Gays and Lesbians (GLBT) versus Christians

[Polycarp_fan]

There is a Gay Agenda, But will it silence Christians?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html
Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job




By John Jalsevac
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.

"On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."

In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.

"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court "Hurley" Case. "In the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case."

Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a "tremendous threat" facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.

"I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, 'We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people's right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'"

But, in practice, says Lorence, "Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.

"We see that these [non-discrimination laws] are not rectifying some unjust discrimination, but being used to punish those who speak out in favor of traditional marriage and sexual restraint," he concluded.
Lorence said that the ADF is "cautiously optimistic that the commission will do the right thing." If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticizing Homosexuality
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121306.html[/URL]
Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112706.html[/URL]
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html[/URL]
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal for Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html[/URL]
U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html[/URL]
Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html[/URL]
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html[/URL]
Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html[/URL]
Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06073106.html[/URL]
CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
<A href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/<a%20href=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html</a>">http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html

 

[ReverendDG]

got any unbiased sources other than lifesitenews?
this is why we have those laws,because people use their religion to deny gay people business, housing and fair representation

please tell me something PF, if huguenin denied another group of people on the grounds of some sort of "conflict" with her religion would that be right?

well huguenin shows those of us who find the religion conflict to be nothing but an excuse, that she doesn't care about other people.
it is discrimination, the couple aren't doing anything to cause huguenin to refuse to take their photos, huguenin is denying them solely because they are gay.
that is discrimination to a T, PF, its why the laws exist!

 

[Washington]

Seems the court agreed with the plaintiffs

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.&#8212;A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her
religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.
Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer
Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.
The commission's one-page ruling Wednesday said Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against
Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay $6,637 for Willock's attorney's fees and costs.

source
​

 

[scraparcs]

Seems the court agreed with the plaintiffs

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her
religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.
Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer
Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.
The commission's one-page ruling Wednesday said Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against
Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay $6,637 for Willock's attorney's fees and costs.

source
​

I'm not the only one thinking this is absolutely absurd, am I? Find another photographer and move on. Sheesh.

 

[cantata]

Ooh, stampy-feety.

 

[quatona]

I´m wondering: Would they be as passionate if they were to defend a guy who refused to take pictures of a traditional Christian ceremony?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not the only one thinking this is absolutely absurd, am I? Find another photographer and move on. Sheesh.

Why should they just “move on”?
If a grocery store refused the business of a black woman just because she was black would you be supporting the grocery store and telling the woman to just “move on”?
If an auto insurer refused the business of a Muslim just because of her religion would you be cheering the insurance agent and telling the woman to just “move on”?
If a restaurant refused the business of a paralyzed veteran just because he was in a wheel chair would you be defending the restaurant and telling the veteran to just “move on”?



These photographers chose to discriminate against a minority just because they were a minority.
If they refused business to a black couple it would be discrimination
If they refused business to an interracial couple it would be discrimination
If they refused business to a Jewish couple it would be discrimination
If they refused business to a Muslim couple it would be discrimination
If they refused business to a handicapped couple it would be discrimination

Just because they chose to discriminate against a same gendered couple doesn’t magically change the hatred they engaged in into love nor does it make the discrimination they engaged in justifiable. The photographers chose to discriminate and they broke the law and were dealt with just as if they discriminated based on skin color.

 

[stan1980]

This is actually a tricky one I think. On the one hand, I think a photographer should be free to work for whoever he wants. On the other hand, I hate discrimination of any kind. Hmm, the jury is out, although I am tending towards the argument that you shouldn't be able to get away with discrimination.

Edit: I think if it were me, I'd stick his camera lens where the sun doesn't shine, and find a new photographer.

 

[HaloHope]

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

 

[stan1980]

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

Yeah, when you put it like that I have to agree.

 

[sidhe]

Hmmm...private business...discrimination lawsuit...toss a test at it...would it be valid if it was due to another kind of minority status? Yes. Therefore, the ruling is correct.

I wonder what the photographer thought she'd have to photograph at the wedding. Honestly, is taking pictures of two women (or two men) together that objectionable? It wasn't as if she would be asked "Now, can you document our drug-fueled orgy? What do you think the best camera angle for tribadism would be?" Though, given the extent to which people seem to think of LGBs as defined by their crotches and sexual desires, she very well could have thought that[sup]1[/sup]. "Oh noez! A ghey wedding! That iz kode 4 orjy!"

Also good is the equivocation: a business owner is liable under anti-discrimination laws .'. a church owner would be liable under anti-discrimination laws. Que? No comprendo, por favor. A church is under vastly different guidelines - they can turn away anyone they want, for any reason. Unless these ADF people are admitting that churches are businesses with a profit margin, I don't foresee this happening.

My favorite part of this, though, is that it makes it sound as if she got fined $6000 dollars for the violation. From what I read, it doesn't sound like she actually got fined for the violation, she was just asked to pay court costs. Whoop-de-doo.

And to address the ADF's crazy case: there is zero creativity in the average wedding shoot. You learn a few set poses that everyone likes, and try to catch the key moments - the ring, the kiss, the first dance, and cutting the cake. Hopefully, you also catch something amusing, but that's not so much creativity as getting lucky. It's like taking pictures of babies, but hopefully easier.

And also...we can haz reputable news agency? If you don't like the newspapers, just hit the Associated Press and go to the source.





[sup]1[/sup] Purely out of curiosity, what's up with that anyway? People talk about how homosexuals are obviously defined by sex, otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals, but I never hear anyone making that case say that heterosexuals must therefore also be defined by their crotches and desires. Then they talk about how Teh Gheyz have sex "the wrong way," and become obsessed with all kinds of practices like fisting and anallingus ("I'll no longer be known as Colonel Angus, for I have been shamed. Just call me by name - Anal Angus - and I'll always come in through the back door, so none shall see my face.") and teh oralz and teh greezy buttsecks. It is then implied that no True Straight Couple(TM, patent pending) engages in these practices, and if they do, it is part of Teh Ghey Ajendar. I've never gotten a definition of how one has sex "the right way," though, and how that could possibly be any fun if it were defined ("Lay down and think of England!"). Worse is when these things are wrong when it's Teh Gheyz who do them, but suddenly fine and dandy when it's a hetero married couple. Rank hypocrisy makes angry fey angry. Just my opinions, though. Your mileage may vary. Do not expose my opinions to temperatures in excess of 100*F for periods over ten minutes. My opinions were first found in a changeling's bed, left behind by the pixie who ate your baby. Do not taunt my opinions. Repeated, prolonged exposure to my opinions may result in dizziness, disorientation, confusion, and a really fun night.

 

[sidhe]

Double post. Problem server has problems.

 

[HaloHope]

.

"What do you think the best camera angle for tribadism would be?"

That made me lol

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hmmm...private business...discrimination lawsuit...toss a test at it...would it be valid if it was due to another kind of minority status? Yes. Therefore, the ruling is correct.

I wonder what the photographer thought she'd have to photograph at the wedding. Honestly, is taking pictures of two women (or two men) together that objectionable? It wasn't as if she would be asked "Now, can you document our drug-fueled orgy? What do you think the best camera angle for tribadism would be?" Though, given the extent to which people seem to think of LGBs as defined by their crotches and sexual desires, she very well could have thought that[sup]1[/sup]. "Oh noez! A ghey wedding! That iz kode 4 orjy!"

Proving yet again, thet GLBT culture is defined by sex acts.

tribadism, tribady
a sexual activity between women that imitates heterosex-ual intercourse. &#8212; tribade, n. &#8212; tribadic, adj.
See also: Homosexuality

[sup]1[/sup] Purely out of curiosity, what's up with that anyway? People talk about how homosexuals are obviously defined by sex, otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals, but I never hear anyone making that case say that heterosexuals must therefore also be defined by their crotches and desires. Then they talk about how Teh Gheyz have sex "the wrong way," and become obsessed with all kinds of practices like fisting and anallingus ("I'll no longer be known as Colonel Angus, for I have been shamed. Just call me by name - Anal Angus - and I'll always come in through the back door, so none shall see my face.") and teh oralz and teh greezy buttsecks. It is then implied that no True Straight Couple(TM, patent pending) engages in these practices, and if they do, it is part of Teh Ghey Ajendar. I've never gotten a definition of how one has sex "the right way," though, and how that could possibly be any fun if it were defined ("Lay down and think of England!"). Worse is when these things are wrong when it's Teh Gheyz who do them, but suddenly fine and dandy when it's a hetero married couple. Rank hypocrisy makes angry fey angry. Just my opinions, though. Your mileage may vary. Do not expose my opinions to temperatures in excess of 100*F for periods over ten minutes. My opinions were first found in a changeling's bed, left behind by the pixie who ate your baby. Do not taunt my opinions. Repeated, prolonged exposure to my opinions may result in dizziness, disorientation, confusion, and a really fun night.

 

[wanderingone]

Proving yet again, thet GLBT culture is defined by sex acts.

tribadism, tribady
a sexual activity between women that imitates heterosex-ual intercourse. — tribade, n. — tribadic, adj.
See also: Homosexuality

No proving once again people make jokes on forums. My husband and I, and our friends who are in multiculti families have often made jokes of a sexual nature when confronted with individual acts of racism. That's because many of the racist commentary about "interracial" relationships are sexual. Many racists think about nothing but sexual acts when thinking about "interracial" couples. Just because the discriminatory act causes a reaction that is meant to show what the person interprets the real fear (or fantasy) of the bigot to be doesn't mean they define their relationships or their life entirely on the sex act.

 

[cantata]

Proving yet again, thet GLBT culture is defined by sex acts.

What do you mean, "defined by"? Are heterosexuals defined by penis-in-vagina sex?

Not all women who have sex with women are into scissoring, anyway. There's a bit of a knack to it.

 

[WhatThe]

Proving yet again, thet GLBT culture is defined by sex acts.

Just incase you didn't realise... Sidhe was joking.

 

[sidhe]

Proving yet again, thet GLBT culture is defined by sex acts.

tribadism, tribady
a sexual activity between women that imitates heterosex-ual intercourse. — tribade, n. — tribadic, adj.
See also: Homosexuality

"This may be the worst thing I've ever heard. How wonderful." - Count Rugen

So, I guess we can safely guess that heterosexuals are defined by their unrelenting lust for the opposite gender? That the act of inserting a penis into a vagina is exactly what defines someone as heterosexual?

Seriously, people say things that show that the LGBT community is defined by something beyond sex, and it's people who insist the sex is disgusting who keep bringing it up. It's much easier to demonize something you think of only as a sex act than an actual person, isn't it?

So, are heterosexuals defined by the missionary position? Lie down and think of England?

 

[HaloHope]

What do you mean, "defined by"? Are heterosexuals defined by penis-in-vagina sex?

Not all women who have sex with women are into scissoring, anyway. There's a bit of a knack to it.

Exactly, good post.

If we defined people by their sex acts we'd have some far more "graphic" names than hetrosexual and homosexual.




personally I'm a pretty big fan of tribidism

 

[Polycarp_fan]

What do you mean, "defined by"? Are heterosexuals defined by penis-in-vagina sex?

So heterosexuality can mean what else? And, if we are going "Christians" here, thoughts weigh the same as behavior to Jesus.

Not all women who have sex with women are into scissoring, anyway. There's a bit of a knack to it.

Contemplate Darwinism on those individuals of any species engaged in scissoring (scissor fighting) exclusively as a sex act. Or any female to female sexual behavior? (For that matter.)

They don't get to have families. Two V's don't make a baby. I mean can't make a baby.

Now, who are the ignorant, phobic bigots again?