Photographer refuses to shoot same-sex thingy. Bullying ligation ensues. First liberties eroded.

Priests and bishops will be targeted by homosexuals activists as victims in harassing court cases.  Proponents of unnatural acts will bully – through litigation and threats of litigation and even violence – bully clergy into doing things that are contrary to conscience.

That said, don’t let anyone get away with the claim that same-sex “marriage” is a right is just like the civil rights movement in the 1960’s.

From Catholic Vote comes this by Joshua Mercer:

Have this story handy when somebody says: “How does same-sex marriage have any impact on you?”

The Albuquerque Journal reports:

A photo studio’s refusal to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting the Albuquerque studio’s argument that doing so would cause it to disobey God and Biblical teachings. [So much for religious freedom.]

Vanessa Willock asked photographer Elaine Huguenin to take pictures of a “commitment” ceremony between her and her lesbian partner. The photographer said to do such would violate her moral and religious beliefs.

Vanessa could have easily used a smartphone or found a phone book and got the names of about a dozen other photographers who had no problem with this at all. (If a doctor was repulsed by the fact that my wife and I accepted Catholic teaching on contraception, I would simply find another doctor. I wouldn’t take him to court.)

Elaine Huguenin has been ordered by the courts in New Mexico to photograph a lesbian ‘commitment’ ceremony.

[NB] But Vanessa wanted a photographer at her ceremony who thinks what she is doing is immoral. I know. That seems odd, doesn’t it. But the reason is simple: She want this photographer to be compared to restaurants and hotels in the 1950s who refused to serve black customers.

Now let’s review: Same-sex marriage is not legal in New Mexico. Even same-sex civil unions are not recognized in New Mexico.


I think that in a second term, this is the sort of thing that the Administration of “The First Gay President”, Pres. Obama, will actually evolve into supporting.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. moon1234 says:

    This needs to be appealed. It is analagous to forcing a doctor to kill his patient. I have to imagine we are living in modern day babylon or more rightly sodom.

    How can a judge FORCE someone to do something. Since when did the gestapo courts re-appear and FORCE people to do something they do not want to?

  2. APX says:

    It’s getting to the point that you have to get creative with these things. Get as much information as possible, along with the date and time, and before you decline, make sure you’re busy and unavailable. Go get your hair done, teeth cleaned, whatever.

  3. moon1234 says:

    I am also wondering how the judge can force someone to violate their freedom of religious affiliation. I wonder if the judge would so order this case if the photographer with muslim and wearing the hajib?

    I am SO SICK of this type of stuff. I used to want to sell my produce at retail (I grow). I find that I like it much better when “I” pick my wholesale customers. I get to vet them first and decide if I have enough produce to sell to them. Not that I want anyone to starve, but I will NOT sell to anyplace that furthers a homosexual agenda.

    If I were this lady I would ignore the judges order and force myself to be arrested. When they tried to try me I would take it to court and claim religious descrimation at the hands of the state. Essentially the state is telling what my religious beliefs can be.

  4. SKAY says:

    Same sex marriage ceremony at Fort Polk in Louisiana. SSM is not legal in Louisiana.

  5. HyacinthClare says:

    How can I say this politely and not get “mediated” again? (I deserved it last time.) The good photographer doesn’t want to take the pictures. She has to take the pictures or go to jail. So she takes REALLY AWFUL pictures. She’s not going to get paid, but she’s not going to jail either. Would that work?

  6. NoTambourines says:

    The people who are selling out civil liberties for the sake of sticking it to the Catholic Church will be singing a different tune when they realize they’ve established precedents that will also allow the government to run roughshod over things they (and their consciences) care about if it so chooses.

  7. acardnal says:

    And speaking of same sex marriage, looks like another Jesuit questions the bishop and Catholic teaching. I thought Jesuits took a fourth vow of obedience to the Pope??

  8. Scott W. says:

    So she takes REALLY AWFUL pictures. She’s not going to get paid, but she’s not going to jail either. Would that work?

    If she does get paid, it’s a dicey proposition because deliberately doing shoddy work violates the 7th commandment (see CCC 2409)

    However, wearing a t-shirt with “Marriage=man+woman” or quotes from Leviticus might be in bounds.

  9. Johnno says:

    As Scott W. suggests, there are ways to turn lemons into lemonade. I think a whole group of Catholic photographers should show up at this ceremony wearing those shirts as ‘subcontractors’ and maybe carry some Biblical signs to put on their trucks and place them around and take lots of nice photos! If they are verbally assaulted, just smile and say nothing and continue taking pcitures, no words need to be spoken, no-one can even accuse you of saying anything. Eventually they will be forced to leave once this lesbian sees her wonderful plan backfire so badly. Then maybe said photographer can turn around and sue the lesbians for breaking their contract. When you’re already in the frying pan, you might as well treat it like a trip to the sauna and have some fun at their expense.

  10. lh says:


  11. Imrahil says:

    The people who are selling out civil liberties for the sake of sticking it to the Catholic Church will be singing a different tune when they realize they’ve established precedents that will also allow the government to run roughshod over things they (and their consciences) care about if it so chooses.

    No, they will not. As a matter of fact, they will do precisely what the State says because they have ever wanted the State to care for their conscience. Freedom, as much as we know from natural reason that it is a necessity, is in realization a Christian peculiarity, and even a Catholic peculiarity.

  12. alexrodriguez says:

    And because of this, after photographing weddings for many years, I no longer shoot weddings.

    My former site

  13. Imrahil says:


    If that does not work, ignore.

    If it comes to violence, prison, etc., we might think – at any rate, dream – of authoritative Church action. Always remember that the foundation of the State trembles when the authority of the Church solemnly pronounces (from the pulpit, at the beginning of the sermon, on a Sunday) an order issued by the State has been unobliging in conscience. What if there were an oratio imperata, as it was called in the times of old, or a prayer at the place of (or after) the Leonine prayers, or in the Ordinary Form a rogation within the Prayer of the Faithful, with the content: “that the public authorities reverse their attitude as to this and this and this respect”, and the Government could be sure that if need be, this prayer would be said for 30 years, in every Mass. We are not powerless.

    And then… there’s still emigration. It has been prophecied that there will always be a town left. I might, in the climate of today, think of Hungary. (A lot around here has practised the language with the Papal documents available in it, haven’t they?)

  14. PostCatholic says:

    Some facts:

    1. The incident of discrimination took place in 2006.
    2. The State of New Mexico had written into its laws in 1978 that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation when offering a public accommodation, and defined what it intended to mean by “sexual orientation” a paragraph or two later.
    3. The complainants brought the case was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and tried in January, 2008, with its decision being handed down in April 2008.
    4. President Obama took office in January, 2009.
    5. The complainants declined both in their filing, and when prompted at the hearing by the Commission, to seek actual damages (a penalty), and sought only to recover their attorney fees. That is what the sum, a bit below $7,000, that they were awarded represents. In other words, the Complainants brought their case on principle.
    6. Elaine Huguenin has not “been ordered by the courts in New Mexico to photograph a lesbian ‘commitment’ ceremony” because doing so would require time travel and physicists are still working on that.
    7. One may, if one wishes, read the original decision of the NM Human Rights Commission, the concurring appellate decision of 2009, and the recent decision of the NM Court of Appeals online.

    As a matter of opinion:
    I continue to feel that referring to the President as “the first gay President” is unnecessarily insulting and I wish you’d reconsider your rhetoric.

  15. The State of New Mexico is obviously suffering from a shortage of bitumens, down (goose, duck or equivalent), and short sections of steel railroad rails. Not to mention justices and legislators possessed of any simulacrum of good sense, logic or an understanding of natural law and individual rights!

    The country is in danger of losing touch with anything resembling the Rule of Law and the rights of freedom of association and freedom of exchange! If we don’t regain those soon, we will have nothing remaining to regain.

    Pax et bonum
    Keith Töpfer

  16. EXCHIEF says:

    Sorry if some object, but the first gay president (very deserving of that description) will likely not “evolve” into supporting things such as addressed in this discussion—I think he is already there in his own mind but like with a lot of things keeping it quiet prior to the election. If this jerk is re-elected there will be no end to the immorality he tries to impose.

  17. Gus Barbarigo says:

    @ PostCatholic:

    Some facts:

    1. Your (probably) beloved “Newsweek” introduced the moniker, “The First Gay President.”
    (Did you lurk/gripe to “Newsweek” over the epithet?)

    2. There is freedom of religious exercise in this country.

    3. There have always been conscientious-objection provisions in this country.

    4. Attempts to equate race with sexual attraction are phony, devoid of biblical or biological basis, and a non-starter.

    5. The complainants’ legal attack on the career, time, and treasure of the photographer was insulting; I wish the complainants would re-consider their position.

  18. cjcanniff says:

    Why is the government breaking the law (i.e. the first amendment) by disallowing the free practice of religion? When will the madness end?

    “Anybody-but-Obama” for President, 2012

  19. Legisperitus says:

    Martial: Just for historical accuracy, I think you might mean wooden fence rails.

    Lawsuits like these are motivated by the desire to punish anyone who dares to think that the plaintiffs are doing something wrong. Back in the days when psychologists were allowed to study the subject objectively and speak about it honestly, they used to note a link between homosexuality and narcissism. An urge to punish and silence one’s critics is a natural outgrowth of a narcissistic personality.

  20. Mrs. O says:

    It a one way street with people going the wrong way. Notice the hairdresser can refuse to cut the Govenor’s hair because she doesn’t support his idea of redefining marriage:
    “Santa Fe hairdresser Antonio Darden decided he can no longer in good conscience cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez because she does not support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. In order to operate his business according to his beliefs and make a public statement against the governor’s position on marriage, he is refusing to offer his services to her. Many admire Darden for his courage. ” from–Jordan-Lorence-Marriage-views-not-off-limits-for-bu

    We have had one Representative here threatened, his life and family, for quoting scripture to support homosexual acts as unnatural/sin(Old and New Testament) after Obama made his announcement. The threats came from the East and West Coast.

    Y’all don’t forget to attend the Religious Freedom Rallies tomorrow in your area.

  21. bourgja says:

    I just saw this news story from Denmark which (if the story is accurate) continues this worrisome trend:

    P.S.– How can a court really “force” a person to take photos if they don’t want to? This seems like totalitarianism.

  22. Jael says:

    In a similar discussion elsewhere, some sound advice was given to photography studios. For every customer, have them fill out a form with time, place, names of those marrying, etc. and say you’ll check your commitments and get back to them whether or not you can shoot the “wedding.” Then check out the situation after they leave the studio, hang up, whatever. If it’s a homosexual couple, don’t tell them why you won’t shoot the wedding. Just call them back and say no, I am not available on that day.

  23. Charles E Flynn says:

    The second half of this article makes specific reference to the photographer:

    Freedom of Religion and the Fog of Culture War, by Francis J. Beckwith.

  24. Clinton R. says:

    And now sadly, the Catholic Church in Ontario, Canada has capitulated to the homosexuals:

  25. Kerry says:

    Post-Cat…you mean he isn’t the ‘First’ gay President? Oh no!! Who was the first? Maybe the Mighty Kenyan is the eleventh…heh. And by the way, lacking citations , one cannot verify your assertions. “I refute it thus!”

    It seems to me a pivotal point for the homosexualists is their presumption that ‘gayness’ is just like “white Hispanic-ness”, or “persons of color-ness”, or maybe even ‘Loch Ness-ness’. That is, a fixed category and not a choice. This is false. Were it true, no one could decide to change their spots? I suspect this will be denied, to which I reply to my imaginary interlocutor, “Then there are two categories of ‘gayness’, fixed and optional? So, therefore the ‘optionals’ do not have the rights the ‘fixed-ed’s’ are demanding, uh de-person-ding? (We must wash that ‘man’ word from the language you know. Except for mandate, which remains fixed. We are not certain what to do with person-struation, or person-ure.) Or may I assert that I am a ‘gayness of the optional persuasion, sub-category, non-act it out, type M’, simply because no one but me gets to decided, and all those who oppose my choice are “Haters!!”? Granted, “Here be absurdities”, but we have States’ Human Rights commissions to sort out the subtleties.
    At John C. Wrights Journal he once wrote, “When you turn away from Christ, towards what do you turn?”

  26. Springkeeper says:

    Sodomite activists will never stop until they force everyone to fully accept their chosen lifestyle. Every time we capitulate they gain strength.

  27. frjim4321 says:

    Post Catholic – – –

    Thanks for supplementing the catholic Vote story with some facts.

    2. The State of New Mexico had written into its laws in 1978 that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation when offering a public accommodation, and defined what it intended to mean by “sexual orientation” a paragraph or two later.

    Sounds fair to me.

  28. Imrahil says:

    The interesting thing is, dear @PostCatholic, dear @Fr. Jim, that the law cannot order to do acts against conscience. If it does, it is not law in the sense we speak about.

    Besides, even in arguing with positive law, it seems fairly well to take a look first what the statute actually says. The law, it seems, speaks of a public accomodation. That is, a) an accomodation, and only an accomodation; b) around here at least, “public” would be understood as “state-provided”, but I don’t know whether it means this in New Mexico. c) it is about a person, not about a couple. Indeed, “you look homosexual, get out of my way” would be unjust discrimination.

  29. PostCatholic says:

    Imrahil, I suggest you have a read of the three judicial opinions mentioned. It is worth noting that the case has yet to be taken to a Federal court on constitutional grounds, where an outcome perhaps could be different. As to the matter of what constitutes”public accommodation” was indeed part of the defense and was discussed in depth in all three opinions.

    Gus Barbarigo, I suggest do your better at controlling your anger. I do not love Newsweek, which seems to me a regurgitation of long-form news at a seventh-grade reading level that is elsewhere available. I’m not even sure why I might find it beloved, but I assume that has something to do with editorial slant , about which I really don’t care. Let me also assure you that my name, personal email address, contact information, profession, educational background, and “state of life” as he puts it have all been shared with Rev Zuhlsdorf privately and to a lesser extent publicly in the comments here, which I think disqualifies me as a “lurker.” I truly don’t care very much who first called Obama the “first gay President,” which is very likely historically inaccurate, by the way. I do think the term is being used here as insult, and I think it unnecessary and uncivil.

  30. PostCatholic says:

    Must learn to use that preview button. Please substitute “As to the matter of what constitutes ‘public accommodation’, that ” and “I suggest you do better…”

  31. wmeyer says:

    Another interesting aspect of this case is that it used to be common for any service provider to be able to decline to serve. The familiar “no shirt, no shoes, no service” comes to mind. Forced service is not free enterprise, it is not liberty, it is slavery.

  32. Maltese says:

    What, does a photographer have to film Gay Porn in HD now just because he is in the film business? This is different than not accommodating someone in, say, a restaurant!

  33. introibo says:

    Heaven help us all..but if I were of the “persuasion” of these people (again, I say heaven help us all), then I’d surely want to hire a photographer who supported my belief system..not one who is antagonistic to it, just to make a point by legally challenging her professional practices.

  34. frjim4321 says:

    The interesting thing is, dear @PostCatholic, dear @Fr. Jim, that the law cannot order to do acts against conscience. If it does, it is not law in the sense we speak about.

    The law can and does so all the time. The law requires me to pay taxes some of which support activities that could be considered unjust. The law orders capital punishment which is against and adequately formed conscience. There are other examples. The point is the law orders against conscience all the time.

    The citizen has two choices: (1) Comply with the law or, (2) be civilly disobedient.

  35. Joe in Canada says:

    Paying taxes is not intrinsically unjust – it is the use to which they are put that might be unjust. The law does not order you to perform capital punishment. These are not examples of you being forced to act against your conscience. An example would be if the law compelled you to kill your neighbor, or curse God.

    Would a photographer be forbidden to refuse to photograph a commitment ceremony of 3 people? Or a ceremony of people forbidden to marry due to civil restrictions on consaguinity? What if a Catholic photographer was hired for a ceremony involving explicit anti-Catholic acts and statements?

  36. Dad of Six says:


    It is because they do not want equal rights alone, they want everyone to say and believe that the homosexual lifestyle is ok.

  37. acardnal says:

    I often read and hear that the Church prohibits capital punishment. It does not. It states explicitly in the CCC #2267 ” the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty . . . . ”
    It goes on to state that it should be “very rare” today but it is not prohibited.

  38. ContraMundum says:

    Here is where I normally go on my standard rant about how “very rare” is totally useless in deciding whether any specific case warrants the death penalty, both because “very rare” is totally ambiguous (rare like Down Syndrome? rare like the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion?) and because it is impossible to exercise either justice or charity in a merely statistical sense.

  39. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Fr Jim, it is no argument for pseudo-law that pseudo-law exists. Indeed, only some lawyers, led by instinctive shrinking-back from the absolute things, ever have considered the “hypothetical basic norm” (Hans Kelsen, to my knowledge) or the bayonets of the public force a sufficient grounds for authority; both public opinion and, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, the lawgiver himself have based the authority of the lawgiver in being executor of, if you will: metaphysical, justice, which indeed is the only base this authority can have.

    In fact, the position of the adversary is not illogical, and is itself based on a sense of justice; a mistaken one, but an appeal to the principles of justice. Which also is the reason that they want to fight the Christian position down. Here I differ with dear @introibo: On the assumption that homosexuality is all right, a homosexual would be (is not, because the assumption is false) quite right to be offended by the contrary notion, and it would be not illogical (though still contrary to the principles of freedom of opinion [and religion] which exist for precisely such a person) to try to fight the notion down by the courts.

    Besides, your (now, again, @Fr Jim) examples do not prove your case. A person taxed pays her taxes 1.) because they are taken from her by force, or b) because she acknowledges, rightly, the right of the State to be provided for by means of contributions. (Of course the legislator and the finance official must, and can, have b in mind.) The competency for the use of the thus-acquired money then falls to parliaments and governments; and it is parliaments and governments, not the person taxed, that are responsible for the use, according to their respective range of influence.

    Capital punishment does not require any citizen to approve of it. Besides, capital punishment is principally one of the things that government does have to decide about and can, under such and such circumstances, legitimately decide positively (I do not want to go into detail); on this principle, one might be more eager to accept the decision even when one’s own weighing of arguments decides differently. The point is that, grave as the objections against capital punishment are, it still is in principle matter of weighing of arguments; which makes a radical difference to things absolutely forbidden. I do not deny, of course, that even such things are in fact, though perhaps not as you say all the time, ordered by law.

    That being said, from the two choices of yours, of course no. 2 must be taken.

  40. Imrahil says:

    Correction: In fact, the position of the adversary is – cut the “not illogical but” itself based on a sense of justice. That was a remainder of a previous thought of mine evolved in the following sentences, which I forgot to delete.


  41. Imrahil says:

    And the principles of freedom …which exist precisely for such a cause.

  42. Cathy says:

    More evidence that the repeal of laws regarding sexual morality had little to do with a “right to privacy” and more to do with a demand for publicity. Isn’t it interesting that once you take the laws out of the bedroom, the bedroom becomes everywhere else with the demand that no still small voice is allowed to oppose it?

  43. Scott W. says:

    The is nothing in Catholic teaching about an adequetly-formed conscience being absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Morevover “adequetly formed” is highly dubious proposition to begin with. The conscience is either correct or it is false on a given matter. Adequetly-formed only really counts in the case of a false conscience; and then, only in the sense that no one can force him against his conscience to accept the truth and also about subjective culpability. In other words, the conscience discerns truth, it doesn’t make truth. That’s moral realtivism. To put it simply, someone’s “adequetly formed” consciecnce telling him that abortion is acceptable is objectively a false conscience. Since the death penatly is not objectively evil in and of itself, it would difficult to to prove someone’s support of the death penaly was the fruit of a false conscience.

  44. Banjo pickin girl says:

    And Scott W., the statement above about the death penalty implies that Aquinas’s conscience was inadequately formed as it was he who made the most airtight case in favor of it.

  45. JKnott says:

    @moon1234 “How can a judge FORCE someone to do something. Since when did the gestapo courts re-appear and FORCE people to do something they do not want to?”

    Since the Democrats took the majority in the House and Senate and since “The First (and hopefully the last) Gay President” took over the Oval Office. As bad as it has turned out to be, if he steals the election, say goodbye to what is left of democracy in this country.

  46. StJude says:

    2. The State of New Mexico had written into its laws in 1978 that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation when offering a public accommodation, and defined what it intended to mean by “sexual orientation” a paragraph or two later.

    Public accommodation is private photography services? That’s a stretch.

  47. Johnno says:

    So frjim4321 and PostCatholic support jailing and fining Christians in what should be a free business exercise of refusing a completely non-vital service. Lovely… Notice that they think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it! They are examples of the enemy we’re fighting against. Intellectually inept [I am not sure that is accurate. They seem to be fairly smart.] and selfish enough to destroy the lives of others to further their own goals. Keep this in mind when you think it’s worth the time to talk to and negotiate with these kinds of people. They’re not neutral, they’re here to take you for everything you’re worth to ease their troubled consciences. They are allied with evil.

    There’s more to the story here. The defendants brought up the case with the judge through using the example that it would be intolerable to force a black photographer to attend and take photos of a nuptial taking place in a KKK hall. The judge shot back that the KKK and Christians are not a protected class of people like homosexuals, therefore the law doesn’t apply to them and homosexuals must be served, because they are following the letter of the law that sexual orientation is a protected class. Where were those details amongst frjim4321 and Postcatholic’s ‘facts’?

  48. robtbrown says:

    PostCatholic says:

    2. The State of New Mexico had written into its laws in 1978 that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation when offering a public accommodation, and defined what it intended to mean by “sexual orientation” a paragraph or two later.

    Public accommodations are places, not services.

  49. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    The law orders capital punishment which is against an adequately formed conscience.

    Where did you get that idea?

  50. Imrahil says:

    Of course dear @moon1234, I might spoil your nevertheless just outrage a bit by saying: Forcing somebody to do what he does not want to do is precisely the thing a judge is there for.

    Which is true, though a judge has to do that in a just way, according to natural (and positive) law.

    [The whole point about the gestapo courts was that they did not exist. The gestapo sent people to concentration camps who, even according to then-positive law, had served their sentence, or been acquitted, or were not put to trial at all.]

  51. ContraMundum says:

    Generally speaking, a judge cannot force someone to do something he refuses to do. The judge may be able to take things from him, or put him in jail, or do or threaten even worse (torture, death — all the worst that any thug might be able to do) — but the judge cannot be sure of obedience, to say nothing of conversion.

  52. JARay says:

    As I understand it the Lesbians used entrapment in this case. The photographer refused the first one on hearing that it was to be an unnatural “marriage” by claiming to be unavailable on that day at that time. The second Lesbian then tried again by saying nothing about the “marriage” and the photographer then said that she would be able to take the photos! That was when they struck at the photographer claiming discrimination on the grounds of sexual matters. The whole thing was, clearly, a set-up.

  53. PostCatholic says:

    Robtbrown, that public accommodations are places rather than services was, as I said above, an argument advanced by the defense that was rejected in all three opinions with citation of a great deal of case law.

    Johnno, I think the intellectual ineptitude might be your own. I don’t think I declared support for one side or the other, nor called for anyone to be jailed; feel free to point out to me where I made such a statement. In fact, I realized while reading about this case that I’ve been guilty of the same conduct as the plaintiffs. My company was offered a contract for a (highly conservative and to me, politically offensive) religious organization client, and I turned that job down on the basis that I wasn’t comfortable with the organization. As religious identification is a protected class in my state, I was probably wrong to do deny them our services. I think would have been okay to refuse our services if I had said I wouldn’t take the project because I disagree with the organization’s political activities—but I’m not sure, and in any event that’s not what I did say. As a small business owner I can sympathize with the plaintiff and I plan to discuss this with my attorney at some point to get some clarity on what my bounds of discretion are.

  54. Johnno says:

    Fr. Z, there’s being smart, and then there’s being wise. What I’m referring to is the darkening of the intellect, a condition that afflicts many of the ‘smartest’ people in the world with their fancy degrees and accumulation of knowledge. For example, I refer to those people who suffer from cognitive dissonance and doublethink. The sort that try to say abortion ‘doesn’t kill anyone,’ and the sort that think violating religious freedoms of some is actually a good and necessary thing that encourages freedom for all or that to tolerate everyone we must be intolerant to others, or that there is ‘absolutely no such thing as absolute standards.’ If those last sentences don’t compute, that’s precisely the case! Yet many can say that in their speech and in their thoughts with a straight face without even the slightest idea that what they are saying is so contradictory and philosophically flawed!

    PostCatholic, having read through your previous posts I had inferred that you were taking the side of the court decisions. Since you say that you weren’t, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

  55. EXCHIEF says:

    Emboldened by the agenda of the first gay president no doubt

Comments are closed.