to protest both Chelsea’s freedom and everyone else’s.”

First Amendment cases like that of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Herring, and Nelson don’t only have implications for marriage-related businesses, Anderson noted.

“It’s concerning for anyone, regardless of your view on marriage. If the government can come in and force her to violate her convictions in this way, it can do the same thing to someone else on a different issue.”
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
While I support her right to provide services to anyone or no one, I wonder if she also refuses to photograph weddings where one or both parties is divorced?

Summerthyme
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
I do not understand this garbage!! Seriously, why would you want someone that didn't believe or support your life style bake a cake or take pictures of your "special event". Really?!?!
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
I do not understand this garbage!! Seriously, why would you want someone that didn't believe or support your life style bake a cake or take pictures of your "special event". Really?!?!
Domination, and proving one's self "normal."

Free enterprise is a meeting of the minds regarding ones action and another's compensation. If there is not meeting of mind, then it is not free enterprise. If it is not free, then it is compelled.

As you say. Would you freely pay for another's compelled action? As a consumer, I would certainly question if I received my money's true worth. As a provider I would certainly question if my pricing was too low or my performance too high.

Government needs to get out of the marketplace and let the law of supply and demand sort this out.

Dobbin
 
Last edited:

Publius

TB Fanatic
She needs to start writing about the "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony" and call it that when addressing the state.
This puts it as a actual religious ceremony that takes place within the church and the state cannot cross over that line or threshold and carried out outside the church afterwards.
 

bluelady

Veteran Member
What ever happened to specializing? No one would think much of it if a photographer specialized in babies, or high school seniors, or outdoor shoots. (Hmm, or would they, now?) What if a photographer specialized in LBGT weddings? There are *SOOOO* many photographers now, seems like it would be very easy to find one that was a good "fit" for a particular event/circumstance, and just ignore the rest. Why would it be so bad for a photographer to simply say, "I can't help you at this time, but I know a great photographer, ________, who can."?

Sorry, rambling rant.
 

IronMan 2

Senior Member
While I support her right to provide services to anyone or no one, I wonder if she also refuses to photograph weddings where one or both parties is divorced?

Summerthyme

Or if she has never known a man:1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19-21; Heb 13:4; and Deut 22:13-28.

I'll bet she wears clothes made from cotton AND nylon, too.
 

TammyinWI

Talk is cheap
While I support her right to provide services to anyone or no one, I wonder if she also refuses to photograph weddings where one or both parties is divorced?

Summerthyme

Because getting divorced is a forgivable sin. People can and do ask God to be Forgiven for it, and He does. She would not even ask this, it is none of her business, nor any wedding photographer's business (or the caterers, etc.) whether the man or woman had been married before. But it is blatantly obvious that God does not woman to lie with woman, or man with man...and He declared that marriage is between "one man and one woman."
 

mistaken1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It is not about her purity or her photography it is about controlling others and forcing your enemy to do that which they do not want to do. First they came for bakers but they were not pure enough, then they came for the photographers but they were not put enough .....

Demanding purity is a way to blame the victim so one can whistle past the communist graveyard.
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Forcing someone to work against their will with the promise of threat of anything but a paycheck, is forced servitude. It's explicitly banned in the constitution. There is no hurt feelings exemption.
 

ghost

Veteran Member


Wedding Photographer Sues Louisville Over Law Forcing Her To Write In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage
MARLO SAFICULTURE REPORTER August 07, 2020 6:07 PM ET

A wedding photographer has filed a lawsuit challenging a ,Louisville, Kentucky law that forces her to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies against her religious beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Chelsey Nelson against the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government in a lawsuit, which forbids her from publicly explaining to clients and potential clients through her studio’s sites the religious reasons why she only celebrates wedding ceremonies between one man and one woman.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Chelsey Nelson. Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Because she photographs and blogs about weddings between one man and one woman, under Metro Ordinance 92.05, Nelson would also have to promote same-sex weddings to avoid being accused of discriminating between the two.

Communicating her beliefs on marriage would indicate that same-sex couples who want to use her services would be “unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable,” according to the ordinance.

“Everything she does is in accordance with her religious beliefs and really motivated by her religious beliefs,” Kate Anderson, senior counsel with ADF tells the Daily Caller. “That’s why she loves getting to participate in weddings and using her photography and blogging skills to celebrate marriage.”

If Nelson doesn’t obey the law, she could face hefty fines.

“The law also tells her that she can’t talk about her religious beliefs and how they impact her photography and what she can and can’t photograph on her own website,” Anderson adds. “The law is both compelling her to create messages that violate her own convictions, and banning her from talking about those convictions in the way that she wants to.”

The case is similar to several other First Amendment-related lawsuits, including the recent “Virginia Values Act” approved by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam and put into effect in July. ADF filed a “pre-enforcement challenge” on behalf of wedding photographer Chris Herring, who is a Christian that would be forced to provide his services to same-sex couples against his beliefs, or be subject to fines of up to $50,000, with a $100,000 fine per additional violation.

The foundation for the case also echoes that of Masterpiece Cakeshop, which the Supreme Court rules in favor of after an anti-discrimination law was ruled to not have been applies in a neutral manner.

Jack Phillips, the owner of the shop, refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs.

“This is happening across the country,” Anderson tells the Caller. “The Supreme Court sent a very clear message to Colorado and other governments that you can’t act with hostility towards other religious beliefs. You can’t apply these laws in a way that’s going to force people to violate their religious convictions.”

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Nelson’s case, which Anderson says is highly unusual at this level in the court system.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom

“Louisville is trying to do the same thing Colorado is going, we’re hopeful that the court here will step in as the the Supreme Court did in Masterpiece to protest both Chelsea’s freedom and everyone else’s.”

First Amendment cases like that of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Herring, and Nelson don’t only have implications for marriage-related businesses, Anderson noted.

“It’s concerning for anyone, regardless of your view on marriage. If the government can come in and force her to violate her convictions in this way, it can do the same thing to someone else on a different issue.”
Chelsey Nelson, is a GOD fearing woman, she listens only to GOD.
She has a good heart.
Then Louisville, kentucky is full communist and totally against GODS laws.
 

Terriannie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I hope and pray she wins her suit but I doubt it. Homosexual marriage is evil and a done deal by law.

I believe she will have to make the decision whether she joins the "weeds" or quits and hold on to her Christian values until "harvest time." :(:(:(
 
Top