Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NM Photographer’s Appeal

An appeal from a New Mexico photographer sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elane Photography appealed to the court after a lower court ruling left Elaine Huguenin with hefty fines for refusing to compromise her religious beliefs.

Recent polling has shown as many as 85% of Americans believe photographers should be free to decline photographing a same-sex wedding.

From Alliance Defending Freedom:

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear Elane Photography v. Willock, the case of a photographer who was told by the New Mexico Supreme Court that she must, as “the price of citizenship,” use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagrees or suffer punishment.

“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”

Click here to read more.

The Pro-Life Legacy of Bishop McDonald

The Catholic Diocese of Little Rock announced today that former Bishop Andrew McDonald passed away at the age of 90.

Bishop McDonald served in Little Rock from 1972 to 2000. While he may be remembered for his years of ministry as a Catholic priest and bishop, I want to highlight an important legacy he leaves behind: His pro-life work.

Bishop McDonald stood for life during a time when many believed abortion “on demand and without apology” was inevitable. He organized the Respect Life office at the diocese, and he helped lead the annual March for Life in Little Rock.

Bishop McDonald was also a supporter of the Unborn Child Amendment—now Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution—preventing public funds from being used to pay for abortion. In 1988 I helped lead the effort to pass the Unborn Child Amendment, and was able to start Family Council in part because the amendment campaign succeeded.

(more…)

FRC: Understanding Windsor

Still don’t understand all the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision? You aren’t alone.

Fortunately, Family Research Council has put together a brief report outlining the Windsor ruling–which struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The report points out:

“Dissenting justices criticized the majority for its attack upon the motives behind the law. Chief Justice Roberts said that the facts are ‘hardly enough to support a conclusion that the ‘principal purpose’ of the 342 Representatives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President [Bill Clinton] who signed it, was a bare desire to harm’ … Justice Scalia likewise … explained that to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”

The report also addresses looming questions for state and federal agencies in the wake of the ruling.

You can read the entire report here.