Gays and Lesbians (GLBT) versus Christians

[Crazy Liz]

Here are the NPR links:

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=06-16-2008&view=storyview

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91554986

 

[Crazy Liz]

http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/photography.pdf

Read the decision for yourself. Please note it is not a court decision. It is a decision by an administrative agency that has no jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the laws they are charged with enforcing. That will have to be decided in a real court.

 

[stan1980]

I actually disagree with you a bit here.

Some people seem to make a personality shift when they're having sex, and eye contact helps to confirm that one is in bed with one's loved one, and not a stranger. I find it reassuring. I don't need it all the time, though. Being talked to does just as well.

I still don't get it

I used to go out with someone who did require eye contact ALL the time. She was my first regular partner. I never did ask her why it was so important to her, mainly because I was a bit intimidated by her as I felt at the time she was a bit out of my league, and didn't want to risk upsetting her

 

[keith99]

Any business public or private shouldnt be aloud to turn anyone away based on religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.

I disagree very strongly. There are many that should NOT be allowed to turn people away for any reason short of real physical danger.

Hotels and Taxi's come to mind. But note these get special benefits. (Check out laws about defrauding an Innkeeper). A side note the Inn example goes way back. The point being that historically most towns had one Inn and denying lodging denied the ability to travel.

 

[stan1980]

I disagree very strongly. There are many that should NOT be allowed to turn people away for any reason short of real physical danger.

Hotels and Taxi's come to mind. But note these get special benefits. (Check out laws about defrauding an Innkeeper). A side note the Inn example goes way back. The point being that historically most towns had one Inn and denying lodging denied the ability to travel.

Can you expand on that?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Does anybody here have access to data on this case?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nmdce/case_no-1:2007cv00173/case_id-138382/

 

[stan1980]

Does anybody here have access to data on this case?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nmdce/case_no-1:2007cv00173/case_id-138382/

no

 

[HaloHope]

I disagree very strongly. There are many that should NOT be allowed to turn people away for any reason short of real physical danger.

Hotels and Taxi's come to mind. But note these get special benefits. (Check out laws about defrauding an Innkeeper). A side note the Inn example goes way back. The point being that historically most towns had one Inn and denying lodging denied the ability to travel.

? Am I being stupid or are you pretty much agreeing with me anyway? Or do you simply think the terms of "not being" turned away stated by me arent broad enough?

Or did you just completely misread my post.

 

[sidhe]

I actually disagree with you a bit here.

Some people seem to make a personality shift when they're having sex, and eye contact helps to confirm that one is in bed with one's loved one, and not a stranger. I find it reassuring. I don't need it all the time, though. Being talked to does just as well.

I like it, too. I just don't consider it to be a necessity at all times. I've known people who absolutely required it, or they felt absolutely no intimacy from the act of physical union. That attitude, to me, is bizarre.

 

[cantata]

I like it, too. I just don't consider it to be a necessity at all times. I've known people who absolutely required it, or they felt absolutely no intimacy from the act of physical union. That attitude, to me, is bizarre.

Yes, that is a bit strange.

 

[stan1980]

I like it, too. I just don't consider it to be a necessity at all times. I've known people who absolutely required it, or they felt absolutely no intimacy from the act of physical union. That attitude, to me, is bizarre.

I can only imagine some people worry their partner is thinking about something or someone else.

People worry too much.

 

[cantata]

I can only imagine some people worry their partner is thinking about something or someone else.

People worry too much.

To be fair, they might be. A lot of people fantasise during sex.

It's nothing to worry about, though.

 

[sidhe]

I can only imagine some people worry their partner is thinking about something or someone else.

People worry too much.

I've thought about other things before. Like "Why are all these other people in the room?"

 

[Maren]

When it comes to wedding photography, discrimination can work both ways. If a couple wants a non-Mormon to photograph their Temple wedding, will the photographer be allowed admission to the Temple?

Mormons do not allow pictures of ceremonies performed in their temples. As such, this is moot. There are pictures taken on the temple grounds but non-Mormons are allowed on the temple grounds (just not in the temple).

Personally, I think a wedding photographer, as an artist, needs to be able to appreciate the meaning of the ritual to the couple. So if I were a Christian photographer and had only photographed Christian weddings, what would I tell a Hindu couple coming to me to photograph their Hindu wedding? Since I wouldn't know Hindu wedding customs, would I be able to do a competent job?

OTOH, there is nothing stopping the photographer from learning about the ritual and the meanings behind it. Further, sometimes someone not raised with the traditions will come up with new ideas for photographs that fit well with the ritual and meanings since they are not have the same ties to the traditional ways of doing things.

The legal experts I heard discussing this case and the case of the doctor who refused IVF treatment to a lesbian couple made a distinction between the free speech rights of the photographer as an artist and the obligation of the doctor to provide services without discrimination. They pretty much agreed that the doctor would be required to offer the same fertility treatments to all patients, regardless of sexual orientation, but since photography is an art, in which the artist makes a statement, the photographer should not be compelled to provide the service.

I don't think those ideas would hold up legally. The law does not see a difference between businesses that are artistic and those that perform other types of services. I can partially see it with the doctors not being allowed to refuse treatment -- but as others will point out, fertility treatments are not medically necessary so aren't typically seen as "refusing medical treatment".

I think laws on civil rights are pretty well established today. Many states added that businesses were not allowed to discriminate against the protected classes defined in civil rights laws -- this was largely a response to segregation where many businesses in towns (if not most) would be "Whites Only". The only difference today is that "sexual orientation" has been added to some states civil rights laws and Christians are wanting to create "straights only" businesses.

 

[Mling]

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

Personally, I think a wedding photographer, as an artist, needs to be able to appreciate the meaning of the ritual to the couple. So if I were a Christian photographer and had only photographed Christian weddings, what would I tell a Hindu couple coming to me to photograph their Hindu wedding? Since I wouldn't know Hindu wedding customs, would I be able to do a competent job?

Christians need to hold homosexuality as just another religion that people preach and believe in.

The Gays versus Christians situation is not going away any time soon. It is time for Christians to regroup and look at things in proper perspective. If the first century Christians survived and indeed thrived in THAT environment, an environment that sexually was eerily similar to today's world, we can certainly survive this current plague affecting the Church and the believers.
​

 

[CCGirl]

This thread makes me wish I was gay.

 

[WhatThe]

This thread makes me wish I was gay.

Lol.
But CCGirl, you CAN be gay.
Just give us a while to work the "Gay Agenda" on you.
MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

(/joke)

 

[CCGirl]

Lol.
But CCGirl, you CAN be gay.
Just give us a while to work the "Gay Agenda" on you.
MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

(/joke)

LOL We dont have a "gay agenda" here, not as far as I know anyway.

 

[Paulos23]

Christians need to hold homosexuality as just another religion that people preach and believe in.

This is not a religion, why you want to make it one?

The Gays versus Christians situation is not going away any time soon.

No, Gays are here and short of physical violence I don't see them going back into hiding.

It is time for Christians to regroup and look at things in proper perspective.

Yes, like love thy neighbor. He who is without sin cast the first stone. As well as look at how modern society is changing.

If the first century Christians survived and indeed thrived in THAT environment, an environment that sexually was eerily similar to today's world, we can certainly survive this current plague affecting the Church and the believers.

Um, aren't Christians the largest religious group in the U.S.? Hardly like those times. Your have been playing the 'we are repressed' card to many times.