Obey Your Federal, er… STATE Overlords!!!

todayJune 14, 2012 3 3

share close

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Last week, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that the state government can force a wedding photographer to take photographs of a gay wedding, even though the photographer holds the view that marriage is between one man and one woman, and even though New Mexico doesn’t even perform same-sex marriages.  Read the transcript for more…


Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  This is just unbelievable.


Last week, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that the state government can force a wedding photographer to take photographs of a gay wedding, even though the photographer holds the view that marriage is between one man and one woman, and even though New Mexico doesn’t even perform same-sex marriages.

A lesbian couple queried photographer Elaine Huguenin about shooting their wedding.  Huguenin, a Christian, responded that she only works “traditional marriages.”  The couple, rather than turning to any of the dozens of local photographers who would take their money in exchange for services, asked the government to compel Huguenin to take their picture, or at least punish her for clinging to her unfashionable moral views.  The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that Huguenin had violated the couple’s rights.

[end reading]

Mike:  You’ve got to imagine this.  [mocking] “Hey, I want you to come shine my shoes.”  “I don’t do black shoes.”  “Why not?”  “Because I don’t have any black shoe polish.”  “I want to sue you.”  I’m being ridiculous with that one.  [mocking] “I want you to come mow my lawn.”  “Your boy’s gay in there.  I don’t do gay lawns.”  “Yeah, you do, redneck.  Now get your ass over here and mow or I’ll sick the Human Rights Commission on you.”  “Uh, excuse me, that’s my mower, my gasoline and my labor, and I ain’t mowing your gay ass lawn.  You may as well just go back in your house, boy.”  So the New Mexico Human Rights Commission basically forced this woman to go and take these photographs, even though she chose to not accept that business.  They rejected her religious-liberty defense.


Government is dictating to private citizens how they must spend their time and use their skills, and whom they must work for.  The court ruled that Huguenin’s business — consisting of her, her camera equipment and her husband — was a “public accommodation,” and so was subject to civil rights laws.  What else is a “public accommodation”?  In what other aspects of our lives will the court take away our freedom of association and freedom of contract?  If government can tell a freelance photographer how she may or may not choose her own jobs, why not a freelance writer?  Don’t want to accept an article assignment from a [Mike: gay magazine?  Tough boobies!]  Better hope they’re not part of a protected class.

[end reading]

Mike:  How about babysitters?  What if you call up one of my daughters, Mike Church’s Daughters’ Babysitting Service?  You say, “I heard you babysit.”  “Yes.”  “I want you to come over and watch my kids for me Friday.”  . . .  “. . . I’ve got to get permission from my parents and all that, so I’ll ask them.  Mind if I ask who I’ll be babysitting?”  “Well, it’s me, Steve, and my partner, Stan and it’s our son.”  “Oh, okay.”  Then you call Steve and Stan back and say, “No, I’m gonna have to pass.”  If Steve and Stan persist and say, “Why?”  “Because my parents don’t want me in gay people’s house” or just say they’re of age.  “I don’t do gay couple babysitting.  Sorry.  Just not my cup of tea.  Here’s my friend’s number.  You can call her.  She’ll do it.”  “No, no, I want you.”

So the gay people can go to a human rights commission or a judge and can sue you and force you to go to their house and watch their children, just as the photographs was forced to take the pictures . . .?  Whose rights are being enforced here?  The right of conscious of the people that actually participate or own the business or the right of the people that want the business transaction transacted?

AG:  It’s crazy.

Mike:  It’s nuts.

AG:  But it’s the evolution of saying if I own a private business that caters to the public, things like —

Mike:  But every business caters to the public at some level.

AG:  Right, but what we’re seeing now is, if I’m a white supremacist restaurant owner, I still have to open my business to whoever I want.  I can’t make private decisions.  It takes the free market —

Mike:  Why do you have to be a white supremacist?  What if it’s a black supremacist?

AG:  Or if you’re a New Black Panther and you don’t want to serve white people, you no longer have the right not to serve them.

Mike:  Yes, but we are proceeding towards . . . whether or not you have a right.  That’s for a human rights commission and a judge, elite individuals appointed by other elite individuals.

AG:  The ultimate evolution of the slippery slope of going down this path —

Mike:  It’s over.  You’re at the bottom of it.  What’s next, they kill you if you don’t do it?  If you don’t do it, we’ll imprison you.

AG:  You have government regulatory agencies looking over every single aspect of your business.  I wouldn’t say it’s too far of a fetch to go down the line where you have the government saying you can’t charge this amount of money for this service.  We’re seeing it with healthcare.

Mike:  This is the good and plenty act.  You’re talking about the good and plenty act.

End Mike Church Show Transcript


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: ClintStroman

Rate it

Post comments (3)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bud Kuhlmann

Interesting article and comments. Were I the unhappy photographer, oh how I would enjoy doing this wedding. First, I’d want my payment full and up front. I’d show up inappropriately dressed. I’d have an expressionless face that could sap the happiness out of any room. I’d ask no questions and arrange no particular poses, but would take pictures exactly on demand. Then I’d have more fun with near but night quite right photos to my heart’s content. Remember, it is the skill that makes the wedding album special. A more inattentive, snap-shot approach would fulfill the lawful demands and give the photographer something to show to friends and family for years to come. And with the unhappy couple knowing that you are here only to fulfill a judges orders, you can imagine how quickly the event will sour. Please please please let me do that photoshoot!


Bud, the photographer should demand the right to photograph the marriage’s consummation as an extension of the compulsion to shoot the nuptials. In the Old World, grooms had to present proof of consummation, a bloodied sheet, to prove the marriage was official and receive the dowry. The photograph serves the same purpose and is inextricably linked to the full scope of the wedding procedure the homosexuals demand access and obedience to!


Why not sue back on grounds of violating rights of slavery. Slavery is defined as a subjection of a person esp in relating to work.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x