Christian photographer sued for her beliefs

[ClydeR]

Homosexuals in New Mexico are hauling (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015) a Christian photographer to court because the photographer refused to photograph the "commitment" ceremony of two women. The homosexuals say that the New Mexico Human Rights Act (http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll/newmex/279/10731/10732/10738?f=templates&fn=default.htm) requires a Christian photographer to participate in a homosexual "commitment" ceremony even when the photographer's religious beliefs say otherwise.

If the homosexuals win this case, America will be just like Europe, where a kennel owner was recently forced (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/sweden.dog) by the courts to sell a puppy to a lesbian, even though his religious beliefs said he should not sell dogs to lesbians. Didn't Ellen DeGeneres, who is an avowed homosexual, recently get in trouble with the law for something about a dog? We should investigate what lesbians are doing with all these dogs.

Americans should be outraged and should demand that we not follow Europe's continental crowd. Forcing the photographer to participate in the "commitment" ceremony abridges the photographer's religious rights under the constitution, which we passed centuries ago to get out from under European control.

If your religious beliefs say (and I mean really say, not just using it as an excuse) that you should not allow certain people to patronize your business, then the state has no right to overrule your religion.

[CrystalTears]

Didn't Ellen DeGeneres, who is an avowed homosexual, recently get in trouble with the law for something about a dog? We should investigate what lesbians are doing with all these dogs.
It had nothing to do with her being a lesbian and everything to do with her breaking the contract she made when she adopted the dog that she gave away.

Anyway, if the photographer was HIRED to cover the ceremony, she is obligated to cover it despite her beliefs. It's her JOB. If she doesn't like that she may have to OMG photograph happy homosexual couples, then she needs a new line of work.

[Blud]

On the other hand, she has the right to not take the job as well.

[Latrinsorm]

She wasn't hired though, she turned down a request.

As a photographer she has just as much a right to turn down her (prospective) customers as any restauranteer based on sexual orientation or race - which is to say, none.

And I think we all know the real problem here... these clearly weren't HOT lesbians, so it's ok to turn down the job.

[Latrinsorm]

p.s. There are no Christian rules against taking pictures of gay people unless gay marriages are a lot more clothing-optional than I would guess.

[CrystalTears]

Well that's why I said if she was hired and she took the job and then suddenly said she wasn't going to do it because they were gay.

No, she doesn't have to take the job, although I wouldn't be stupid to say why.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

As a photographer she has just as much a right to turn down her (prospective) customers as any restauranteer based on sexual orientation or race - which is to say, none.


What? I need to go find me a dirtbag lawyer and sue the women's fitness club down the street that only allows women.

[Latrinsorm]

That personal responsibility is really something.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That personal responsibility is really something.

I'm not sure what that has to do with your incorrect statement, but ok.

[Blud]

Even if the photographer was hired and later decided that s/he didn't want to cover the job (for whatever reason), that's within his/her rights to do so.

If there was a signed contract in place and the photographer breached the contract, the photographer could be sued for the fees s/he collected up to the point of cancellation, and maybe even damages if the couple had unnecessary expenses due to the "last minute cancellation". I think even verbal contracts are binding in some states.

But I disagree that this photographer should be sued for his/her beliefs or reasons, rather s/he should be sued for any damages that this couple might have taken as a result of the cancellation. It sounds to me like the lawsuit is geared toward the photographer refusing to participate in the ceremony, which means it's possible that it never made it to a contractual agreement, rather a consultation where the photographer said, "No, I can not or will not participate in this ceremony," and the couple got pissed and said, "You *have* to! It's the law!"

[CrystalTears]

Well, if she turned down jobs because of sexual orientation or race, she'd be making an unwise business move, imo.

[Blud]

Agreed.

[TheEschaton]

Well, there is no discrimination law that applies to private action that I know, unless it breaks some other law (like the KKK murdering people).

-TheE-

[Keller]

This photographer should be happy that the homosexuals from New Mexico didn't get the homosexuals from Kentucky to shoot her home with their Jesus-killing-laser from outer-space.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not sure what that has to do with your incorrect statement, but ok.And people say I make shitty analogies.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And people say I make shitty analogies.

People do say that, yes.

[ClydeR]

Well, there is no discrimination law that applies to private action that I know, unless it breaks some other law (like the KKK murdering people).

That's exactly what the homosexuals are saying. They note that New Mexico's "Human Rights Act" applies to sexual orientation in addition to race. The homosexuals are saying that if the photographer had put a sign in her shop window saying that she doesn't work for black people, then that would have violated the same law that they say she violated by refusing to work for homosexuals. I understand their argument after reading the New Mexico law. But the issue is that a law like that one applied to sexual orientation violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion when applied to Christians.

[ClydeR]

This photographer should be happy that the homosexuals from New Mexico didn't get the homosexuals from Kentucky to shoot her home with their Jesus-killing-laser from outer-space.

That was Arkansas. :)

[TheEschaton]

She can choose not to work for black people too, though. She's not the government. I highly doubt the "New Mexico Human Rights Act" regulates private action beyond saying people can't own slaves, and perhaps having a hate crime clause for existing crimes.

-TheE-

[Keller]

violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion when applied to Christians.


Amen, brother Clyde.

It was bad enough when they passed the 14th amendment. But in the last 140 years we Christians have learned to cope with practicing our religion hampered only by the inability to own the descendents of Cain. Now they expect us to take pictures of these heretical homosexuals in the throes of their Satanic vows?

Edited to add: The justification for freedom of religion, afterall, has always been based on the right of one group to persecute another on account of religion belief. AMIRITE!?!?!

[ClydeR]

She can choose not to work for black people too, though. She's not the government. I highly doubt the "New Mexico Human Rights Act" regulates private action beyond saying people can't own slaves, and perhaps having a hate crime clause for existing crimes.

From the New Mexico Human Rights Act (http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll/newmex/279/10731/10732/10738?f=templates&fn=default.htm)--


28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

***

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

Under the New Mexico statute, the issue will be whether or not the photographer's business is a "public accommodation." Another issue is the freedom of religion provisions of the New Mexico and United States constitutions.

[Drew2]

And I think we all know the real problem here... these clearly weren't HOT lesbians, so it's ok to turn down the job.

^^^^

[Clove]

...just like Europe, where a kennel owner was recently forced (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/sweden.dog) by the courts to sell a puppy to a lesbian, even though his religious beliefs said he should not sell dogs to lesbians...

Okay I'll admit I'm no cleric or scholar, but I have a rudimentary understanding of the major religions. Which one explicitly forbids its adherents to sell animals to homosexuals?

:break:

[Stretch]

We need to get the same group involved whose boycott was the downfall of Ford.

[Keller]

Okay I'll admit I'm no cleric or scholar, but I have a rudimentary understanding of the major religions. Which one explicitly forbids its adherents to sell animals to homosexuals?

:break:

The same one that explicitly forbids photographing homosexuals. (Hint: None)

[RichardCranium]

I don't think it's so much that the religion forbids so much as the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I don't want to sell an animal to homosexuals.

[Clove]

The same one that explicitly forbids photographing homosexuals. (Hint: None)

That was my next question.

Personally the photographer was being retarded if she expressed an unwillingness to provide service to homosexuals due to religious beliefs. Other than sheer stupidity, I feel a business owner would only say that to press the issue publicly, otherwise she simply would have said, "I'm sorry but I can't do that job." and left it at that.

That being said, I don't think that if she's a private business she shouldn't be required to provide service to anyone for any reason. It's her profit margin.

[Clove]

I don't think it's so much that the religion forbids so much as the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I don't want to sell an animal to homosexuals.

Yes the Bible says sinning and sinners are wrong, it doesn't say you can't do business with them. Had it been me, I'd have taken the contract and shown up at the ceremony ready for business and a T-Shirt that said "Homosexuality is an Abomination" or whatever. I'm betting someone would produce a digital camera and "thank-you-very-much-but-we-won't-need-your-services-anymore" in a New Mexico minute.

[Latrinsorm]

But the issue is that a law like that one applied to sexual orientation violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion when applied to Christians.Once again, there are no Christian restrictions on who can be photographed. Christianity can be very freely practiced without discriminating against anyone and has been since that Jesus guy was eating with tax collectors.

[Keller]

I don't think it's so much that the religion forbids so much as the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I don't want to sell an animal to homosexuals.

Modern day pharisees say homosexuality is wrong.

The bible condemns promiscuity, in all of its forms.

[Clove]

Once again, there are no Christian restrictions on who can be photographed. Christianity can be very freely practiced without discriminating against anyone and has been since that Jesus guy was eating with tax collectors.


Modern day pharisees say homosexuality is wrong.

The bible condemns promiscuity, in all of its forms.

Look at the lions laying down with the lambs here! Amen to both points. Maybe ClydeR for President, he certainly has a knack for uniting the PC.

[Snapp]

This photographer should be happy that the homosexuals from New Mexico didn't get the homosexuals from Kentucky to shoot her home with their Jesus-killing-laser from outer-space.

No, but she's next on the list, behind that Rep. in Oklahoma.

[Stanley Burrell]

How is that person even a fucking photographer?/Was hired as a photographer?

Call me insane, loco esse, and just plum crazy, but that photographer did not shoot:

http://www.labnol.org/wp/images/2007/06/green-eye-afghan-girl-national-geographic.jpg

I want to go to a lesbian marriage ceremony. That sounds hot. At least as a porno concept?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That being said, I don't think that if she's a private business she shouldn't be required to provide service to anyone for any reason. It's her profit margin.

I don't recall. Were you for, or against, Government dictating if you can smoke in a privately owned restaurant? Certainly different than taking a picture, but similar in concept.

[ClydeR]

Once again, there are no Christian restrictions on who can be photographed. Christianity can be very freely practiced without discriminating against anyone and has been since that Jesus guy was eating with tax collectors.

You may be right in your interpretation of the Bible, or the people who disagree with you may be right in their interpretation of the Bible. Regardless of who is actually right, surely you acknowledge that many people sincerely believe that their religion forbids them to associate or do business with homosexuals. A court that has to decide this case is not going to study the Bible and try to figure out the correct interpretation. The issue in a freedom of religion court case would, in part, be whether or not the religious belief is sincerely held. I promise you that part of the case will be easy to decide.

Then the court must decide whether the state has a good enough reason to force business owners to override that sincerely held religious belief.

That's all assuming that the photography business is a public accommodation.

[CrystalTears]

surely you acknowledge that many people sincerely believe that their religion forbids them to associate or do business with homosexuals
They'd be wrong.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by ClydeR
The issue in a freedom of religion court case would, in part, be whether or not the religious belief is sincerely held. I promise you that part of the case will be easy to decide.

Yea I'm curious how she's weeded out adulterers, thieves, and other general blasphemers.

[TheEschaton]

This brings up an interesting constitutional issue: What happens when free exercise butts up against due process as applied to individuals? Most indicators seem to give sway to due process, the question here is whether this is a due process thing.

I'm still not sure how any Christian can say the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, let alone that Christians shouldn't do business with them.

-TheE-

[Clove]

I don't recall. Were you for, or against, Government dictating if you can smoke in a privately owned restaurant? Certainly different than taking a picture, but similar in concept.

Public health is a bit different, however I am against banning smoking in restaurants. I don't smoke (in case you were wondering).

[Clove]

Regardless of who is actually right, surely you acknowledge that many people sincerely believe that their religion forbids them to associate or do business with homosexuals.

That may be, but you are free to practice your religion within the laws of our society. If we deem something illegal, you don't necessarily get a "pass" because that illegal activity is sacred to your religion.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not saying what was done was or was not illegal in New Mexico, but saying "it's my religion" isn't a license for all.

I know that exceptions have been made at times, but I don't believe we're obligated to bend our rules to suit whatever religious tenets we're presented with. Play nice with everyone according to the law, or go somewhere else.

[Keller]

ClydeR, you're my enemy. I have a firmly held belief that Jesus came to show anyone who would listen that all the rules and regulations they were following were assinine and that what Judaism required was to show compassion to the down-trodden and persecuted, to give selflessly, and to love unconditionally.

I sincerely believe anyone who compromises those teaches and promotes, in the name of Jesus, a message other than the message he taught, to be my enemy.

Further, the Bible, to which I adhere, says that I must take the children of my enemies by their feet and crush their heads against the rocks and bathe my feet in their blood.

ClydeR, do you have children? I could use a pedicure.

[Methais]

If the photographer ends up losing the case and has to take pics for these tards, I hope she takes super shitty pics just to prove a point. They can (potentially) force her to do the job, but it never said anywhere that the job had to be done well.

[Drew2]

I'm sure the court ruling won't be "take pictures of the lesbians plz". It will probably just be a fine. They'll find some lesbian lover to take pics I'm sure.


(DeV is excluded from [slur] because she's rad.)

[Clove]

(DeV is excluded from "[slur]" because she's rad.)

No, she's DeVine.

[Methais]

I'm sure the court ruling won't be "take pictures of the lesbians plz". It will probably just be a fine. They'll find some lesbian lover to take pics I'm sure.


(DeV is excluded from "[slur]" because she's rad.)

I thought she was excluded because she's hot (or so we think, though she could be another Caramia for all we know), and lesbians are ugly and manly looking with mullets and flannel shirts and burly muscles?

[Keller]

They can't force her to do the job.

That's what the 14th amendment says.

[Methais]

They can't force her to do the job.

That's what the 14th amendment says.

I wonder what would happen if she had one of those signs up saying, "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." in her window.

[Drew2]

Photographers generally don't have stores from what I gather... so unless she hangs it around her neck I'm not sure how she'd advertise that.

[Warriorbird]

Clove won this thread a while ago. I don't think it's sunk in yet to the rest of folks.

[Some Rogue]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/gay_thread.jpg

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck her for being a closed minded idiot and fuck the lesbo's just because it's hot.

[Latrinsorm]

Regardless of who is actually right, surely you acknowledge that many people sincerely believe that their religion forbids them to associate or do business with homosexuals.A person can absolutely make up a religion that's anti-homosexual in accordance with their pre-existing beliefs, sure. That doesn't make it correct to say "But the issue is that a law like that one applied to sexual orientation violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion when applied to Christians.", hence my pointing out the wrongness of that statement.

In the larger sense of freedom of religion, I would contend that the Framers did not intend for any bigot or other criminal that came down the line being granted safe haven by calling "religion". As such, the question here isn't actually about freedom of religion. There have been quite a few sociopath-atheists who were not granted clemency though their religion clearly dictated that other people simply had no right to live.

[ClydeR]

The New Mexico Civil Rights Commission ruled (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4467) on Wednesday that the photographer does not have a right to her religious beliefs. Now the case will go to a court, which we can only pray has read the First Amendment.

[Stanley Burrell]

The New Mexico Civil Rights Commission ruled (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4467) on Wednesday that the photographer does not have a right to her religious beliefs. Now the case will go to a court, which we can only pray has read the First Amendment.

It's true, she can no longer practice any forms of religious worship anywhere within the universe. And since I never use sarcasm fonts:


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/gay_thread.jpg

http://users.abac.com/myraa/kitty/hasselhoff.jpg

Because post-count +1 using Hasselhoff = Tibetan monk anal groupsex that females may or may not like. I am so full of win it's frightening.

[Warriorbird]

The thing that gets me is selectivity in applying Old Testament wackiness. Most hate-filled wacko types are supposed to have a new covenant where the burn people kill em all sacrifice bulls stuff in the Old Testament doesn't apply. Most of the "OMFG! Gays R Baad!" stuff is there.

[Xaerve]

I sincerely hope that people like ClydeR continue to exist in this world. I want my children to understand the importance of a good education and how dangerous blind faith can really be.

In all seriousness, (some) Christians need to get with the fucking program and realize (as others have stated in this thread) that homosexuality is no different, in the eyes of their good lord, than any other various sin that ClydeR and every other nut-job commit.

I really hope that in my life time I get to see novel scholarly work take a serious, if not fatal blow, to the strongholds of the mythical religions that tie this country together. I'm all for spirituality, but when someone's random "faith-based group think" beliefs start violating the harm principle, or treating other individuals with less than humane respect... its far from acceptable.

[Flurbins]

The thing that gets me is selectivity in applying Old Testament wackiness. Most hate-filled wacko types are supposed to have a new covenant where the burn people kill em all sacrifice bulls stuff in the Old Testament doesn't apply. Most of the "OMFG! Gays R Baad!" stuff is there.

Really, isn't the gays is bad stuff in the same chapter that says you go to hell if you eat shrimp or lobster or pork, or work on a saturday?

...or take a picture?

[Methais]

Homosexuality doesn't have shit on the evil that is STAR WARS!!!!!!!!!!!1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUrCF7fpViw

[Bartlett]

Photographer Found in Violation of New Mexico Discrimination Law
Tuesday, May 13, 2008,09:15

A professional photographer was found in violation of New Mexico's Discrimination law when she refused to take photographs of a gay couple at their commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs.The court ruled that photographer Elaine Huguenin is to pay the plaintiff, Vanessa Willock the sum of $6,637 in damages for refusing to photograph her commitment ceremony.

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found photographer Hugenin and husband, Jon, joint owners of Elane Photography, in violation of the state's Human Rights laws when they told Willock that they only photographed traditional marriages.

When the Commission ruled in favor of Willock, they ordered the Hugenins to pay the sum of $6,637, for Willock's attorney's fees and costs. Willock, in a statement issued through her attorney, stated that she was pleased with the Human Rights Commission ruling.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends issues of religious liberty, stated that they planned to appeal the decision to the state district court. "The fact that she [Huguenin] is a commercial business does not mean she loses her constitutional rights" ... and the government has no right to force people to choose between their livelihood and their faith. In the case of the Hugenins, it was allegedly their Christian faith that prevented them from photographing Willock's commitment ceremony.

Since the Commission, however, viewed Huguenin's business as a public accommodation, similar to a store or a restaurant, they felt that Huguenin's refusal to photograph the commitment ceremony amounted to a denial of equal access and therefore placed the photographer in violation of the law.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, as it will have a very strong bearing on how photographers in the future choose to select the clients they will work with, and what reasons they may have to provide when they decline to accept a client for personal reasons.

-----------------------
Clyde was 2 days late. Looks like the court has spoken. I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised at the outcome.

[CrystalTears]

She really shouldn't have said why she turned them down. Just should have said no and let it be.

Is she the only photographer in that area or something? Was this all really necessary?

[Warriorbird]

If she'd been slightly smarter it wouldn't have happened.

[Celephais]

If she'd been slightly smarter it wouldn't have happened.
Ooooh.... I see what you did there.

[Deathravin]

Wow. This needs to go to the Supreme Court. That law is retarded. You can turn down anybody for any reason at any time. It's your right as an American. Now if you're turning down a black person for a loan, a gay man for a buisiness license, or a Jew for ... I dunno... something sports related... there's a difference. That's just descrimination.

Doesn't this fall under the same category as the Boy Scouts not allowing homosexuals in their group? They have just as much of a right to do that as I have a right to select whom I sell my services to. It's completely at my discression.

She should have just lied and said she was already booked for that time. She probably got into a fight about the whole religion thing with them and pissed them off enough to sue.

[Celephais]

Now if you're turning down a black person for a loan
...
as I have a right to select whom I sell my services to.
And if my service is lending money to non-african americans the government should et me.

...how on earth do you think those two things can be seperated?

[Warriorbird]

She should have just lied and said she was already booked for that time. She probably got into a fight about the whole religion thing with them and pissed them off enough to sue.
-Deathravin

The accurate bit.

[Deathravin]

So if I turn somebody down for a job because they're an asshole when they call, is that temperment descrimination?

[Celephais]

So if I turn somebody down for a job because they're an asshole when they call, is that temperment descrimination?
Yes. Thankfully the government doesn't care if you descriminate based on temperment... they do if you descriminate based on sexual orientation. Stop being an idiot.

[Deathravin]

Yes. Thankfully the government doesn't care if you descriminate based on temperment... they do if you descriminate based on sexual orientation. Stop being an idiot.

Then why doesn't the government force the boy scouts to allow gays? Same concept?

[Celephais]

Then why doesn't the government force the boy scouts to allow gays? Same concept?
The boyscouts aren't some service someone is selling... it's a club. Kinda like how the government hasn't cracked down on Calvin for G.R.O.S.S

I can't join the Polish American club down the street... they've got some badass perogies... thankfully they'll still sell them to me, I just can't be a member.

[Deathravin]

You're right for the wrong reasons, and he's wrong for the right reasons.

There's no way around this... Bottom line: If you are a religious person you may have to make consessions on your buisiness type. There may be some professions you just can't do if you want to be religious in your day-to-day life.

If for instance, you're a jew (one of the uber jews where married men can't even touch women other than their wives). And you have a barber shop. Since you can't turn away women from your store, you can either hire another non-Jew to do things you can't or just not own a barber shop.

I think this falls under the same category. Personally, If I were this photographer, I'd form an aliance (corporation, whatever) with an un religious photographer and when somebody called for a committment ceremony, just have them do it.

[Bartlett]

I don't see how the government can force someone to take part in something that is against their religion. It really comes down to a decision of whose rights are more important by law. Seems like the court would be more likely to err on the side of the "minority" group in any case. Comparing photographing these people in their commitment ceremony to someone going to a grocery store doesn't make sense. I would equally challenge anyone who proclaimed to be a Christian and refused to sell food to someone because they are a homosexual. With the photography of this event, however, the photographer would be a participant in the sin activity. It is totally bogus for the courts to rule that someone be forced to do that.

[Warriorbird]

So... sign me up for the 'I hate taxes' religion?

[Bartlett]

You would probably have a hard time creating that religion and getting it recognized as a religion instead of a cult that the government will give a healthy dose of shape charges.

[Clove]

The whole issue is retarded and is easily solved:

1) Gay couple "O hai. I can has ceremony photographed?"
2) Photographer "DO NOT WANT!"
3) Gay couple "I sue U. srsly."
4) Photographer "Fine"
5) Photographer shows up to ceremony with equipment in a "I hate Dykes" t-shirt
6) Gay couple "DO NOT WANT. Kthx"

There are plenty of ways to handle someone who won't take "no" for an answer.

[Deathravin]

With the photography of this event, however, the photographer would be a participant in the sin activity. It is totally bogus for the courts to rule that someone be forced to do that.

Not sure somebody photographing an event means you are a participant. Just because photo journalists crawl around with GIs in Vietnam, did that mean they were participating in the sin of war? Much the opposite in quite a few cases.

Is the photographer crawling into bed with the couple?

A committment ceremony isn't a sin. The buttsex is the sin.

[g++]

I can finally force those zealots in new mexico to photograph my satanic gay polygomists weddings. Its about time and my right as an American according to certain episodes of Futurama.

[Stanley Burrell]

Wow. This needs to go to the Supreme Court. That law is retarded. You can turn down anybody for any reason at any time. It's your right as an American. Now if you're turning down a black person for a loan, a gay man for a buisiness license, or a Jew for ... I dunno... something sports related... there's a difference. That's just descrimination.

I'm pretty sure she was already employed and refused to work at her work site. Usually that's called "not doing your job."

[Bartlett]

I would have to say that a ceremony in which you dedicate your life to homosexual lifestyle is absolutely contrary to what God has to say about it. That pretty much definies what sin is. Even in our legal system, a photographer who is paid by the perpetrators to take pictures of a crime in progress, knowing beforehand that they will be doing so would most definitely be charged in relation to the crime.

Also, I would hope that since this photographer declined because of her religious view that she would not take that road *the option Clove suggested*and further violate her values.

[CrystalTears]

I'm pretty sure she was already employed and refused to work at her work site. Usually that's called "not doing your job."
She never took the job to begin with. The problem is she said she wouldn't do it for religious reasons of not working for homosexuals.

[CrystalTears]

I would have to say that a ceremony in which you dedicate your life to homosexual lifestyle is absolutely contrary to what God has to say about it. That pretty much definies what sin is. Even in our legal system, a photographer who is paid by the perpetrators to take pictures of a crime in progress, knowing beforehand that they will be doing so would most definitely be charged in relation to the crime.

Also, I would hope that since this photographer declined because of her religious view that she would not take that road and further violate her values.
We need to throw you and ClydeR into a pit with a knife and see who gets out alive. It would be more fun than reading this bullshit.

[Stanley Burrell]

We need to throw you and ClydeR into a pit with a knife and see who gets out alive. It would be more fun than reading this bullshit.

I think they'd just start making out.

[Stanley Burrell]

She never took the job to begin with. The problem is she said she wouldn't do it for religious reasons of not working for homosexuals.

Then it's even more retarded.

I'm deciding not to be a professional NBA player based on my affect for masturbating penguins. It's my religion.

How do I sue the state of Antarctica?

[Clove]

Also, I would hope that since this photographer declined because of her religious view that she would not take that road *the option Clove suggested*and further violate her values.Well you can be a whiney bitch about life, or you can outsmart people when they try to make you an unwilling participant. Your choice. Personally I think God hates whiney bitches and favors those that use their brains.


We need to throw you and ClydeR into a pit with a knife and see who gets out alive. It would be more fun than reading this bullshit.x100

[TheEschaton]

A) Homosexuality is not a crime. Therefore, comparing taking pictures of a gay commitment ceremonies to taking pictures of a crime in action are false.

B) Private action is rarely governed by constitutional law. I'm somewhat surprised at the result as well. Sexuality doesn't even trigger strict scrutiny under constitutional review.

It sucks that this woman doesn't want to photograph this couple's ceremony, but as a private business owner, it's her right to refuse to do so. If she was actually employed, and then failed to perform, that's a pretty simple contract breach, the grounds for which may have been discrimination (and religion cannot be used there as a defense for breaching the contract).

And the Polish club can refuse you the right to sell you pirogies if they want, I believe. Hell, 67% of WV just voted for Clinton while publically stating they don't like black people.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Actually, I just read the article. Apparently, it claims that the photo shop is a public accomodation. That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I don't know how they're going to say denying services of a photographer are the same as not letting someone into your restaurant.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

And the Polish club can refuse you the right to sell you pirogies if they want, I believe.

The Polish Club, now with more job complacency than Christian Photographers.

[Celephais]

A) Homosexuality is not a crime.
You're law or mine, joker?
http://blogs.tampabay.com/juice/images/2007/03/28/tbdmeatwad032907.jpg

Going to war isn't a "crime" either, so compare away.

[Bartlett]

A) Homosexuality is not a crime. Therefore, comparing taking pictures of a gay commitment ceremonies to taking pictures of a crime in action are false.

That comment was in regard to the challenge that taking pictures of the ceremony did not make you are a participant. You should be able to make the connection of sin being to God what crime is to our legal system and in many cases, being a hired photographer for the event would make you culpable. I wasn't even remotely suggesting that homosexuality is a crime.

[Stanley Burrell]

That comment was in regard to the challenge that taking pictures of the ceremony did not make you are a participant. You should be able to make the connection of sin being to God what crime is to our legal system and in many cases, being a hired photographer for the event would make you culpable. I wasn't even remotely suggesting that homosexuality is a crime.

Please,

Continue.

[Deathravin]

In your senerio, you wouldn't be taking pictures of the 'crime', you'd be taking pictures of shady-looking people buying the guns to committ the crime.

You don't KNOW for a fact they're going to committ the crime, you just assume. Your assumption would be 99.99% correct, but it's still not taking pictures of the crime itself. You can go to the police, but even they can't arrest them for thinking they're going to do it.


That's always something that bugged me. People hate homosexuality itself. They are angry about the idea of it. Not even about the act. (it's a part of a commedian's act, but still not less valid), It's not like there's two homosexuals buttfucking eachother on your lawn while you're trying to mow it. They're doing it in private, what do you care?