What is the price of citizenship?

The following is an excerpt from the concurring judicial opinion in the New Mexico case where a photography shop owned by the Huguenin family refused to photograph a homosexual "marriage" because it violated their religious conscience by asking them, by association, to approve of an event that they were photographing which is, by its nature, an expression of their artistic talents.  Because the U.S. Supreme Court did not take the case, the excerpt below comes from the final word on this case through the New Mexico Supreme Court.

"All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled

by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of

law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the

Huguenins and others of similar views."
 [Comment:  The tangible mark on this family is going to be numerous fines and most likely the closure of their business.  In the future, it is probable that the tangible mark on others will be some time spent in jail for their beliefs.  This is already a reality in other Western Countries and is the current trajectory that we, in the United States are on when you give a practiced behavior protected rights.]

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its

promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case

teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to

accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of

our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe,

as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in

their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that

respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our

civic life.
[Comment: First of all, demanding that someone violate their conscience is not a little compromise, but, a sin according to the Huguenins sincerely held beliefs.  No matter how many times someone says that the multicultural and pluralistic aspects of our society is the source of its strength does not make it true.  This nation was built on freedoms and liberties of the individual as inviolable except in the most extreme cases.  Weighing photographing a homosexual "wedding" against the religious liberty of another and the violation of their conscience is not a tough decision.  So the bottom line is, believe whatever you want, but if you actually live your faith, be prepared to pay the price.]

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public

accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave

space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the

glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts

of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they

do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of

the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of

citizenship. I therefore concur."
 [Comment: Beliefs drive conduct, except in the mind of the secular humanist who cannot see that every action they take is a result of their underlying "faith" in man as the sole arbiter of justice.  The Huguenins are asking no one to compromise their beliefs and have left plenty of space for homosexual activists to do whatever they want everywhere except utilizing their artistic talents for something that they do not believe in.  And, the most frightening statement of them all is that the price of citizenship that has been meted out by these three black robed justices is to ask someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs and their own conscience.  If the civil government actually believes this is right to do in this case where a direct attack is levied against the personal first amendment rights of the individual, there is no stopping them from applying this under any other other standard of justice.  When the country rots from the inside out, history tells us that totalitarianism looms on the horizon...and this is how it looks like when it starts.]