-
Website
http://randythomas.org/ -
Original page
http://randythomas.org/2008/04/15/christian-photographer-fined-for-refusing-gay-wedding/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I'd say this kind of thing needs greater legal discourse and interpretation.
Maybe this could have been handled differently but it doesn't really help to play "what if" with an "already done it." I do agree with you though that if I ran a true public service or even a secular job type of situation I don't think I would make a distinction on who to serve or hire.
What these ladies did to this photographer seems to be pretty vengeful considering there are probably a lot of quality photographers around.
It's a sad situation.
And what if we turn this around? If a photographer only took photos at homosexual commitment ceremonies, I should have no grounds to sue when he or she declines my traditional marriage. My project simply doesn't fit within his pre-defined subject matter.
I'm hearing, "homosexuals should not be denied a photographer" here and that scares me. Laws like that encroach on the basic rights of all to impose special rights for a few.
That is what it's all about.
A while back there was a video store that refused to duplicate some pro-gay material and they were sued. They won, fortunately. eHarmony.com is being sued now because they won't match same-sex couples. An online adoption website was sued because they wouldn't post same-sex couples who wanted to adopt.
I have a hard time believing that these kinds of things aren't deliberate. I think businesses are sought out because their views are known, and activists want to force them to comply with their wishes or put them out of business.
If a lawsuit wasn't the intended result, why the subterfuge with the second request?
Does anyone have to ask what the outcome would be if someone went into a gay affirming business and asked to have some Phelps material duplicated or copied and they were turned down and sued? I wouldn't be surprised if a business turned around and sued the prospective client.
You make good points, Randy, but the problem is that some people don't want peaceful coexistence. There are gay activists who want to eliminate any criticism of that community. Look around the world and you'll see it over and over and over again.
I have to ask why? As I've said here before, most people don't care what others do in their bedrooms. Why are so many people embracing homosexual behavior and trying to make it something worthy of celebration and praise? It's like these people have been blinded. Sometimes I think that some people feel compelled to make others feel good about them so they can feel good about themselves. The pro-gay theology crowd does this. They don't like what the Bible says, so they imagine is says something else. Problem solved.
I'd say this kind of thing needs greater legal discourse and interpretation.
Maybe this could have been handled differently but it doesn't really help to play "what if" with an "already done it." I do agree with you though that if I ran a true public service or even a secular job type of situation I don't think I would make a distinction on who to serve or hire.
What these ladies did to this photographer seems to be pretty vengeful considering there are probably a lot of quality photographers around.
It's a sad situation.
And what if we turn this around? If a photographer only took photos at homosexual commitment ceremonies, I should have no grounds to sue when he or she declines my traditional marriage. My project simply doesn't fit within his pre-defined subject matter.
I'm hearing, "homosexuals should not be denied a photographer" here and that scares me. Laws like that encroach on the basic rights of all to impose special rights for a few.
That is what it's all about.
A while back there was a video store that refused to duplicate some pro-gay material and they were sued. They won, fortunately. eHarmony.com is being sued now because they won't match same-sex couples. An online adoption website was sued because they wouldn't post same-sex couples who wanted to adopt.
I have a hard time believing that these kinds of things aren't deliberate. I think businesses are sought out because their views are known, and activists want to force them to comply with their wishes or put them out of business.
If a lawsuit wasn't the intended result, why the subterfuge with the second request?
Does anyone have to ask what the outcome would be if someone went into a gay affirming business and asked to have some Phelps material duplicated or copied and they were turned down and sued? I wouldn't be surprised if a business turned around and sued the prospective client.
You make good points, Randy, but the problem is that some people don't want peaceful coexistence. There are gay activists who want to eliminate any criticism of that community. Look around the world and you'll see it over and over and over again.
I have to ask why? As I've said here before, most people don't care what others do in their bedrooms. Why are so many people embracing homosexual behavior and trying to make it something worthy of celebration and praise? It's like these people have been blinded. Sometimes I think that some people feel compelled to make others feel good about them so they can feel good about themselves. The pro-gay theology crowd does this. They don't like what the Bible says, so they imagine is says something else. Problem solved.
There are others, of course. For instance, the response to this story about the outrage over Clinton and Obama visiting a Christian college that bans homosexual behavior. As commentor "AJ" said of another commentor:
"...But then you have the hate mongers like Chris who think that both cultures should co-exist. What a bunch of crap."
Also, several months back I blogged about a hit piece Pink News did on Gloria Gaynor, calling her a homophobe simply for desiring to "bring the love of Christ" to gays. She refused to even say homosexuality was sinful--but they assumed she believed it, so they labeled her.
I see reasons both to not shoot the wedding....or, on the other hand, to be present as a courteous and professional photographer who also happens to manifest the presence of Christ.
If the ADF goes to a higher court and gets the ruling overturned, it sets out a dangerous precident. If the courts throw out the law they wont throw out just the sexual orientation part, they'll throw the whole thing out. Meaning, if another photographer in the future decides that his or her (fill in the blank) faith does not allow them to do business with somebody of another (fill in the blank) faith, it'll be legal for them to do it.
The other half of me says "fine, find another photographer" and publicize why you had to. Leave the court system out of it entirely and let the court of public opinion handle this business owner.
What would be wrong with that?
I've met Gloria, she's a nice lady and I know she's not a homophobe in the slightest.
However, when somebody says anything remotely Christian to a gay person, the gut instinct is to assume it's going to be negative.
I don't blame people for being gun shy after the treatment they've received over the years.
Heck, there's some woman named Dwayna Litz who's coming to my town in May to evangelize to all the sinners at Gay Pride.
Her marketing ploy is to put up a big banner that says: "GOD LOVES YOU just the way you are" to draw people over to her.
(http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2008/03/ltw-...)
Then, after she's tricked people into getting close to her, she's going to let loose with all the anti-gay stuff.
So when Gloria Gaynor says something about leading gays to Christ whether or not she means something anti-gay or something pro-gay, it's not out of the question for gay people to be distrusting from the onset.
Chik-fil-a is owned by Christians who felt compelled by their convictions to close restaurant doors on Sundays. I'd say the vast majority of Americans don't personally observe the Sabbath in this way, but you don't see them banging on the doors of Chik-fil-a and filing suit because they can't get a Sunday afternoon sandwich. They just go somewhere else, and the owners deal with whatever financial ramifications come from closing on that day.
If Chick-Fil-A decided not to serve a man wearing a Yalmulke they'd be in a world of hurt for singling out somebody because of his faith. However, closing on Sunday treats anyone with a Sunday chicken jones equally.
Here in CA, there is a chain of coffee places called Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. Their owners are Kosher and are so strict about it that employees can't even bring in a lunch that doesn't meet Jewish dietary laws. Because the rule they set up treats all employees equally, it isn't an issue.
Did you hear about the story last year wear a small landscape company in Houston refused to do business with a couple once they learned the couple was gay (they had originally said ok when they thought it was an opposite sex couple)? The gay couple did not sue, but turned to the internet to publicize the story.
Anyway, the issue with that landscaping company was that they did not do business with gay people (which they said outright, unlike the photographers here). I think Nick's point is that if you are going to refuse to do business with people with different beliefs, you should at least be consistent. Legality aside, the stance (especially of the gardeners and I'd argue of the photographers too) simply isn't consistent. They are choosing which non-believers to do business with and which not to. But, the problem doesn't seem to be with non-believers, it seems to be specifically with gays. It may not be illegal, but surely it's a questionable way to uphold one's faith.
Suppose a doctor chose not to save you because of your religion. Your paying for a service with a doctor. Do they have the right to refuse you because your Christian/Gay/Black/Green? Why is sexual preference discrimination any different than saying I am not going to serve you food because your black or your an interracial couple? Would you have the same lack of outrage at a mixed race couple being refused wedding pictures? I imagine that many people would act differently to this story if the photographer had a sign up that said we do not take photos of black people marrying white people. Discrimination for any reason is a slippery slope as is political correctness.
There are others, of course. For instance, the response to this story about the outrage over Clinton and Obama visiting a Christian college that bans homosexual behavior. As commentor "AJ" said of another commentor:
"...But then you have the hate mongers like Chris who think that both cultures should co-exist. What a bunch of crap."
Also, several months back I blogged about a hit piece Pink News did on Gloria Gaynor, calling her a homophobe simply for desiring to "bring the love of Christ" to gays. She refused to even say homosexuality was sinful--but they assumed she believed it, so they labeled her.
The problems here really stem from a belief system that turns homosexuality into a core aspect of a person's identity.
I see reasons both to not shoot the wedding....or, on the other hand, to be present as a courteous and professional photographer who also happens to manifest the presence of Christ.
If the ADF goes to a higher court and gets the ruling overturned, it sets out a dangerous precident. If the courts throw out the law they wont throw out just the sexual orientation part, they'll throw the whole thing out. Meaning, if another photographer in the future decides that his or her (fill in the blank) faith does not allow them to do business with somebody of another (fill in the blank) faith, it'll be legal for them to do it.
The other half of me says "fine, find another photographer" and publicize why you had to. Leave the court system out of it entirely and let the court of public opinion handle this business owner.
There is a reason that the statue of justice (with the scales) has a blindfold on it.
What would be wrong with that?
I've met Gloria, she's a nice lady and I know she's not a homophobe in the slightest.
However, when somebody says anything remotely Christian to a gay person, the gut instinct is to assume it's going to be negative.
I don't blame people for being gun shy after the treatment they've received over the years.
Heck, there's some woman named Dwayna Litz who's coming to my town in May to evangelize to all the sinners at Gay Pride.
Her marketing ploy is to put up a big banner that says: "GOD LOVES YOU just the way you are" to draw people over to her.
(http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2008/03/ltw-...)
Then, after she's tricked people into getting close to her, she's going to let loose with all the anti-gay stuff.
So when Gloria Gaynor says something about leading gays to Christ whether or not she means something anti-gay or something pro-gay, it's not out of the question for gay people to be distrusting from the onset.
Chik-fil-a is owned by Christians who felt compelled by their convictions to close restaurant doors on Sundays. I'd say the vast majority of Americans don't personally observe the Sabbath in this way, but you don't see them banging on the doors of Chik-fil-a and filing suit because they can't get a Sunday afternoon sandwich. They just go somewhere else, and the owners deal with whatever financial ramifications come from closing on that day.
If Chick-Fil-A decided not to serve a man wearing a Yalmulke they'd be in a world of hurt for singling out somebody because of his faith. However, closing on Sunday treats anyone with a Sunday chicken jones equally.
Here in CA, there is a chain of coffee places called Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. Their owners are Kosher and are so strict about it that employees can't even bring in a lunch that doesn't meet Jewish dietary laws. Because the rule they set up treats all employees equally, it isn't an issue.
Did you hear about the story last year wear a small landscape company in Houston refused to do business with a couple once they learned the couple was gay (they had originally said ok when they thought it was an opposite sex couple)? The gay couple did not sue, but turned to the internet to publicize the story.
Anyway, the issue with that landscaping company was that they did not do business with gay people (which they said outright, unlike the photographers here). I think Nick's point is that if you are going to refuse to do business with people with different beliefs, you should at least be consistent. Legality aside, the stance (especially of the gardeners and I'd argue of the photographers too) simply isn't consistent. They are choosing which non-believers to do business with and which not to. But, the problem doesn't seem to be with non-believers, it seems to be specifically with gays. It may not be illegal, but surely it's a questionable way to uphold one's faith.
Suppose a doctor chose not to save you because of your religion. Your paying for a service with a doctor. Do they have the right to refuse you because your Christian/Gay/Black/Green? Why is sexual preference discrimination any different than saying I am not going to serve you food because your black or your an interracial couple? Would you have the same lack of outrage at a mixed race couple being refused wedding pictures? I imagine that many people would act differently to this story if the photographer had a sign up that said we do not take photos of black people marrying white people. Discrimination for any reason is a slippery slope as is political correctness.
The problems here really stem from a belief system that turns homosexuality into a core aspect of a person's identity.
There is a reason that the statue of justice (with the scales) has a blindfold on it.
And, I'm not in agreement about the homosexuality being a core aspect of a person's identity argument. It really comes up more from non-gay people than from gay people themselves. But, that's probably a topic better discussed elsewhere.
It may seem like a stretch, but it really isn't. Think about it.
Politically correct: oxymoron, there is no such thing!!!
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty, plans to appeal to state district court. ADF's senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, said:
"The fact she is a commercial business does not mean she loses her constititutional protection. ... The constitution prevents the government from forcing people to choose between their faith and their livelihood.”
I mentioned this in my reporting: http://jimphelan.vox.com/library/post/photograp...
Thanks.
And, I'm not in agreement about the homosexuality being a core aspect of a person's identity argument. It really comes up more from non-gay people than from gay people themselves. But, that's probably a topic better discussed elsewhere.
It may seem like a stretch, but it really isn't. Think about it.
Politically correct: oxymoron, there is no such thing!!!
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty, plans to appeal to state district court. ADF's senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, said:
"The fact she is a commercial business does not mean she loses her constititutional protection. ... The constitution prevents the government from forcing people to choose between their faith and their livelihood.â€
I mentioned this in my reporting: http://jimphelan.vox.com/library/post/photograp...
Thanks.
Sorry I haven't been around but ... it's been really nice to pay more attention to offline concerns as of late.
Sorry I haven't been around but ... it's been really nice to pay more attention to offline concerns as of late.
I understand where the person is coming from thinking that we should be salt and light, but, imho, a photographer is getting paid to make that which she is photographing look good. An artist of integrity will not do a half-a'd job to keep from glorifying that which is an offense to God. The only thing to do, imho, is to refuse to work with them.
Refusing to make homosexuality look good is a far cry from the other examples given, i.e. refusing service to someone because of the color of their skin or refusing to save a life because they're gay, different in skin color, Islamic, Jewish, or in some other way different than the proprietor/doctor.
The doctor example is not the same thing, either. A doctor is not glorifying sin by saving someone's life. He is doing what Jesus did.
Nice blog!
Sincerely,
Mrs. N
I understand where the person is coming from thinking that we should be salt and light, but, imho, a photographer is getting paid to make that which she is photographing look good. An artist of integrity will not do a half-a'd job to keep from glorifying that which is an offense to God. The only thing to do, imho, is to refuse to work with them.
Refusing to make homosexuality look good is a far cry from the other examples given, i.e. refusing service to someone because of the color of their skin or refusing to save a life because they're gay, different in skin color, Islamic, Jewish, or in some other way different than the proprietor/doctor.
The doctor example is not the same thing, either. A doctor is not glorifying sin by saving someone's life. He is doing what Jesus did.
Nice blog!
Sincerely,
Mrs. N
It's 5:50 AM, my eyes are protruding from their sockets but I had to let you know that I've spent hours reading Mike Ensley and your articles Grace And Gay Men and Same-Sex Struggles, etc. You had this 47 year old sobbing like a baby. It utterly amazes me when I realize that there are many other men who have felt what I feel and have experienced what I've gone through and am going through. How much we all have in common and share the same battles and struggles. Your blog is awesome! It is the first one I've come across that had any form of civility and rationality...and no gutter profanity... refreshing! Now I can go to bed and not have to mentally scrub profane words off the back of my eyeballs!
Peace Unto You,
GParker
It's 5:50 AM, my eyes are protruding from their sockets but I had to let you know that I've spent hours reading Mike Ensley and your articles Grace And Gay Men and Same-Sex Struggles, etc. You had this 47 year old sobbing like a baby. It utterly amazes me when I realize that there are many other men who have felt what I feel and have experienced what I've gone through and am going through. How much we all have in common and share the same battles and struggles. Your blog is awesome! It is the first one I've come across that had any form of civility and rationality...and no gutter profanity... refreshing! Now I can go to bed and not have to mentally scrub profane words off the back of my eyeballs!
Peace Unto You,
GParker
thank you for leaving a comment :-)
This ruling is, of course, separate, but just saying "let the market decide" could be a bit too simplistic, unless we are ready for the market to tell black people they can't go to certain places anymore.
Anyway, if you register with Disqus it should figure it out. (you could also have typed your e-mail address in wrong and just never noticed, it it saves your info)
This ruling is, of course, separate, but just saying "let the market decide" could be a bit too simplistic, unless we are ready for the market to tell black people they can't go to certain places anymore.
thank you for leaving a comment :-)
Curiosity killed the cat...
Ok, somebody else need to comment on both my Ellie and Scientific Ellie comments, to see if it e-mails me.
That also explains why several comments that I've made to various non-registered users a while after the conversation had gone dormant have gone unanswered.
eta can we ask the Disqus team if they can change that?
Anyway, if you register with Disqus it should figure it out. (you could also have typed your e-mail address in wrong and just never noticed, it it saves your info)
Curiosity killed the cat...
Randy changing his blog strikes again ;)
Disqus.
Randy changing his blog strikes again ;)
Disqus.