Michael Smith:

Our political history reveals that too many times people who say they are against infringement of individual rights, what they are really against is that they aren’t in charge to do the infringing. If you say you are against some sort of abuse, and then prosecute the same sort of abuse when you are in the majority, you are a hypocrite.

This is the biggest problem I have with the establishment GOP, they wail against the Democrats doing crappy things and when they get in charge, they just do crappy things of their own…we must avoid the urge that “WE. MUST. DO. SOMETHING!” instead of approaching a response that is well thought out…

But agit8er’s gonna agit8.

I will say that what this ruling does is legalize the hunting of gay marriage opponents. As an example, I offer the process in the New Mexico gay wedding photography case of a few years ago, Willock v. Elaine Photography, LLC – because there is something that never really came to the attention of the public in that case that is revealed in the final order of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The fact of the matter is that while the respondent, Elaine Photography was clear that they did not prefer to photograph gay weddings, the complainant’s (Vanessa Willock) partner, Misti Collinsworth (aka Misty Pascottini) proceeded to attempt to secure the services of Elaine Photography after it was clearly known that they were not interested in the business. Collinsworth did so under the name of Misty Pascottini without identifying that it would be a same-sex ceremony, apparently with the intent to deceive Elaine Photography.

Ms. Willock and Ms. Collinsworth (Pascottini) filed a “public access” discrimination complaint AFTER securing another photographer who successfully photographed the ceremony – and for substantially less than the amount quoted by Elaine Photography.

According to the final order:

“Ms. Willock was shocked, angered and saddened to receive Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response. Ms. Willock was also fearful, because she considered the opposition to same-sex to be so blatant. Ms. Willock thought that Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response was an expression of hatred at what Ms. Willock had hoped to be a happy occasion.”

So, other than losing her “joy” over this, she could demonstrate no material harm. She must have had time to recover her joy as the actual ceremony didn’t take place for almost another year.

Elaine Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, were hunted – they were targets of two apparently radical lesbians who engaged in a blatant set-up and apparently were intent on forcing their views on others. There were ample opportunities for them to secure another photographer (which they did) and there was no binding legal agreement between the complainant and the respondent. This case was decided wrongly on the law and says more about political correctness and arbitrary exercise of authority by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission than it does fairness.

After Canada legalized same-sex unions, they set up a national “human rights commission”, the job of which has been to prosecute and persecute “non-approved” beliefs and opinions. Those that aren’t clearly in violation of any law, they tie up in a lengthy and expensive process of defense. As author and columnist Mark Steyn says, “the process the punishment.” Get ready for such a national “human rights commission” in the US.

The point to all of this is this: you can’t trust a government or a judiciary to decide based on principle. Most quasi-judicial bodies like the New Mexico Human Rights Commission are politically motivated and view legislation as nothing less than an opportunity for mischief. This is the kind of crap that has opened Pandora’s Box and ultimately results in less liberty for everybody. There is a reason that the Constitution spells out limited government.