Gays and Lesbians (GLBT) versus Christians

[Crazy Liz]

There have been a ton in Canada already. Haven't read about the US but I will check up on that.




A photographer should not be forced to do something he is not comfortable with. What don't you understand about that? Secondly, gays are not a minority. If you based minority status on sexual orientation we would all be minoritys. Lastly not being able to do something because of religious vows is not discrimination.

A photographer should have the right to decline something if he dosen't feel comfortable with it. Thats his right as a free person. And to sue a photographer because his religious practice would not allow him to shows how insecure and petty they are about themselves.

The NM Human Rights Commission (or whatever is the exact name of the agency) did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the statute was constitutional. They just had to apply it. The case has now been appealed to the courts. The consensus of the legal experts discussing this case and a couple of others now going through the US courts is that the doctor who offered IVF treatment to heterosexual patients only is going to lose her case. If she is going to offer IVF treatments, she has to offer them without discrimination. If her conscience does not allow her to provide reproductive services to gays, then she can simply not offer them at all. However, the photographer has a First Amendment right of her own, since artistic works are works of expression in and of themselves. The anti-discrimination statute's constitutionality ends where it collides with the artist's right of free expression and the constitutional repugnance of compelled speech. So the courts are likely to reverse the decision against the photographer, holding the NM statute as applied to artists of any kind.

 

[Crazy Liz]

What I don't understand is what makes photography so different than any every other job. A brick layer can't refuse to build a certain building just because he doesn't like what will happen in it. I, when I was a substitute teacher, couldn't just teach anything I liked, nor could I leave out the bits of the lessons that I didn't like. A restaurant owner can't refuse to serve people based solely on who they are (though, they can have dress codes and behavior regulations and the like).

What makes photographers so special?

A bricklayer is simply doing a technical procedure. A photographer is making an artistic statement.

Personally, I wouldn't want a photographer who disapproved to photograph an event that was important to me. If this particular photographer had handled the issue with a little more finesse, the couple would have just gotten another photographer.

When I was a practicing lawyer, I also had a professional obligation not to discriminate. If I was just drafting real estate documents, I'd work for anybody. But litigation involves advocacy, and if my personal feelings about a particular case would make me an ineffective advocate, I felt I had a duty to warn them about that, and suggest I might not be the best lawyer for them. If instead of sending a couple of 1-2 sentence emails, the photographer would have come out smelling like a rose if she had picked up the phone and said, "I've never photographed a same-sex union before, and I have strong personal beliefs that it's wrong. I'm concerned that might affect the quality of product you would get from me. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if you decided to look for a photographer who has experience photographing events like yours."

 

[PetersKeys]

What I don't understand is what makes photography so different than any every other job. A brick layer can't refuse to build a certain building just because he doesn't like what will happen in it. I, when I was a substitute teacher, couldn't just teach anything I liked, nor could I leave out the bits of the lessons that I didn't like. A restaurant owner can't refuse to serve people based solely on who they are (though, they can have dress codes and behavior regulations and the like).

What makes photographers so special?

are you kidding me? A restaurant owner can kick out whoever he believes is in a violation of resturant rules. You can be kicked out of a resturant for anything these days, certain clothing, smoking, how you act, obscenity, language, etc.

If a brick layer owns his own buisness he can refuse whoever he want to refuse. Companys do this all the time. What are we? Communists? If people sued for being turned down we would all be suing each other. If the photgrapher is simply not comfortable doing a certain shoot just find another photographer, how hard is that? Theres no discrimination or hard feelings, the man simply cannot do it because of his religious vows. If this couple is too "thin skinned" to deal with that, then they obviously have insecurity issues with themselves and their own self image.

And again, as keeps being stated, the law says you cannot discriminate in business based on age, race, nationality, disability, gender, and (at least in New Mexico and California) sexual orientation. It does not deny the business person any rights, the Supreme Court has ruled on this multiple times. And tell me, what Christian rule does not photographing a same-sex wedding break? Maybe the Golden Rule or Christ's command to love ones neighbor? The entire claim that it goes against his religious practice is a false claim.

Im sorry but you have no authority to make any claims on what is christian doctrine or not. It breaks the rule of engaging in sinful practices in what God considers an abomination in his sight. That is his belief, and whether you agree with it or not, you should still respect it and go on. Whats gonna be next? to sue the more orthodox churches because they cannot marry gays in their church? Are they gonna put the discrimination flag up again? Can you say freedom of religion slowly going down the tube? You seem to have no problem breaking obscenity laws during your pride parades, yet you scream 'breaking the law!' when someone cannot do something because of his religious vows.

Lovings one neighbor has nothing to do with taking photographs of men getting 'married' to other men.

 

[BigBadWlf]

There have been a ton in Canada already. Haven't read about the US but I will check up on that.

A false statement. One of the common lies of the religious right.

Canadian law is very clear on the topic

The law in question is Criminal Code of Canada(Sections 318 & 319) this law covers hate speech and protects against hate propagandadirecting hatred against persons the basis of their color, race, religion, ethnic origin and/or sexual orientation. it criminalizes hate propaganda" is defined by the Criminal Code of Canada(Section 318 & 319) as the expression of hatred against or the advocacy of genocide of an identifiable group: specifically people distinguished by their "color, race, religion, ethnic origin and/or sexual orientation.”

note the exclusions:

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

If he/she described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.




http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html

A photographer should not be forced to do something he is not comfortable with. What don't you understand about that?

The photographer you are trying to defend refused business to a minority solely because the women trying to hire them were minorities.

They were charged and fined just as if they had refused a black couple, an interracial couple, a Hispanic couple or any other minority.

Bigotry is bigotry no matter who the target is and no matter what religion the photographer claimed to be that doesn’t make discrimination acceptable.


No one is saying the photographer has to stop hating anyone. I’m sure this individual hates Jews and blacks and the handicapped just as much as he hated gays and lesbians. But the law clearly states that you can’t refuse business to minorities no matter how much you choose to hate them.

Secondly, gays are not a minority. If you based minority status on sexual orientation we would all be minoritys. Lastly not being able to do something because of religious vows is not discrimination.

Of course gays and lesbians are minorities. Your choice to hate doesn’t magically change them into something else.


And hiding bigotry behind religion doesn’t change bigotry into something else. The KKK is a religious organization but the fact that they are Christians doesn’t make the evil they do good or moral or just.

A photographer should have the right to decline something if he dosen't feel comfortable with it. Thats his right as a free person. And to sue a photographer because his religious practice would not allow him to shows how insecure and petty they are about themselves.

No it shows that these women were brave enough to stand up to bigots and hate mongers

 

[Crazy Liz]

Hmmm....

How would it violate a Christian's conscience or biblical mandate to photograph a pagan sacrifice?

Would a Christian who did that lose his/her salvation?

Would a Christian who did that be sinning?

 

[Maren]

are you kidding me? A restaurant owner can kick out whoever he believes is in a violation of resturant rules. You can be kicked out of a resturant for anything these days, certain clothing, smoking, how you act, obscenity, language, etc.

Actually, this isn't entirely true. Restaurants can make rules based on health (and in some places are required to) such as refusing people not wearing shirts or shoes. They can remove people who become disruptive or, as you mention, for smoking in a non-smoking area (though that is often a law as well).

What they cannot do is deny service based on the persons age, gender, race, religion, and (at least in some areas) based on the perception of the person's sexual orientation. There are numerous examples of this -- you might check out the controversies where restaurants like Denny's and Cracker Barrel, among others, have been sued.

If a brick layer owns his own buisness he can refuse whoever he want to refuse. Companys do this all the time.

Again, as shown above, they cannot just refuse anyone. They must have valid reasons to deny service.

What are we? Communists? If people sued for being turned down we would all be suing each other. If the photgrapher is simply not comfortable doing a certain shoot just find another photographer, how hard is that?

Because the law says the photographer cannot.

Theres no discrimination or hard feelings, the man simply cannot do it because of his religious vows.

Again, what religious vows?

If this couple is too "thin skinned" to deal with that, then they obviously have insecurity issues with themselves and their own self image.

Just like the secret service agents and the judge and wife at Denny's?

Im sorry but you have no authority to make any claims on what is christian doctrine or not.

Straw man, I never claimed to.

It breaks the rule of engaging in sinful practices in what God considers an abomination in his sight.

How is taking pictures at a wedding ceremony "engaging in sinful practices"? And does this mean that he does not take photos at wedding ceremonies that are not performed in a Christian church or with a Christian pastor (which would also not be recognized by God)? What about where one of those getting married has previously divorced (and not because of adultery), does he refuse those weddings as well? In this case, the evidence I've seen seems to point to the photographer only objecting to sin in the case of homosexuality.

And does that mean this photographer can't take pictures where shrimp or other shellfish are served since the Bible also lists them as abominations (I really don't think you understand what the Bible word "toevah", which is the word translated as abomination, actually means).

That is his belief, and whether you agree with it or not, you should still respect it and go on.

Why? Should we respect the "rights" of racists who refuse to give service to Blacks? Should Jews respect the "rights" of Jew-haters that refuse to help them? Why should we respect people's beliefs of discrimination and bigotry?

Whats gonna be next? to sue the more orthodox churches because they cannot marry gays in their church? Are they gonna put the discrimination flag up again? Can you say freedom of religion slowly going down the tube?

Nope, in fact religions are specifically protected against civil rights laws, unlike businesses. It is why Catholics can enforce their rules of only marrying Catholics and Mormon's don't have to allow everyone into their temples, and why all the Christian faiths that don't believe women should be clergy are not forced to ordain women.

You seem to have no problem breaking obscenity laws during your pride parades, yet you scream 'breaking the law!' when someone cannot do something because of his religious vows.

You don't know me very well -- not to mention that they aren't "my" pride parades. From what I've seen about those parades, they aren't anything close to what most Christians try to claim they are. For some reason Christians keep confusing a street fair in San Francisco (Folsom Street Fair, held at the beginning of June and is decidedly adult) with Pride (which in San Francisco was July 28 & 29).

As for enforcing obscenity laws, I agree they should be enforced -- whether it be at the Folsom Street Fair, at Mardi Gray, or during Spring Break -- and whether it is gays or heterosexuals. I do find it odd that so many complain about gay events and totally ignore heterosexual events (such as Mardi Gras and spring break) where obscenity laws are routinely broken.

Lovings one neighbor has nothing to do with taking photographs of men getting 'married' to other men.

I think perhaps you should read the Golden Rule again; if you don't respect others beliefs, why should we respect your beliefs?

 

[SaintInChicago]

People have the basic right of Freedom of Association. When people use the terms "Homosexual fascism" this is what they refer to: people being forced to obey the desires of homosexuals like this.

Sorry, but homosexuals aren't born that way like blacks are. Nor is the Earth flat. Get over it.

 

[Maren]

A bricklayer is simply doing a technical procedure. A photographer is making an artistic statement.

Personally, I wouldn't want a photographer who disapproved to photograph an event that was important to me. If this particular photographer had handled the issue with a little more finesse, the couple would have just gotten another photographer.

When I was a practicing lawyer, I also had a professional obligation not to discriminate. If I was just drafting real estate documents, I'd work for anybody. But litigation involves advocacy, and if my personal feelings about a particular case would make me an ineffective advocate, I felt I had a duty to warn them about that, and suggest I might not be the best lawyer for them. If instead of sending a couple of 1-2 sentence emails, the photographer would have come out smelling like a rose if she had picked up the phone and said, "I've never photographed a same-sex union before, and I have strong personal beliefs that it's wrong. I'm concerned that might affect the quality of product you would get from me. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if you decided to look for a photographer who has experience photographing events like yours."

I really don't think this will be as cut and dried as you appear to claim. The fact is, wedding photography is very often a "by the numbers" type of situation. You have the typical bride and groom and family pictures, assorted candid shots of guests, etc. I have yet to see wedding photos hanging in art galleries, rather they are considered much closer to a remembrance or souvenir.

Again, I could be wrong about this photographer, maybe he does artistic wedding photography and shoots each wedding completely differently. But I think he would be required to prove that he is artistic in taking pictures and not that he is just shooting the same basic type of shots at most weddings he acts as photographer.

I further agree that the entire situation could have been avoided if he would have told the couple he would prefer not to, that his heart would likely not be in it, and that they would be better served by another photographer rather than denying them service.

 

[Maren]

People have the basic right of Freedom of Association. When people use the terms "Homosexual fascism" this is what they refer to: people being forced to obey the desires of homosexuals like this.

Sorry, but homosexuals aren't born that way like blacks are. Nor is the Earth flat. Get over it.

Sorry, there is no evidence that homosexuals aren't born "that way". In fact, there is enough evidence that most everyone that has studied the issue agrees there homosexuality is at the least partially based on biology -- including NARTH.

What the evidence does appear to clearly show is that the vast majority of homosexuals are completely unable to change their sexual orientation. In fact, one researcher who is quoted by the ex-gay groups to prove change is possible, says that his research indicates that no more of 3% of gays can change their sexual orientation.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I really don't think this will be as cut and dried as you appear to claim. The fact is, wedding photography is very often a "by the numbers" type of situation. You have the typical bride and groom and family pictures, assorted candid shots of guests, etc. I have yet to see wedding photos hanging in art galleries, rather they are considered much closer to a remembrance or souvenir.

Again, I could be wrong about this photographer, maybe he does artistic wedding photography and shoots each wedding completely differently. But I think he would be required to prove that he is artistic in taking pictures and not that he is just shooting the same basic type of shots at most weddings he acts as photographer.

Judge her work for yourself.

http://www.elanephotography.com/elane.swf

I further agree that the entire situation could have been avoided if he would have told the couple he would prefer not to, that his heart would likely not be in it, and that they would be better served by another photographer rather than denying them service.

I hope she learns from this.

 

[Maren]

Judge her work for yourself.

http://www.elanephotography.com/elane.swf



I hope she learns from this.

It will be interesting. She does appear to "get artistic" but it looks like she also does the traditional photos. Her problem is going to be that it is the business that is denying service, not her personally, so her First Amendment rights don't really come into play. It further hurts her that she lists "wedding photography" as a service offered. In many ways it is the same as the First Amendment right to evangelize (regardless of the religion) can be denied by employers. It will be interesting to see how the various courts (as I assume any result will be appealed) rule.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

It will be interesting. She does appear to "get artistic" but it looks like she also does the traditional photos. Her problem is going to be that it is the business that is denying service, not her personally, so her First Amendment rights don't really come into play. It further hurts her that she lists "wedding photography" as a service offered. In many ways it is the same as the First Amendment right to evangelize (regardless of the religion) can be denied by employers. It will be interesting to see how the various courts (as I assume any result will be appealed) rule.

GBLT's versus Christians. It is that plain:

Lesbians Sue Christian Photographer


As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.”

When an Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, the photographer, Elaine Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought, said the National Catholic Register.
But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company.

You knew this was coming, right?

Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions.

Something about these Orwellian Human Rights Commissions scare the bejezus out of me. I think that it's likely that more rights will be taken away by faceless "commissions" than by overbearing Presidents or Supreme Court Justices in the future of this country. The right to make up our own mind based on your own conscience will become a fine-able offense in the future.

“It warps the whole concept of discrimination to an absurd extreme,” said Jordan Lorence, senior council for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Phoenix-based organization which has come to Huguenin’s defense.

Lorence cited a local Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia, which was fined $2,000 by the province’s Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception.

In another case, a Methodist facility in Ocean Grove, N.J., faces a tax bill of $20,000 after its state tax-exempt status was revoked for refusing to host a homosexual commitment ceremony.

And in late February, the threat of a discrimination lawsuit sadly bullied a Catholic hospital in California to agree to perform breast augmentation surgery on a transsexual man.

Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.”


http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/03/lesbians-sue-christian-photographer.html

 

[Maren]

GBLT's versus Christians. It is that plain:

Lesbians Sue Christian Photographer


As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.”

When an Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, the photographer, Elaine Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought, said the National Catholic Register.
But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company.

You knew this was coming, right?

Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions.

Something about these Orwellian Human Rights Commissions scare the bejezus out of me. I think that it's likely that more rights will be taken away by faceless "commissions" than by overbearing Presidents or Supreme Court Justices in the future of this country. The right to make up our own mind based on your own conscience will become a fine-able offense in the future.

“It warps the whole concept of discrimination to an absurd extreme,” said Jordan Lorence, senior council for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Phoenix-based organization which has come to Huguenin’s defense.

Lorence cited a local Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia, which was fined $2,000 by the province’s Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception.

In another case, a Methodist facility in Ocean Grove, N.J., faces a tax bill of $20,000 after its state tax-exempt status was revoked for refusing to host a homosexual commitment ceremony.

And in late February, the threat of a discrimination lawsuit sadly bullied a Catholic hospital in California to agree to perform breast augmentation surgery on a transsexual man.

Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.”


http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/03/lesbians-sue-christian-photographer.html

Sounds to me like Christians should obey the law, then they wouldn't have problems. Just like if Denny's and Cracker Barrel would have obeyed these laws, just with Blacks instead of gays, they would also have fewer problems.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Sounds to me like Christians should obey the law, then they wouldn't have problems. Just like if Denny's and Cracker Barrel would have obeyed these laws, just with Blacks instead of gays, they would also have fewer problems.

What if thugs wearing their pants sagging below their buttocks, their underwear touching seats where other people have to sit when these thugs are done, demand to be served at Denny's or Cracker Barrell?

Now, I agree with you that Christians should submit to gays ruling over them in the secular realm. We survived Nero and Hadrian without a First Amendment to protect us, so I'm sure we can get through the current phase of socially motivated perverted miscreants forcing themselves on us in todays modern world.

 

[Aerika]

GBLT's versus Christians. It is that plain:

Lesbians Sue Christian Photographer


As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.”

When an Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, the photographer, Elaine Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought, said the National Catholic Register.
But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company.

You knew this was coming, right?

Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions.

Something about these Orwellian Human Rights Commissions scare the bejezus out of me. I think that it's likely that more rights will be taken away by faceless "commissions" than by overbearing Presidents or Supreme Court Justices in the future of this country. The right to make up our own mind based on your own conscience will become a fine-able offense in the future.

“It warps the whole concept of discrimination to an absurd extreme,” said Jordan Lorence, senior council for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Phoenix-based organization which has come to Huguenin’s defense.

Lorence cited a local Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia, which was fined $2,000 by the province’s Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception.

In another case, a Methodist facility in Ocean Grove, N.J., faces a tax bill of $20,000 after its state tax-exempt status was revoked for refusing to host a homosexual commitment ceremony.

And in late February, the threat of a discrimination lawsuit sadly bullied a Catholic hospital in California to agree to perform breast augmentation surgery on a transsexual man.

Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.”


http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/03/lesbians-sue-christian-photographer.html

It begs the question, how are you going to react when Congress extends gays the same rights as outlined in the Civil Right's Act of 1964 ?

 

[Maren]

Sounds to me like Christians should obey the law, then they wouldn't have problems. Just like if Denny's and Cracker Barrel would have obeyed these laws, just with Blacks instead of gays, they would also have fewer problems.

What if thugs wearing their pants sagging below their buttocks, their underwear touching seats where other people have to sit when these thugs are done, demand to be served at Denny's or Cracker Barrell?

Now, I agree with you that Christians should submit to gays ruling over them in the secular realm. We survived Nero and Hadrian without a First Amendment to protect us, so I'm sure we can get through the current phase of socially motivated perverted miscreants forcing themselves on us in todays modern world.

Are you seriously implying Blacks are thugs? While I hope that isn't what you meant, I just can't see any other way to interpret your comment given the context.

 

[cantata]

Judge her work for yourself.

http://www.elanephotography.com/elane.swf

See, this is why I could never be a Christian. Having gay sex is a sin, but making all-Flash websites isn't.

 

[TheManeki]

Sounds to me like Christians should obey the law, then they wouldn't have problems.

Would that fall under the "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" instruction?

 

[Maren]

Would that fall under the "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" instruction?

I was tempted to include that, but decided if I did that I'd likely get the response of how Christians are to obey God and not man or some variation.

 

[Crazy Liz]

See, this is why I could never be a Christian. Having gay sex is a sin, but making all-Flash websites isn't.

LOL!