Photography (Weddings) Business and Homosexual Agenda

[Hank77]

or do u mean by photographing the wedding she was committing a sin..........meh na thats nonsense.

To you it's nonsense. But to some others it is not. Is your view more important than their view?

If you were hired to take photographs of someone beating someone up, would you be an accomplice to that crime?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

And for the record I do not regard a gay couple marrying as my "enemy" as you suggest they are.

They are if they're trying to entrap you into a lawsuit...

 

[Zoii]

To you it's nonsense. But to some others it is not. Is your view more important than their view?

If you were hired to take photographs of someone beating someone up, would you be an accomplice to that crime?

If its a sin to deal with people who are committing a sinful act, then we are all sinning. The nurse who provides antibiotics to the adulterer with STD. The lawyer defending a felon. The soldier who kills.

Doing your job isn't sinning just because it may involve working with people who are.

But let's say you are right. The Girl did photography for a gay wedding and so that makes her a sinner. Would you then be a sinner as well if you ever choose to use her services. Where does it stop Hank.

 

[Hank77]

But let's say you are right. The Girl did photography for a gay wedding and so that makes her a sinner. Would you then be a sinner as well if you ever choose to use her services. Where does it stop Hank.

Number one, I didn't say she would be a sinner. But each person has to decide for themselves if they are serving God or not.
A nurse who cures someone of an illness is serving God. God doesn't say let the guy die, hint the Good Samaritan.
The OT, Moses' Law, lays out the idea that every person should get their day in court. But for me, I couldn't defend someone I knew was a murderer. That's why criminal attorneys will sometimes say they don't want to know if one is guilty or not. They just defend them the best way they can without determining guilt, that's the jury's job.
A blood lust to kill is one thing, doing one's duty to protect is another. A soldier doesn't get to pick and choose where he is sent so the government acknowledges those who are conscientious objectors.

Now tell me one good reason, that is consistent with the Bible, that one should be taking photos that they believe are of a sinful act. How are they serving God or serving society, such as recording history in a war zone, or taking photos of crime scenes for evidence to convict a murderer.....

 

[Zoii]

Number one, I didn't say she would be a sinner. But each person has to decide for themselves if they are serving God or not.
A nurse who cures someone of an illness is serving God. God doesn't say let the guy die, hint the Good Samaritan.
The OT, Moses' Law, lays out the idea that every person should get their day in court. But for me, I couldn't defend someone I knew was a murderer. That's why criminal attorneys will sometimes say they don't want to know if one is guilty or not. They just defend them the best way they can without determining guilt, that's the jury's job.
A blood lust to kill is one thing, doing one's duty to protect is another. A soldier doesn't get to pick and choose where he is sent so the government acknowledges those who are conscientious objectors.

Now tell me one good reason, that is consistent with the Bible, that one should be taking photos that they believe are of a sinful act. How are they serving God or serving society, such as recording history in a war zone, or taking photos of crime scenes for evidence to convict a murderer.....

I agree Hank which was my point, doing a job for someone, isn't a sinful act. Someone else here said should the electricity company be allowed to cut off power or be regarded as sinning if they supplied electricity to the gay wedding. My point is, selling shoes to the groom, taking photos, baking a cake... This is a persons livelihood and I can't see why Christians would make them feel guilty or make them feel they are complicit in sinning when all they are doing is there job

 

[Hank77]

I agree Hank which was my point, doing a job for someone, isn't a sinful act.

Sometimes it is. If you were a taxi cab driver would you be held accountable if you willingly drove a criminal away from a crime scene?

 

[SilverBear]

To you it's nonsense. But to some others it is not. Is your view more important than their view?

If you were hired to take photographs of someone beating someone up, would you be an accomplice to that crime?

a marriage is not a crime

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

doesn't seem like many here have thought this through.

so some of you would take issue if this young lady refused business to an adult film studio who wanted her to take pictures of live sex acts between two women doing a lesbian scene? hey, it's just pics right? you're not in the scene and you're not the director...right?

I don't believe anyone is making the point that we should refuse business to anyone that sins. if this were the case, then it would be sinful for believers to start businesses period as every single human being is a sinner. the issue is not doing business with sinners but doing sinful business. taking photographs for the purpose of commemorating a sinful event is indeed sinful. obviously, however, there would be no issue with a gay couple wanting pictures taken of their new luxury property.

to those who went with the "what about if black people..." argument, you should be ashamed of yourselves. maybe you might disagree but there's nothing in scripture that says being black is a sin or that interracial dating is a sin, therefore, taking such a stance is not a matter of believer's conscience and said stance is actually in violation of scripture.

as far as what you can do legally, sound advise has already been given. get in contact with a lawyer who would fight for your right to uphold believer's conscience in light of your daughter's business. followers of Christ are allowed to disregard any ruling of government that would cause them to commit sin.

 

[Hank77]

a marriage is not a crime

I agree, marriage is not a crime. But sexual contact between same sex people is, imv.

 

[Zoii]

Sometimes it is. If you were a taxi cab driver would you be held accountable if you willingly drove a criminal away from a crime scene?

Hank I just cant agree that someone taking photos at a gay wedding is akin to being a getaway taxi driver following a crime. The example you gave is making the taxi driver an accessory to the criminals escape - if the taxi driver hadnt taken the person in his car, the criminal wouldnt have escaped. How is taking photos making the photographer an accessory to a homosexual act or marriage?

remember too that laws in your state may oblige your provision of service - are we advocating people break the law? And if I obey the law are you telling me Im a sinner?

And I ask you - if the photographer DOES take photos at the gay wedding, and you believe that makes her an accomplice, are you then a sinner if you subsequently utilize her service. Afterall, are you not supporting her business which you believe to be a sinful one?

 

[FireDragon76]

A photographer does not solemnize a wedding. Anybody who thinks it does is engaging in bad theology. It's just an attempt to baptize anti-gay animus.

 

[FireDragon76]

so some of you would take issue if this young lady refused business to an adult film studio who wanted her to take pictures of live sex acts between two women doing a lesbian scene? hey, it's just pics right? you're not in the scene and you're not the director...right?

Two people entering a socially sanctioned union of mutual support and fidelity is in no way comparable to inappropriate contentography, even if you happen to think homosexuality doesn't match up with some kind of platonic notion of the Order of Creation. Not even Roman Catholics make that sort of analogy now days, because they know its wrong to denigrate the love that gay men and women experience. It runs contrary to the personalist ethics that most educated folks take for granted now days.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Two people entering a socially sanctioned union of mutual support and fidelity is in no way comparable to inappropriate contentography, even if you happen to think homosexuality doesn't match up with some kind of platonic notion of the Order of Creation. Not even Roman Catholics make that sort of analogy now days, because they know its wrong to denigrate the love that gay men and women experience.

yes, some people allow themselves to be intellectually bullied.

i'm not one of those people. scripture sees both homosexuality and prostitution as sins.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

so some of you would take issue if this young lady refused business to an adult film studio who wanted her to take pictures of live sex acts between two women doing a lesbian scene? hey, it's just pics right? you're not in the scene and you're not the director...right?

If she were advertising herself as a inappropriate contentographic photographer, I would, as that's discrimination. If she were not advertising herself as such, it would be perfectly reasonable to turn it down on the grounds of not wanting to film inappropriate contentography.

If you're going to advertise yourself as a wedding photographer, you should be prepared to take photos at all legally-allowed weddings. Period. If you live somewhere where gay marriage is legal and have strong objections to filming a gay wedding, then you should not advertise yourself as a wedding photographer.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If you're going to advertise yourself as a wedding photographer, you should be prepared to take photos at all legally-allowed weddings. Period.

including weddings that would include naked poll dancing by prostitutes, devil worship theme weddings where they drink blood, or weddings expressing hatred for jewish people with a wedding cake that says "kill all kikes"?

 

[Hank77]

And I ask you - if the photographer DOES take photos at the gay wedding, and you believe that makes her an accomplice, are you then a sinner if you subsequently utilize her service. Afterall, are you not supporting her business which you believe to be a sinful one?

Once again, I didn't say that she would be sinning so please stop implying that I did. It's not about what I think, it's about what she might think.

You don't see anything wrong with same-sex couples so you are not going to understand why a photographer may have a problem in this type of a situation and maybe you just aren't good at putting yourself in another person's shoes.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

including weddings that would include naked poll dancing by prostitutes, devil worship theme weddings where they drink blood, or weddings expressing hatred for jewish people with a wedding cake that says "kill all kikes"?

Can you provide examples of these actually occurring, or are just being deliberately absurd? But yes, I'd say that morally and ethically you should. Though the last example probably breaks hate speech laws, which would make it illegal and therefore perfectly acceptable from an ethical standpoint to refuse.

 

[Zoii]

Once again, I didn't say that she would be sinning so please stop implying that I did. It's not about what I think, it's about what she might think.

You don't see anything wrong with same-sex couples so you are not going to understand why a photographer may have a problem in this type of a situation and maybe you just aren't good at putting yourself in another person's shoes.

But Hank it was you that said her situation was akin to a taxi driver being a getaway driver for a criminal. And you used the term accomplice. If I misunderstood you I'm sorry but I'm confused now what you're actually saying. I thought you were indicating some sort of indirect culpability. And why did you say I don't think same sex couples are wrong... Where did you get that..... I did say though that if it was law to provide a service, then I'd be obeying the law.... Wouldn't you?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Can you provide examples of these actually occurring, or are just being deliberately absurd? But yes, I'd say that morally and ethically you should. Though the last example probably breaks hate speech laws, which would make it illegal and therefore perfectly acceptable from an ethical standpoint to refuse.

don't need to provide examples of them occurring. you have stated that a follower of Christ has a moral obligation to do photos for any of these examples.

now THAT is absurd.

 

[Hank77]

But Hank it was you that said her situation was akin to a taxi driver being a getaway driver for a criminal

No, I was responding to your post which said, 'doing a job for someone is not a sinful act.' and I gave an example where it definitely would be.
I am not saying that photographer would be, but the photographer could certainly believe that they are.

And why did you say I don't think same sex couples are wrong... Where did you get that.....

Sorry, I intended, 'OR' rather than 'AND'.
"You don't see anything wrong with same-sex couples so you are not going to understand why a photographer may have a problem in this type of a situation and maybe you just aren't good at putting yourself in another person's shoes."
Even so that is making an assumption, which I hate it when someone does that to me.
I apologize.

I did say though that if it was law to provide a service, then I'd be obeying the law.... Wouldn't you?

If the law said I had to violate God's law, no I wouldn't.

Rom 14:23 But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If one is violating their conscience it is sin for them.