Kentucky Photographer Sues for Her Religious Right to Discriminate Against the LGBTQ Community and Game of Thrones Fans

Kentucky Photographer Sues for Her Religious Right to Discriminate Against the LGBTQ Community and Game of Thrones Fans

What started as a quiet local story in Louisville, Kentucky is quickly becoming national news. Early Saturday morning, USA Today published an opinion piece written by wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson in which she proclaimed herself a victim of Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance. 

In her article, Nelson introduces herself and her case through positive messages of what marriage means to her, repeatedly using words like “love,” “joy,” “awe,” and “passion.” She speaks of the importance of a strong relationship with the couples she photographs as any other photographer would:

On their wedding day, they probably spend more time with me than anyone else. I even do my initial consultations in my home. At my kitchen table over cookies, I get to hear about them and their dreams for the future as we plan how to capture their big day. Then, we schedule an engagement session to make sure they’re comfortable in front of my camera. (Most of us aren’t used to a photographer following us around all day, right?)

Chelsey Nelson's opinion article was published on USA Today on November 23, 2019

She goes on to admit that her strong values about marriage prevent her from photographing just any wedding ceremony:

Because marriage is so important to me, I’m careful to photograph and blog about each of these solemn ceremonies in a way that reflects my views of marriage... to show others that marriage really is worth pursuing… For example, I can’t celebrate a wedding that devalues how seriously I take marriage — like a heavily themed Halloween or zombie-themed wedding.

It seems fair enough. It’s likely that many photographers would avoid a gimmicky zombie-themed wedding, though gimmicks are obviously not her only worry when it comes to photographing what she perceives as non-traditional weddings. In the opinion piece, Nelson repeatedly dances around her true concern, but to anyone with half a brain cell and an awareness of recent current events, it’s all too clear. For Nelson, LGBTQ weddings are public enemy number one and in a media environment that's increasingly focused on spin, Nelson portrays herself as a victim:

[A] Louisville, Kentucky law threatens me with damages if I stay true to my beliefs about marriage. Actually, the law won’t even let me explain some of my religious beliefs about marriage, whether on my studio’s website, social media, or directly to couples who may want to work with me. I also can’t explain how some of my religious beliefs affect which weddings I celebrate through my photography.

Here's some background information on the Louisville law to which Nelson is referring. Passed in 1999, the Louisville Fairness Ordinance was a major victory for historically marginalized communities, establishing protections for the LGBTQ community (among others) from discrimination:

It is the policy of the Metro Government to safeguard all individuals within Jefferson County from discrimination in certain contexts because of race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, age, disability, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Certain practices must be prohibited within the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation, resort or amusement as necessary to protect individual’s personal dignity and insure freedom from humiliation; to make available to Jefferson County all full productive capacities; to secure Jefferson County against strife and unrest which would menace its democratic institutions; and to preserve the public safety, health and general welfare. (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Chapter 92)

The ordinance goes on to define discrimination as “any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person or persons, or the aiding, abetting, inciting, coercing, or compelling thereof made unlawful under this chapter.” Clear enough.

Because Chelsey Nelson Photography provides goods and services to the general public, her business is categorized as a Place of Public Accommodation, Resort, or Amusement. In refusing her services to anyone because of their sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation, Nelson would certainly be breaking the law. What’s more, the ordinance prohibits businesses from advertising in any way (website, social media or otherwise) that they plan to deny service to anyone in the future because of discriminatory practices or beliefs. 

So yes, if Nelson can’t tell the world that she doesn’t want to service the LGBTQ community and she can’t legally turn the LGBTQ community away if they attempt to contract her for weddings, then she’s a bigot up a creek without a paddle. 

While her manifesto in USA Today provides a seemingly heartfelt and non-confrontational explanation of her beliefs regarding marriage, a lawsuit filed against the city of Louisville on November 19th makes her self-justified bigotry crystal clear. With the assistance of legal representation provided by Alliance Defending Freedom (a conservative Christian faith non-profit), Nelson submitted fifty-three pages to argue that by enforcing the Fairness Ordinance, Louisville is actually violating her religious freedoms. 

Here are some of the highlights of the suit:

  • Nelson believes that by forbidding her from proclaiming her discriminatory practices against LGBTQ weddings, she is being forced to violate the biblical command to love her neighbor through honesty. (Section 79)
  • Nelson believes that some people have a calling from God to create art and that she is one of those people. (Sections 83 and 84)
  • Nelson wants to turn down any requests for services that require her to use her God-given talents to promote immorality, dishonor to God, or anything contrary to her religious beliefs. (Section 187) These requests are further characterized as same-sex, polygamous, open marriages, or “services that demean others, devalue God’s creation, condone racism, sexually objectify someone, celebrate pornography or obscenity, praise vulgarity, or contradict biblical principles.” (Sections 190-192)
  • It’s not just LGBTQ weddings that pose a problem. Nelson is fighting for her right to turn down zombie or Game of Thrones-themed weddings as well. (Section 206)

A screenshot of Alliance Defending Freedom's blog about Chelsey Nelson

There’s a lot to unpack there, and I’ll let you explore it in its mind-numbing depth on your own, but any members of the LGBTQ community hoping to hire Chelsea Nelson for their wedding photography anyway shouldn’t despair. Nelson asserts she is happy to work with anyone regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation provided that a few specific criteria are met:

...Chelsey will happily work with and provide her wedding celebration services for a wedding between a homosexual man and a woman so long as the marriage is the exclusive union of that one man and one woman. Likewise, Chelsey will happily work with and provide her wedding celebration services for a wedding between a bisexual woman and a man so long as the marriage is the exclusive union of that one woman and one man. (Sections 200-202) 

So, there you go. She's only opposed to homosexuality if it's unrepressed.

What are Nelson's overall goals? In both her opinion piece and her lawsuit, Nelson expresses that her ultimate desire is to either be allowed to turn away LGBTQ marriages with which she doesn’t agree or be allowed to proclaim her beliefs clearly on her website and social media to keep any would-be LGBTQ clients from attempting to hire her. As things currently stand, Nelson feels she is being forced to choose between her religion and her livelihood.

While no LGBTQ couples have approached her requiring she break the law yet (we know this because the suit is characterized as a “pre-enforcement challenge”), her suit claims the situation is inevitable. The suit specifically references Louisville as having “the 11th highest rate of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender among the fifty largest metropolitan areas in the United States.” (Section 243) 

Chelsey Nelson doesn’t like those odds:

Chelsey faces a credible threat and substantial risk that she will receive requests to provide wedding celebration and boutique editing services for same-sex weddings, likely leading to prosecution under Louisville’s law. (Section 242)

After widely proclaiming her feelings toward same-sex marriage or anything else she deems “non-traditional,” I wouldn’t be so sure that the threat is all that “credible.” Everyone everywhere will now know exactly what she believes and any clients hoping to avoid discrimination will likely give her a wide berth.

I spoke with Rebecca and Charlotte (last names withheld, because even though Louisville is progressive, Kentucky was the setting for the Kim Davis debacle), an engaged couple living in Louisville, to get their perspective on the situation. They believe Chelsey Nelson is unlikely to receive LGBTQ wedding requests in the first place. Rebecca told me about their vendor search:

A lot of photographers on Instagram would have something on their bio saying 'Jesus is king,' which seemed like code for 'I won’t shoot your gay wedding.' Then, you look and see no photos of same-sex couples. I don’t know why she thinks a same-sex couple will even want to hire her. As queer people, we’re so used to being very careful. If you’re a queer couple, you’re going to find a vendor who shows publicly that they’re queer-friendly. You don't want a negative interaction as a stain on your wedding-planning experience.

Charlotte added:

If I'm going to hire you, I want to see you’ve been doing this for at least five years and that you’ve shot queer people and people of color before. I want you to know what you're doing, how to pose us as a couple (without relying on straight-gendered posing), and what to expect. I wanna see the receipts!

Based on the experience they've had living in Louisville, neither Rebecca nor Charlotte think this lawsuit is going to have any major ramifications within their city's LGBTQ community. The couple believes the article and lawsuit are a publicity stunt that will likely succeed in bringing in more business from people who have the same beliefs as Chelsey Nelson. For a business with roughly 400 Instagram followers and fewer than 150 Facebook followers, the lawsuit serves as a big opportunity to garner plenty of national attention. Adding to the publicity stunt argument is the fact that Nelson has been in business for three years and didn't choose to fight for her religious freedom to discriminate until now, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of Louisville's Fairness Ordinance.

Through her widely circulated opinion piece and her now high-profile lawsuit, Chelsey Nelson seems to have found the ultimate loophole for Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance: while it is illegal to discriminate on your website and social media, it’s not illegal to tell the world that you aim to discriminate if you do it under the auspices of filing a lawsuit. 

Perhaps that’s what she was after all along.

For a directory of LGBTQ friendly businesses in Louisville, Kentucky, visit

Lead image provided by Laura Rhian Photography under Creative Commons.

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
Mark Wyatt's picture

I won't get involved in the discussion other than to say that the author has already tried and convicted the photographer in question.

John Dawson's picture

Yup, that's how it is these days. Tolerance has come to mean "You must believe what I believe or you're a bigot." We used to be able to hold differing beliefs without being tagged with every conceivable derogatory label.

Here we see arrogance in the LGBTQ movement and the opinions of the author of this piece, who demands a perfect world where everyone gives LGBTQ people what they want every damn time - you know, just like straight people get from life. Don't ask us to call a second photographer or go a few miles further to find some one who is willing to shoot our wedding. No. Photographers have to violate their own personal beliefs and be coerced into doing what they don't wish to do. We all fight to deal with such coercion as infrequently as possible in our lives. It's quite onerous, unless it's imposed by this movement. Then it's cool!

Another dimension of this situation is producer verses consumer. I recommend we side with the photographer. She is the producer and creates something the consumer in this situation can't, a professional wedding shoot. We should respect production, skill and hard work. These things are all on the side of the photog.

Thankfully, most people (my sense only) in the LGBTQ community are reasonable, live-and-let-live individuals. They're willing to pick up that phone a second time. The live in and deal with the world as it is. Here, from the article is an example:

"A lot of photographers on Instagram would have something on their bio saying 'Jesus is king,' which seemed like code for 'I won’t shoot your gay wedding.' Then, you look and see no photos of same-sex couples. I don’t know why she thinks a same-sex couple will even want to hire her. As queer people, we’re so used to being very careful. If you’re a queer couple, you’re going to find a vendor who shows publicly that they’re queer-friendly. You don't want a negative interaction as a stain on your wedding-planning experience."

Exactly, and amen. Problem solved. LGBTQ wedding shot by one of many happy to do it.

Phillip Breske's picture

What is the end-game here? What does this kind of lawsuit hope to accomplish? As far as I can tell, it will allow LGBTQ people to give their money to people who don't want it and who also don't pretend to like the LGBTQ lifestyle. And this is referred to as "winning" by the LGBTQ community?

Phillip Breske's picture

I see an opportunity here: I'm going to start requiring $10,000 deposits with $100,000 final payments for family portraits, but I will refuse to shoot [insert minority here] clients. Then, when I eventually lose the inevitable lawsuit, I will accept said payments from the [insert minority here] family who won in court. I'm assuming they would hire me after the lawsuit, otherwise, why would they sue me to begin with? Sounds like a win for me AND [insert minority here] families.

Luke Adams's picture

As a Christian, I believe in your right to get married as an LGBGT person. But I also believe in my right not to be forced to photograph your wedding. As a photographer, I’m directing you into romantic and intimate moments, and how could I do this and profit from the event if it goes against core beliefs that I hold before God? Whether you think that makes me a bigot or not, that’s fine. In some countries, Child marriage is okay, and I’m sure many of you would refuse a wedding of that nature because of your core beliefs too. And I’m also sure you wouldn’t compromise those beliefs just because of the opinion of others.

I can't say I know why she has chosen to do this now and I'm not going to take a guess at the reasoning behind it. However, I do agree with her stance on the subject. I'm stupid enough to think she has rights as well. Further thought forthcoming.

Jesus, yes, I'm stupid enough to believe in Jesus, made very clear certain things taking place in the world were wrong in God's eyes. Having said that Jesus never advised anyone to go out and hurt the people who were committing these types of unGodly acts.

I do think the overall message from Jesus is one of love along with man's sinful nature. I don't know if there is a line to be drawn or not when it comes to the LGBTQ community and I'll explain. Christians do have a responsibility to let people know about Jesus and God. However, we are still commanded to love people and hate the sin. A responsible Christian will separate the two and I do believe that's Biblical. Although people will make fun of it.

What exactly does this mean? And, am I even right? I believe it is a Christian's responsibility to show love and forgiveness. Part of that in my mind states you don't go around spewing hatred. You also don't go around working with an event that is sinful in God's eyes. Despite what the law may say. You also would not want to elevate anyone who is sinning so blatantly. As a gay person has the secular right to marry whom they choose, a Christian business person should have the right to not work with certain things and/or people.

Using people of color as part of the conversation is inappropriate. God never said Black people were bad. In fact, God never stated anything bad about skin color. He does clearly discuss the sinful nature of man however. Even if someone does not believe in God or Jesus I would think they would be aware of the sin comment I just made.

I believe the photographer has every right to conduct her business in the manner she has chosen. The gay person has every right to get married in a secular manner. God will handle the scenario as He sees fit.

As far as the legality is concerned... my viewpoint only and probably not appropriate. Government at all levels breaks its own laws and arrests people who are innocent. Prosecutors put people in jail based on a creative story the prosecutor told in court. You have prosecutors who intentionally leave out evidence. What this woman is doing is a non-starter when compared to what governments can do. Let her run her business in her chosen manner.

We all choose businesses we're going to do business with based on a number of factors. As far as I'm concerned this type of scenario is just another factor. The gay individual could easily deal with some other business just like every reader here who decides whether they're going to deal with XYZ Company or not based on various beliefs and/or experiences.

Now, if someone wants to withhold housing and/or food and/or medicine and/or use their car as a weapon against a gay individual, that's worth fighting against. I just don't see the need to fight for a supposed right to use a certain photographer. I understand people have different opinions on this highly charged subject and you have every right to feel that way should you feel it is appropriate. As for me I'm going to deal with it in what I feel is a Godly-like manner.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. I am of the opinion I'm not.

michaeljinphoto's picture


This or a case similar to this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. This photographer will win. Louisville will lose.

John Dawson's picture

Yes, as it should be.

glenn Wright's picture

I don't think that the government should mandate anyone to provide goods or services based on religious beliefs however in this case it is not likely to be a problem anyway as this appears to be a publicity stunt for her.
I can't afford to turn away clients myself however I do point out to African American clients that shooting and editing dark skinned persons can be tricky to someone who shoots mainly light skinned clients and perhaps they might want to consider a different photographer however if they still want me to do it I will accept the work.

I didn’t read the comments so if this has been asked, sorry. Why would you want to have someone photograph (or any other service) your wedding if they are not willing to? Wouldn’t you want the business invested in doing their respective best for you? Would you want to put your memories in the hands of a person that doesn’t really want to be there? While I think it is obnoxious that there are haters and judgmental people that hide behind their religion, there are options that don’t make your wedding a pissing contest.

Robert Nurse's picture

It wasn't too long ago, within my lifetime, where businesses were free to discriminate against people of color (POC) for a whole host of justifications. Oddly enough, religious grounds were no exception. I happen to be Christian. I also happen to be a POC. Photographing someones wedding or their way of life is in no way, shape or form your acceptance of it. Baking a cake or photographing a same sex wedding doesn't mean you're giving it sanction. It means you're supplying a service. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no religious cover this. In the case of Christianity at least, Christ served anyone who sought Him out. Therefore, if you're a Christian making these religious arguments against serving someone because of this or that, please, just don't. If you don't want to serve this group or that for whatever reason, that's fine. But, please, leave Christ out it.

Jeff Walsh's picture

Well said and 100% accurate.

Actually, may not be 100% accurate. And, here's why:

Matthew 10:14 states:
"And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town."

Now to me the questions is: does that apply to the scenario we're talking about? And the answer is: I just don't know.

It is said you don't take a single sentence out of the Bible and turn it into a platform you can base your beliefs on. You really want to see a number of instances in the Bible before you hang your hat on a given belief.

There is nothing positive stated about homosexuality in the Bible, Old or New Testament. Christ comes into the picture and His preaching is based heavily on love. However, He doesn't deny the accuracy of the Old Testament; in fact, He confirms its accuracy a number of times in the New Testament. He does discuss quite heavily, love.

My interpretation of all that is as follows: It is important to preach God's love to the world and the need to love our fellow human beings, no matter the sin being committed. It is a beneficial and positive thing to advise others of the wrong they are committing in life. And, we, including homosexuals, fall under that umbrella. Nothing states to harm them or hurt them; the exact opposite is implied. However, and this is important, it is best not to hang out with them, other than explaining how to get to learn about God's laws, or do things that might imply acceptance of their acts.

Now I am absolutely the first to admit there are gray areas within the Bible. That is not to imply the Bible is wrong; it is merely to say I fail to understand everything that is being said.

I totally believe the accuracy of the Bible. The fact that I cannot understand all of it just means exactly that, I fail to understand it all. I don't know how a rocket gets us to the Moon but yet we do go to the Moon.

There is a lot of negative commentary in the Bible surrounding homosexuality. And, very serious words against the act. It would be fair to say there are zero positives.

Now, as to whether the words within the Bible are the words of prejudiced men or the words of God. The Bible clearly states the Bible was written by men under the inspiration of God. Therefore, the word are true.

As I ended my previous commentary on this subject, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But at the end of the day I personally have no doubt as to the accuracy of the Bible whether I'm capable of understanding it all or not. And, I'm willing to bet the farm on it.

There's more to be said about this subject but time to end this round of commentary as I imagine Lee and Patrick are not trying to run a Bible study. It is my sincere hope that I have shed some hopefully intelligent light on this controversial subject. In the end love the people who perform the acts you hate.

Luke Adams's picture

But photographing a wedding isn't exactly the same as baking a cake or renting out a wedding tent, is it? As a photographer, you're directing the couple into intimate and romantic moments to help celebrate their love. You're not just a passive part of their day, but a very active one.

I respect your viewpoint that you're offering a service, not a condoning of the event, and I tried to think like that for a while too. Then I realized, it was really just a justification, and all I needed to do was push that line of thinking a little further to see it fall apart. Child-bride wedding? Polygamous wedding? Satanic or Pagan wedding (yes, I was asked to shoot one recently)? Would you perform those weddings under the same train of thought that you are just performing a service?

The error in much of these comments, is that people think the photographer's refusal is about the gay/lesbian/etc. couple - but it's not. Honestly, I wish these couples the best, and I support their right to do what they please and seek marriage regardless of my views. What it is truly about is my beliefs, and being forced to compromise, participate, and profit from an event which goes against my convictions.

Deleted Account's picture

One would think that if Christians have the right to discriminate against others then others should have the right to discriminate against Christians.

I don't think "freedom from discrimination" means what she thinks it means.

Will, it's not "Christians" who are "discriminating". Assuming the right heart it is Christians following what they believe to be God's laws. See my 2nd commentary to go into greater detail.

Deleted Account's picture

"Christians who belive they are following gods law" are Christians.

Given that you are Christian it is hardly surprising that logic is alien to you.

You are correct Will... the logic is alien to me. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving!!

Sam David's picture

God is clearly punishing her for her views -- She is making her live in Kentucky!

both the bible as the quran are anti gay, quran writes about stoning of men who lay with men. and western law being based on the christian beliefs. being gay was enough to be put in jail. it was a crime according to the law. this only changed not so long ago. after the woman got the right to vote. google "Sodomy laws".

Robert Montgomery's picture

Nobody wants to be told what to do . I understand that especially if it goes against your beliefs . But, as a photographer open to the public, I take on all. She has to realize that she is providing a service, not an endorsement . She is walking over a dollar . I looked at her work, and in my opinion, its what you would expect, cookie cutter wedding shots . Nothing grabbed me. Wouldn't "I don't think my style would fit your need", be better than a lawsuit ; or is she being used herself. A decline like above would not compromise her moral compass and provide a tactful way out.

No artist should be compelled by law to go against their religious or moral convictions. It is a simple matter of Liberty.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled on a similar case with Justice Gould writing "Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some. But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone.”

How can any enlightened person believe that these freedoms don't apply to Christian artists?

Using religious beliefs to justify discrimination does not make you discriminated against when you're told you can't discriminate.

so i guess you are pro taking away someones freedom, free speech and freedom of religion? what do you think of me wearing my MAGA hat ? is that okay or not ? freedom is fundamental for a democratie. when that basic freedom falls away we are talking about an oppressive state that forces you to do things against your will and beliefs. like china. is that what you are for ? a gay couple has the right to do business with anyone they want. they cant force someone to do business with them. forcing someone to do something against their will is a very very scary thing. this discussion is about freedom. not about discrimination.

Lots of rhetoric here, little substance.

First of all, most of what you wrote is attacking things I never said (or even alluded to). Bringing MAGA hats into this? Seriously? That just shows where your head is.

Second, it’s sophistic to imply that a gay couple is forcing anybody to shoot their wedding. “Force” implies that they are mandating that someone do something regardless of any other circumstances. If the photographer is already booked for that date and the couple points a gun at them and says “it’s not an option”, THAT’S forcing somebody to do something. But in this case, what you call “force” is actually a legal response to the PHOTOGRAPHER’s transgression.

1) Couple asks photographer to shoot their wedding
2) Photographer says no because they’re gay
3) Couple probably wouldn’t pursue it further because who wants to deal with that noise, but they would have a right to claim discrimination. That’s what this is about.

The couple isn't at fault here because the photographer made the mistake first.

All that aside, here’s how I know that this is about discrimination and not about “practicing religion”.

There are a whole host of things the bible says are wrong, for which this photographer (and you) probably wouldn’t apply the same standard. Sex before marriage? That’s a sin. Is she screening couples for that? Is she making sure they attend church every Sunday before she agrees to shoot their wedding? How about taking the lord’s name in vain. Is she verifying that they’ve never done that? These aren’t just petty suggestions in the bible, they’re in the 10 Commandments. You know, the end-all-be-all of rules for Christians. And let’s not even talk about the hypocrisy of refusing to shoot a gay couple’s wedding but never giving a second thought as to what the priest presiding over the wedding has done in his private chambers. Is that on her survey?

Any one of these would be immediate disqualifiers if she were applying religious beliefs indiscriminately. However, I’d be willing to bet that she isn’t, and what’s really happening is that she’s discriminating first and then using religion to justify her actions. And that’s even more despicable.

that came from a deep dark place. i disagree so you cant be right. and for accusing a priest for what he might have done in his private chambers, do you know him? sex before marriage ? do you know her ? in beliefs and religion you have many different levels. not every muslim is out to kill non-believers or stone gays. even doh it says so in the quran. you even have gay muslims and christians. but some things we can accept these days and others we cant. for her it is the being forced by a law to do something she feels is morally wrong. personally i really couldnt care less what people do in their bedroom as long as they are adults and it doesnt have a tail. but being forced to do something against your will is very very wrong and that is what i take from this. her choice is taken away by the "Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance". i believe very much in human rights and free speech. she has the right to say no to something she doesnt want to do and shouldnt be forced to do it or face a fine. thats the whole point for me. and to be honest i think this article and thing is being made bigger than it should be. if she would just explain why she cant do that marriage i cant think of anyone who would make a big deal out of it. i wouldnt want to force anyone doing my marriage reception who hates what i stand for. my guess is that the gay couple would feel the same. but it does give a bad feeling from their perspective to hear something like that with that argument. i hope for the gay couple they did get married and found a great photographer who made awesome pics of their marriage. and above all i hope they are very very happy and live a very long life together. but point stands nobody should be forced to do anything against their will. have a nice day Dave.

This is a tricky one for me and it begs the question who's rights are right !!. We had a case similar to this in the UK a few years ago with a baker from Ireland who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds. The case was long and opened up a whole debate on gay rights Vs religious rights in the end the baker's won the case.

Has Chelsea considered moving. I am sure she would be a lot more comfortable in Iran.

More comments