Wisconsin: Victory for free speech v. demonic gender ideology, homosexualist agenda

muslim homosexualThere are some good things happening in Wisconsin, not the least of which are the growing number of priests who say the Traditional Latin Mass and the places where the TLM is celebrated.  For example, on Sunday, we will have a Solemn Mass for the Feast of the Transfiguration.  HERE

On another note, from Family Policy Alliance:

Wisconsin: Favorable Court Decision for Wedding Photographer

A Wisconsin judge says a work-from-home photographer does not have to comply with city and state “public accommodations” laws that might have forced her to photograph same-sex weddings.

“This is a huge win for free speech in Wisconsin,” said Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action. “No one should be threatened with punishment for having views that the government doesn’t favor.”

Earlier this year Amy Lawson, a professional photographer and blogger who works out of her Madison home, filed what is known as a “pre-enforcement challenge” lawsuit against the City of Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, alleging that the city’s public accommodations ordinance and the state’s public accommodations law prohibit her from conducting her business, Amy Lynn Photography Studio, according to the dictates of her conscience and beliefs. Lawson argued the ordinance and law even force her to use her creative expression in support of activities she doesn’t agree with, including same-sex marriage and abortion.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Neiss determined in a court hearing in the case Amy Lynn Photography Studio v. City of Madison that he would issue an order that declares Lawson and her home-based business are not subject to the city’s public accommodations ordinance or the state’s public accommodations law. Both the state and the city agreed to this resolution.

“What this decision means,” Appling explained, “is that creative professionals in Wisconsin and in Madison, those who, like Amy, don’t have storefronts, have the freedom to determine what ideas they will promote using their artistic talents. In other words, the City of Madison and the State of Wisconsin can’t punish these professionals for exercising their freedom of speech artistically, even if the city or state disagrees with what they are saying.”

The jackboots of the demonic gender ideology thugs and their homosexualist agenda activist allies, are marching a little less loudly.

And sodomy is still a Sin That Cries To Heaven.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Si vis pacem para bellum!, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Sawyer says:

    The ruling applies only to home-based businesses, those without storefronts. It’s a small victory. Christian business owners who want to run their businesses in accord with the moral principles of Christian faith are limited to small-time operations that can be run out of a home.

    [It’s a victory.]

  2. DeGaulle says:

    It’s difficult to see how the possession of a storefront should make any difference to the rights of one’s conscience.

    The situation certainly demonstrates that the devil hates Latin.

  3. TonyO says:

    The ruling applies only to home-based businesses

    Can anybody explain how the court came up with its stance that – specifically – a home-based business gets freedom of speech or religion but not a store-front one?

    One suspects that it (ultimately) plays out from the “public accommodation” laws and court rulings.

    Would it then be feasible for a businessman to change his store-front so that it ceases to be a public accommodation entity? Say, make it a club? What if he requires everyone who walks in to sign a form making them “provisional member” before he “does business” with them? I know that the minions of satan would attack this, but they attack anything that is good; my question is could it work given the current state of jurisprudence?

  4. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    Don’t think this tiny victory will keep the forces of the Demonic from advancing.

    Expect to see legislation introduced to counter this ruling.

    [So negative.]

  5. Pingback: MONDAY SÆCVLARIA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  6. surritter says:

    I really like that her lawyers chose the wording that the ordinance would “force her to use her creative expression in support of activities she doesn’t agree with.”

    Libs love artsy people and want them to be able to freely express themselves. Well… right back at ya.

  7. The Mad Sicilian Geek says:

    To anyone who says “It’s a victory, but…” IT. IS. STILL. A. WIN…

    Please remember, there are no asterisks in the W-column.

  8. jflare says:

    “IT. IS. STILL. A. WIN…”

    Is it?
    Or did the judge just give carte blanche to secular factions to harass churches? Remember, according to the judge, the photographer is not a storefront business, therefore she does not offer public services. Remember also that secular factions routinely insist that We are a secular nation, therefore anything open to the public must be secular. If that is true, then a parish is a “storefront” whose “products” include weddings and other ceremonies. As such, every parish could be sued for failing to accommodate the alleged beliefs of the general public.
    It’s madness, but if they’re vindictive enough to sue photographers and bakers, I see no reason why they would spare a church.

Comments are closed.