You are correct: Mr. Vento of Geno’s didn’t refuse anyone service for not speaking English. What he DID do was to throw them a cheese steak not made to order, whatever came off the grill.

Should the photographer have said: “OK, I’ll take photos for you, but it will be photos of the Monarch butterfly migration through Taos, not of your ceremony.” ???

Anyway, I don’t think the cases are necessarily related. Vento didn’t refuse service, but there is nothing ideological involved that would implicate his religious liberty. Serving someone a sandwich doesn’t involve you in promoting ideas with which you disagree. This is also why this case is nothing like segregated lunch counters and other false comparisons we’ve heard related to the civil rights struggle, which was legitimate.

In this case, you have the state forcing people into a form of servitude against their will and in violation of their First Amendment rights. This is NOT a legitimate exercise of state power.

The First Amendment is more important than some lesbian activist’s hurt feelings that someone somewhere out there does not agree with her sexual behavior and does not want to be involved in promoting it through her art or her business.

I do not believe the photographer should be punished for living her faith, not matter if she lives it perfectly or not. I believe we all have a basic right to say “no”. Do we REALLY believe the photographer could get the court to fine this lesbian couple if they refused to hire this photographer because she was Christian? What if they had simply not even bothered to ask, because it was a Christian place? Is that discriminatory too? Are we now going to begin legislating how people think, or what they are allowed to believe? I mean, the whole thing is REALLY ridiculous if you just think about the fact that if what they really wanted was a photographer there are likely a dozen more who WOULD take the pictures. They could have done more damage, possibly, by moving on and then telling everyone they know about the terrible treatment they received.

I’m not sure saying WHY she did not want to photograph the ceremony was the wisest thing this woman could have done. Could be she was making as much of a political statement as the lesbian ladies. But since there seems to be some evidence these ladies chose this photographer BECAUSE they knew she would refuse on religious grounds I suspect maybe they asked why, and if this woman is a good Christian as she professes (I don’t know her and do not vouch for her) then she would not likely lie if asked directly. All conjecture anyway, all we really KNOW about this is what is available online and in the papers. We must conclude that it is POSSIBLE at least.

Of course, she MAY have missed a ministry moment, but again, conjecture.

What bothers me more than all that though, is the way a discussion that should be confined to the debate of ideas surrounding the civil liberties of some folks in New Mexico, has degenerated to some vitriolic personal attacks and name calling. Isn’t calling someone a religious freak just as bigoted as saying something derogatory about gays or blacks?

I try to remember that if your ideas sound ridiculous to me, it is very likely my ideas sound just as ridiculous to you. It is this difference in opinion that creates the potential for great debate, if we can refrain from attacking one another. My opinion, if you must attack the person instead of debating the idea, very likely you do not really have anything intelligent to say about the idea to begin with, but instead just have a strong emotional feeling about it.

Thanks for the opportunity to rant.