• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Photography (Weddings) Business and Homosexual Agenda

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by Monksailor, Nov 14, 2017.

  1. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,622
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    I agree. That is why Christians would have to prove that the Bible says the inter-racial marriage is a sin, but they can't, it doesn't. The churches that support it are not Biblical and are merely racist.

    IF they could prove it that would be a different story.
     
  2. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    No. Because the First Amendment isn't limited to the Christian Bible. It applies to all religions. Other religions have tenets that can be proven to be parts of their religion, but that violate American law. The First Amendment freedom of religion does not override the general laws.

    Allowances can be made, and certain practices tolerated (example: Sikhs wearing small swords contrary to some "no weapons" requirements in public colleges), but those practices need not be tolerated in other places, such as airport security.

    The point is that it is the law - not the individuals in their religion - who decide what the limits of toleration and allowances are. For example: the Amish practicing their traditional religion have been exempted from Social Security taxation. They don't have to be - they could be required to pay in. But our government debated the matter and decided to extend them that special limitation, as an allowance to their religious practice.

    On the contrary, however, certain hallucinogenic mushrooms are a fundamental aspect of the traditional religious practices of certain Southwestern American Indian tribes,"ganja" is central to Rastafarian practice, and human sacrifice is required for the traditional Aztec religion. But in all of these cases, the things being protected by the general laws of the country have been deemed, but us as a government, to be too important to permit these religious practices. It doesn't matter that the human sacrifice is THE fundamental piece of the Aztec religion - that's murder under our laws, and cannot be done. Effectively this outlaws the practice of Aztec religion in America. The First Amendment, like all other civil rights, is not absolute and is limited by other rights - and the right to not be murdered is more important than the right to practice a religion. Similar rulings have been made regarding those religions for whom the use of illegal drugs, or the practice of underaged or group sex, are vital rites. The general drug laws of the United States are more important than the freedom of religion, and local ordinances based on community standards override any religious rites involving sex.

    Religion is not absolutely protected by the Constitution, just as speech, gun rights and all other rights are not. Rights are always limited, because any unlimited right would be the loose dangling thread by which the entire civil society were to be unraveled by whomever decided to pull it.

    The question, then, is whether religious racism - particularly against large classes of people such as Blacks - falls into the category of Social Security and the Amish, or falls more into the category of practicing human sacrifice.

    For the bulk of Americans, permitting business to bar blacks on ANY grounds is of far greater importance than, say, preventing American Indians from using hallucinogenic mushrooms.

    Racism in America caused a civil war, the inner cities, massive crime, and trillions in social expenses. Nothing like some people's mere religion is going to be allowed to override the interest of the American people to be done with it.

    So in truth, as a categorical matter, the First Amendment provides absolutely no protection at all to any religion that claims a religious basis for discriminating against black people EVEN IF the belief is sincerely held by the people of that faith.

    This actually COULD bite down in a real world sense, were high caste Indian Hindus in America seek to bar bottom caste Indian "untouchables" from their stores in the general commerce. In American. the Hindu caste system cannot be enforced in the public stream of commerce.

    Another example: Muslims can marry four wives under their religion. In America they can only marry one. The national laws supersede the religion.

    With race in general, and the black race in particular, given our history, it doesn't matter what your religion is, or your sincerely held personal beliefs are. There is NO grounds on which the national policy of non-discrimination grants you an exception. It is actually very, very important that racists be forced to bow to the law and serve blacks. American racism was litigated by the battlefield, and in a thousand court battles for a hundred years afterwards. My side won. And we make a point of rooting out racists and making them serve black in their businesses, precisely because we KNOW that they hate doing so. If they refuse, we destroy their businesses and bankrupt them and take their money away. They don't refuse much anymore, but we actively seek them out, in search-and-destroy missions. And we publicize every case we find from sea to shining sea. Why? After so much bloodshed and so much expense and loss and tragedy, we are establishing who is master no, and who will kneel and serve or be destroyed. The choices are: abandon your racism or we have the legal right to oppress you with the law. And we will, because you're evil and we enjoy it.

    That's the truth of it, and the why and wherefore of it. It's useless to try to find some sort of constitutional principle on which the losing side of a hundred year war gets to win. The winners will never let that happen.

    You don't have the right to be in business if you're going to discriminate against people based on their race.
     
  3. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,622
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    So the Christian photographer must take photos of same-sex couples kissing if they take photos of opposite-sex people kissing, no matter what their religious beliefs are.

    EDIT: it has already been determined in court that freedom of speech/expression will be upheld when it comes to business and LGBT relationships.
     
  4. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Different case. LGBT is not a race. Racism, specifically anti-black racism, is a particular evil that America has suffered hell to dig up. Because the anti-discrimination laws and enforcement and watchdogs are so active and absolute, everybody else tries to hook into that power by analogy. But there is no analogy. The attempts are always strained.

    In the LGBT case, the issue is complicated by the fact that most people don't like the whole gay business, and so are not willing to connect the issue to that of the blacks.

    When you say that "it has been upheld", where and by what court?
     
  5. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,407
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes.
     
  6. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,407
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Not most people. About 2/3 are OK with it. Religious Landscape Study Even a majority of Christians are now OK with it, with Catholics most accepting. (The question was about "accepted by society" not whether it's OK with God. But that's the relevant question here.)

    But I should point out that it isn't that we should protect only people we like, so this isn't so relevant. Rights mean nothing if they don't apply to people who are widely disliked.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  7. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    If it's wrong for a business to discriminate and refuse service to one minority even if it is based on sincerely held religious beliefs why is it OK business to discriminate and refuse service to a different minority?
     
  8. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The law is never anything more than the opinion of the lawmaker. (This is also true of divine law.)

    So, the fact that most Americans want abortion rights legal means that the unborn have no right to live - they live or die at the sovereign discretion of their mothers. The only way to change that fact would be to change the law, and the only way to do that would require finding officials (presumably judges) willing to impose laws contrary to the will of the people.

    In the case of gay marriage, the judges did exactly that. At the time the decisions began to be handed down, the electorate across the nation opposed the very idea. But the courts kept ruling against the people, and those in favor of gay marriage became very vocal, and got some high power allies. In time, the people changed their minds. (The same thing happened at the time of Roe v. Wade.)

    If you can get the people with power to legislate, you can get the laws you want, and usually the bulk of the people will follow.

    And then you have the issue of the blacks, which is completely different, given the history, with completely different power dynamics. The more any other issue can be made into a black-white-like issue, the better a chance of getting what you want.
     
  9. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    No they aren't. They are saying that anyone can use the bible to justify prejudice and discrimination if they choose to.


    you are quite wrong.
    racists view skin color as a mark from God dictating social status. Racists don't have issues with blacks that "know their place" Racists object to the sinfulness of blacks acting or claiming to be equal to whites. (I.E. they get "uppity")

    generations of racists and biblical scholars say otherwise.
     
  10. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    so is homophobia
     
  11. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Because the specific minority - the blacks - and discrimination against them - cost us a million lives in a civil war, 100 more years of social strife, and ten trillion dollars and counting in social welfare payments to deal with the mess we made by letting some human pigs own and oppress black people - specifically them, specifically in this country.

    Because those pigs imported and bred so many black people, there are millions of them - 11% of the population, and they're voters, and they have a grievance. And the side that supported their liberation and equality won the long war.

    So, they in particular are a special sacred cow because of this country's history. They will protect themselves, and the same population that had to lose its own sons fighting the pigs, is always willing to stomp on the face of the pigs again, if they ever want to get up.

    The fact of Civil War instilled a deep-seated hatred into both sides, and the side that won will never let the other side come up for air and gain footing again. Racists against blacks are now the permanently oppressed class in America. It is intentional. We, the victors, will always beat on the anti-black racists in every generation to come - as long as we are the majority and have the power to do it. This is the revenge due to the slavers who enslaved the blacks and their ideas. Whoever takes up their cause, of racism and oppression of blacks, is now the slave, and gets the treatment their forebears meted out to the black slaves.

    It's direct, parallel, brutal and for all blacks, and for all of the whites who bore the brunt of the fight, personal. Anti-black racism in America is different from anti-anybody-else racism, because those other forms never left a million Americans dead, and never resulted in a 100 year long political war of attrition.

    That's why the case of the blacks, in America, is different from the case of anybody else. The cost of their liberation was very high, and the people who fought to keep them down were, and still are, traitors against the country itself, and deserve to hang.

    With the rest of the races its a different thing, because there has not been all of the death and destruction and treason and horror.

    So, it isn't "ok" for businesses to discriminate against Asians, or Indians, or Eskimos either. But most don't. And if they do, it's localized, and if it's reported will usually result in some sort of government action. Do it to the blacks, and you'll have the federal government seeking to strip you of your property and your liberty.

    Now, if you mean to sweep homosexuals into the hopper of a race, well, your side seems to be winning the argument, and seems to have managed to carry the day politically. The pedophiles are the next people in line to claim the same rights, and will probably succeed, in the end, most probably in lowering the age of consent down to 13 or so.

    As far as the "right" and "wrong" aspects of it, once you strip the religious aspect out of it, right or wrong's got nothing to do with it. It's all about power.
     
  12. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes, well, ten generations of imbeciles is enough. I am ready, willing and eager to silence them with the power of the police. And if that does not suffice, the grave. These people resulted in the deaths of 1 million of my countrymen, and cost us upwards of 10 trillion to undo the mess caused by their idiocy.

    There's no reason to continue to let them cause trouble. Silence them and oppress them. They deserve no less.
     
  13. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,375
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Who is afraid of gays?
     
  14. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    No one is saying it is. However, homosexuals are a minority just like African Americans or Muslims or the handicapped and they have the same rights and legal protections as everyone else. Your personal feelings about gays and lesbians doesn't change their constitutional rights or make them second-class citizens. Holding up a bible doesn't make homophobia acceptable any more than it makes racism acceptable.
     
  15. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    No, judges ruled based on the constitution. Just like when the courts ruled against segregated schools or anti-miscegenation laws.
    The courts did not rule against the people, they ruled against unconstitutional laws. It's interesting that you don't seem to count homosexuals among the people
    The constitution protects everybody, even people you don't happen to like. Rights are not based on popular opinion and never were.
     
  16. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,407
    Presbyterian
    Single
    How postmodern of you. It would be silly to claim that people's opinions have no effect on laws. But the US does have a principle that people are treated equally. Once homosexual relationships are legal, it would be an expected consequence that gays would not be discriminated against.
     
  17. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    that doesn't explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against SOME minorities but not others.


    and the struggle by gays for equality and liberty is ongoing.

    Most people oppose prejudice and discrimination simply because it is morally wrong.

    Still not an explanation as to why it's acceptable to discriminate against some people

    you might want to do some reading on this

    Racists are happy to state being black is the same as being a rapist.
    That is not just a lie but also a sick, hateful and bigoted thing to say.
    Saying gays are the equivalent of those who sexually abuse children is not just a lie but also a sick, hateful and bigoted thing to say.
     
  18. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    829
    +330
    Non-Denom
    Widowed

    Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals
     
  19. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,622
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes, freedom of speech/expression has been upheld the courts for a T-shirt company and for another company that did logos, etc. on cups and such. There may be others that I am not aware of.

    The SCOTUS v Phillips will be addressing this issue. Is a baker, such as Phillips an artist, and can he claim freedom of speech/expression in his work as an artist.

    Personally I think that a photographer would be able to make a stronger case seeing the photographers have been gaining recognition as true artists for awhile now.
    If every Tom, Dick, and Harry could be an Ansel Adams his photos would not be worth thousands of dollars and be hanging in art museums.

    Andreas Gursky: Rhein II (1999)
    Rhein II (1999) sold for $4.3 million in November 2011, setting the all-time high for the most expensive photograph on record.

    Untitled #96 (1981) sold for $3.98 million in May 2011,
    Read more at The Top 8 Most Expensive Photographs - CraveOnline
     
  20. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,407
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Conceptually I think the photographer has a better case than the cake maker. The photographer has to attend the event, and the photographs show the specific thing he objects to. The cake could be delivered, and needn't have anything to do with the specific marriage. But I've read enough Supreme Court decisions to know that courts often deal with things differently than I would.
     
Loading...