NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

[Bedford]

I read this question in a thread in Liberal Christians forum and it was a perfect reply to such questions. Though the poster was flamed for it by those who are Christian and tolerant of sin in the world but are not tolerant or liberal toward Christians who uphold God's law. Funny how that works out.

So, per their question and worded accordingly in reply here; point out the scriptures that legitimize homosexuality.

Two people of the same sex may be getting getting married, yet you nor the photographer have any idea if the two are having a physical sexual relationship.

In other words, there is nothing in the Bible where it says that Christians must refuse to offer a service they provide because the person requesting the service is gay.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Two people of the same sex may be getting getting married, yet you nor the photographer have any idea if the two are having a physical sexual relationship.

In other words, there is nothing in the Bible where it says that Christians must refuse to offer a service they provide because the person requesting the service is gay.

You can not provide any scripture that legitimizes homosexuality?

 

[kellhus]

You can not provide any scripture that legitimizes homosexuality?

Why would it be necessary for a verse that "legitimizes homosexuality" to be found?

You know there aren't any verses that legitimize using the internet, or practicing paleontology?

 

[dies-l]

In the first case potentially. It would really depend on the circumstances. In the second case, not a problem.

But she's not selling her artistic expressions, she's selling her technical services.

You don't believe that photography is art?

 

[keith99]

You don't believe that photography is art?

It can rise to that level. Most wedding photographs do not even come close.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Why would it be necessary for a verse that "legitimizes homosexuality" to be found?

Non sequiturs do not apply here.

When Christians argue that Christians must cater to homosexuals, can not be opposed to their sinful sexual behaviors, etc... they're arguing against the scriptures that condemn sinful fornication. Attempting to rewrite scripture by arguing sinful fornication no longer is condemned is not Biblical, nor is it in keeping with God's laws such as when God said to be holy because he is holy. Holiness does not act as a proponent for sin.

In rewriting those scriptures then it becomes necessary to show their counter. In other words, those scriptures that legitimize homosexuality, when Christians attempt to say homosexuality (the sex act itself) is not a sin.

 

[MachZer0]

Two people of the same sex may be getting getting married, yet you nor the photographer have any idea if the two are having a physical sexual relationship.

In other words, there is nothing in the Bible where it says that Christians must refuse to offer a service they provide because the person requesting the service is gay.

1 Thess 5:21-22
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. {NASB}

 

[BlunderAngel]

1 Thess 5:21-22
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. {NASB}

Keeping with your Paul epistles theme:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (NIV)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”


1 Corinthians 6:15-20 (NIV)
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.


Hebrews 10:26-31 (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The photographer was exercising her religious beliefs. And you say that isn't a 1st Amendment issue?

Of course not.

The First Amendment only applies to the separation of church and state when they say that it does.

 

[Bedford]

You can not provide any scripture that legitimizes homosexuality?

I did not try, and I did not flame you.

Yours was not an answer to my original question, it was a different question. Don't expect me to waste a minute of my time answering your questions when you dismiss mine.

 

[Bedford]

Why would it be necessary for a verse that "legitimizes homosexuality" to be found?

You know there aren't any verses that legitimize using the internet, or practicing paleontology?

It's nothing but a diversionary tactic to avoid my question.

 

[katautumn]

Why would it be necessary for a verse that "legitimizes homosexuality" to be found?

You know there aren't any verses that legitimize using the internet, or practicing paleontology?

Can you use the internet to glorify God? Yes. Can you use the internet for evil? Yes. Can you use paleontology to glorify God? Absolutely. The question is do relationships that are not recognized by God glorify Him? Not only does the Bible not legitimize homosexual relationships, it condemns them. Note that it does not say that homosexuals are not legitimate as people, rather their sexual acts. The Bible does not legitimize relationships between two heterosexuals "shacking up" either, so straight folks aren't let off the hook here. Nowhere are abstinent homosexuals condemned in the Bible any more than people who choose to remain single and devote their lives to the work of the Lord.

 

[Armoured]

Can you use the internet to glorify God? Yes. Can you use the internet for evil? Yes. Can you use paleontology to glorify God? Absolutely. The question is do relationships that are not recognized by God glorify Him? Not only does the Bible not legitimize homosexual relationships, it condemns them. Note that it does not say that homosexuals are not legitimate as people, rather their sexual acts. The Bible does not legitimize relationships between two heterosexuals "shacking up" either, so straight folks aren't let off the hook here. Nowhere are abstinent homosexuals condemned in the Bible any more than people who choose to remain single and devote their lives to the work of the Lord.

It condemns non-Christians too, and in some interpretations, inter racial marriage. Think a wedding photographer could cite the Bible to get out of an inter racial Hindu wedding gig?

 

[Bedford]

Can you use the internet to glorify God? Yes. Can you use the internet for evil? Yes. Can you use paleontology to glorify God? Absolutely. The question is do relationships that are not recognized by God glorify Him? Not only does the Bible not legitimize homosexual relationships, it condemns them. Note that it does not say that homosexuals are not legitimate as people, rather their sexual acts. The Bible does not legitimize relationships between two heterosexuals "shacking up" either, so straight folks aren't let off the hook here. Nowhere are abstinent homosexuals condemned in the Bible any more than people who choose to remain single and devote their lives to the work of the Lord.

Would you support a restaurant denying service to a gay couple? Would you support a fashion store denying selling clothing to gay couples? How far are you willing to deny gay couples? Renting an apartment? Owning a home? Buying a car? Washing that car? How far?

 

[katautumn]

It condemns non-Christians too, and in some interpretations, inter racial marriage. Think a wedding photographer could cite the Bible to get out of an inter racial Hindu wedding gig?

The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage. The only prohibition was a specific sect of Jews could not marry outside of their tribe. That was to preserve the lineage of Jesus. Being unequally yoked is a totally different subject altogether and, yes, the Bible does prohibit it. That is God's perfect wisdom, because two people from different religious beliefs will usually run into serious problems along the way. It isn't so bad if you have a Wiccan and an agnostic or a reform Jew and an atheist or two backslidden professing Christians. But when you have, say, a devout evangelical Christian or a devout Catholic and they marry a non-believer, it's very hard. Most pastors and priests that I know of will not perform wedding ceremonies for unequally yoked couples.

 

[Armoured]

The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage. The only prohibition was a specific sect of Jews could not marry outside of their tribe. That was to preserve the lineage of Jesus. Being unequally yoked is a totally different subject altogether and, yes, the Bible does prohibit it. That is God's perfect wisdom, because two people from different religious beliefs will usually run into serious problems along the way. It isn't so bad if you have a Wiccan and an agnostic or a reform Jew and an atheist or two backslidden professing Christians. But when you have, say, a devout evangelical Christian or a devout Catholic and they marry a non-believer, it's very hard. Most pastors and priests that I know of will not perform wedding ceremonies for unequally yoked couples.

That's nice Kat, but care to answer the question as asked?

 

[katautumn]

Would you support a restaurant denying service to a gay couple? Would you support a fashion store denying selling clothing to gay couples? How far are you willing to deny gay couples? Renting an apartment? Owning a home? Buying a car? Washing that car? How far?

Civil rights laws do prohibit discriminating against certain groups of people when it comes to housing. Housing is a necessity. The other businesses you refer to have nothing to do with participating in the celebration of something many people believe is immoral. Washing a gay person's car isn't affirming their homosexual behavior. Neither is selling them clothes or feeding them. Now, I would support a restaurant being able to deny catering to a couple having a same-sex wedding, but not feeding them in their establishment. Why? Because two people eating a meal, regardless of their sexual orientation, is not a celebration of their behavior. It's just eating a meal. Just as going to see a movie is simply going to see a movie or buying a pair of shoes is simply buying a pair of shoes.

There is a fine line between discriminating against a person and refusing to participate in a celebration of their behavior. It's the difference between a business owner angrily throwing a lesbian out of their establishment and forcing that same business to sponsor a float in the gay pride parade. The latter is forcing someone to be a participant in an event that celebrates something they view as wrong. The former is simply being an indecent human being toward another human being just because you dislike them.

 

[katautumn]

That's nice Kat, but care to answer the question as asked?

Why should a photographer be forced into taking photos of any wedding, is the question here. Should we force a black photographer to take photos of a KKK rally? Or a Jewish photographer to snap photos of Neo-Nazi event? Forget citing the Bible a a reason here. Is it right to force someone, regardless of whether or not they are providing a service to the public, to participate in an event that makes them feel uncomfortable?

 

[Bedford]

Civil rights laws do prohibit discriminating against certain groups of people when it comes to housing.

And in New Mexico, wedding photography.

Housing is a necessity.

Knowingly housing homosexual couples affirms their relationship, so you must have an issue with that?

The other businesses you refer to have nothing to do with participating in the celebration of something many people believe is immoral.

The photographer is not participating in the celebration, the photographer is photographing the celebration.

Washing a gay person's car isn't affirming their homosexual behavior. Neither is selling them clothes or feeding them.

It is if they know they are gay and are contributing to the well being and lifestyle of a gay couple.

Now, I would support a restaurant being able to deny catering to a couple having a same-sex wedding, but not feeding them in their establishment.

Many heterosexuals attend gay weddings, and in the process of denying the gay couple the restaurant is most likely discriminating against heterosexuals.

Why? Because two people eating a meal, regardless of their sexual orientation, is not a celebration of their behavior. It's just eating a meal.

It is sustaining two gay people, which is supportive of them, and their lifestyle.

Just as going to see a movie is simply going to see a movie or buying a pair of shoes is simply buying a pair of shoes.

What if I, as a man went to buy an awesome pair of pumps, then go and see Brokeback Mountain? Should the theater deny the film
to be shown or letting me in wearing awesome pumps?

There is a fine line between discriminating against a person and refusing to participate in a celebration of their behavior.

Again, the photographer is not participating in the celebration, the photographer is paid to mark the celebration .

It's the difference between a business owner angrily throwing a lesbian out of their establishment and forcing that same business to sponsor a float in the gay pride parade. The latter is forcing someone to be a participant in an event that celebrates something they view as wrong. The former is simply being an indecent human being toward another human being just because you dislike them.

Has anybody been forced to sponsor a float at a gay pride parade? That is forcing somebody to pay, whereas the photographer is forced to be paid.

 

[katautumn]

And in New Mexico, wedding photography.

Which is, in my opinion, asinine. Photography for a wedding is not a right. There is a free market out there and if one person cannot, or will not, provide the service there are likely ten more business-hungry vendors who will.

Knowingly housing homosexual couples affirms their relationship, so you must have an issue with that?

It's still a necessity. Wedding photos are not.

The photographer is not participating in the celebration, the photographer is photographing the celebration.

It is still a situation, and event, that makes them uncomfortable.

It is if they know they are gay and are contributing to the well being and lifestyle of a gay couple.

Here again, not really. You aren't "celebrating" their relationship by selling them clothes.

Many heterosexuals attend gay weddings, and in the process of denying the gay couple the restaurant is most likely discriminating against heterosexuals.

The heterosexuals in attendance aren't the ones commissioning the photos, however.

It is sustaining two gay people, which is supportive of them, and their lifestyle.

Sustaining is not the same thing as condoning. You aren't sustaining a person's lifestyle by photographing their wedding. You're participating in an event that you disapprove of.

What if I, as a man went to buy an awesome pair of pumps, then go and see Brokeback Mountain? Should the theater deny the film
to be shown or letting me in wearing awesome pumps?

No.

Again, the photographer is not participating in the celebration, the photographer is paid to mark the celebration .

Herein lies the question - should a business man or woman have the right to refuse money?

Has anybody been forced to sponsor a float at a gay pride parade? That is forcing somebody to pay, whereas the photographer is forced to be paid.

I really wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen at some point in the future.