of law against the individual. the person suing, like in the photography case, you re right to say this was all started with the prosecution of the wedding photographer. i think that hasn t happened yet in arizona, we ll see what happens now, i would advise my fellow people that agree with marriage equality. don t go suing businesses that disagree with you, take your business elsewhere, and advise your friends for doing the same. thanks for coming on tonight, i appreciate it. thank you. when we come back, who was promoting religious liberty. [ coughs ] [ male announcer ] so he can t let a cold keep him up tonight. vicks nyquil. powerful nighttime 6 symptom cold and flu relief. for what reality teaches you firsthand. in the face of danger, and under the most demanding circumstances.
and kind here. when i think about what the impetus behind this bill was, it was this new mexico case, the photography case. a wedding photographer in new mexico refused to take photos at a same-sex wedding? i believe so. the reason why the community considers this as an affront, it s a solution for the gays and lesbians rights problems. there isn t a statute that would protect gays and lesbians in the first place. so it seems like there s a little bit of overkill to come in a statute that says we can opt out to giving equal rights to gays and lesbians. it s unusual to me that he wouldn t have thought about firing someone who is gay or lesbian would be discrimination. it seems like he hasn t even thought about that. well, i read it a little
money to a divorced woman under this law, is that legal? that would be absolutely legal under this law. what do you make of his argument? yeah, i think that he s just well, i i really don t know what to make of that, because when i look at the history of trying to be say the things that are both true and kind here. when i think about what the impetus behind this bill was, it was this new mexico case, the photography case. a wedding photographer in new mexico refused to take photos at a same sex wedding? i believe so. the reason why the community considers this as an affront, it s a solution for the gays and lesbians rights problems. there isn t a statute that would protect gays and lesbians in the first place. there s overkill to come in a
he can ever imagine or see, what do you make of his argument? yeah, i think that he s just well, i i really don t know what to make of that, because when i look at the history of trying to be say the things that are both true and kind here. when i think about what the impetus behind this bill was, it was this new mexico case, the photography case. a wedding photographer in new mexico refused to take photos at a same-sex wedding? i believe so. the reason why the community considers this as an affront, it s a solution for the gays and lesbians rights problems. there isn t a statute that would protect gays and lesbians in the first place. so it seems like there s a little bit of overkill to come in a statute that says we can
you re misunderstanding the point entirely. in our photography case, elaine is a wonderful, young christian photographer and started her company. she is more than willing to take pictures of homosexuals. she will take passport pictures, anything. what she will not do is use her ability as a photographer to go in and promote and endorse an event she doesn t agree with. how is that a substantial burden? let s say you re a christian, which i m sure most of people you re designing this law would be. how is it a substantial burden to my christianity to take photos of a gay marriage? if i m against it, i don t marry another man. it vooilts your religious freedom if the government comes in and forces you to go against, to act in contradiction to what