123 comments

• 

  Mike Turner

  1 year ago

  That's outrageous! That ruling basically says that a state bill has the authority to overrule a constitutional right.
  
  I'd say this kind of thing needs greater legal discourse and interpretation.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I don't know Mike. A commitment ceremony is making a vow before God. I can understand the photographer exercising her freedom of conscience to not be a part of creating the very pictures that will remind this couple of their covenant.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  it probably will. Similar cases are cropping up here and there. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is all over it.
  reply
• 

  Matt_V

  1 year ago

  I think we've hit a dangerous precedent here, because this ruling effectually says an artist can't limit their subject matter. If a painter only painted cats and refused a commission to paint my dog, I would have no grounds to sue. This photographer states, "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," and explains that she's limited herself to a certain list of subject matter. Where's the basis for a lawsuit?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  I definitely don't mean to criticize the photographer here. For what she did, she seems to have done it the right way. As for the "decision" I referred to, I meant whether or not to to gay weddings at all in the first place. I could understand a Christian going either way.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Exactly. I felt the photographer was being punished for their beliefs--the couple was not being compensated because they suffered no loss or injury.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I know you weren't attacking her. I meant that "I" shouldn't play the what if game.
  reply
• 

  Steve

  1 year ago

  "And Willock and her partner went after them."
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike Turner

  1 year ago

  That's outrageous! That ruling basically says that a state bill has the authority to overrule a constitutional right.
  I'd say this kind of thing needs greater legal discourse and interpretation.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I don't know Mike. A commitment ceremony is making a vow before God. I can understand the photographer exercising her freedom of conscience to not be a part of creating the very pictures that will remind this couple of their covenant.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  it probably will. Similar cases are cropping up here and there. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is all over it.
  reply
• 

  Matt

  1 year ago

  I think we've hit a dangerous precedent here, because this ruling effectually says an artist can't limit their subject matter. If a painter only painted cats and refused a commission to paint my dog, I would have no grounds to sue. This photographer states, "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," and explains that she's limited herself to a certain list of subject matter. Where's the basis for a lawsuit?
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  I definitely don't mean to criticize the photographer here. For what she did, she seems to have done it the right way. As for the "decision" I referred to, I meant whether or not to to gay weddings at all in the first place. I could understand a Christian going either way.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Exactly. I felt the photographer was being punished for their beliefs--the couple was not being compensated because they suffered no loss or injury.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I know you weren't attacking her. I meant that "I" shouldn't play the what if game.
  reply
• 

  Steve

  1 year ago

  "And Willock and her partner went after them."
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Good points, Steve. I think there are a lot of mature and reasonable gays and lesbians who don't mind coexisting with people of differing beliefs--but similar values on tolerance and love.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Nick

  1 year ago

  I read about this a few days ago and I agree that the photographers had a right to not shoot the wedding...but I wonder if it was just because it was a gay "wedding" or do they routinely turn down shooting weddings that conflict with their beliefs? Do they shoot non-Christian weddings? Buddhist weddings? Jehovah's Witness weddings? Do they shoot receptions where there is a lot of excess drinking?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, anyone who does business in a particular state must follow the rules set forth by the state to have a business license.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  ...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.
  
  What would be wrong with that?
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  I don't see why someone who felt uncomfortable shooting gay weddings would need to also turn down all non-Christian weddings. The issue is not doing business with non-believers or people with different values--the issue is the event itself.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Well, if you look at the way a lot of spokespeople for the Church have acted in the past, it's not a stretch to think that's what Gloria meant.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Do you honestly think the ADF wouldn't be all over a lawsuit if some athiest refused to serve a Baptist?
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Who knows if they would? But people shouldn't be forced to do business in a way that conflicts with their faith. I would go with your other half and say, look, this person doesn't want to do business with Christians (or specifically Baptists). That's their choice and their loss.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Well, legally closing your business to observe whatever day you wish is a little different than refusing to serve a particular customer.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Mike- I'm confused as to how the issues is the event itself rather than not doing business with non-believers. If they aren't doing gay weddings, it's the gay part that they don't want to associate with, so it's pretty clear it's about who they are doing business with (gay people), not what the event is.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Some interesting thoughts..
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Good points, Steve. I think there are a lot of mature and reasonable gays and lesbians who don't mind coexisting with people of differing beliefs--but similar values on tolerance and love.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  A gay wedding is different than those other cases. While unsaved, the other people are not participating in something that Biblically is inherently sinful (save for the drunken wedding party--at which point I personally would excuse myself).
  
  The problems here really stem from a belief system that turns homosexuality into a core aspect of a person's identity.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Well, kicking someone out of a shop or restaurant is a little different than politely declining to be personally hired to work at an event. If GLSEN wanted me to be their Youth Analyst, I'd refuse.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Well, not everyone thinks being gay is quite the same as being black, but that's a whole other post.
  reply
• 

  Nick

  1 year ago

  I read about this a few days ago and I agree that the photographers had a right to not shoot the wedding...but I wonder if it was just because it was a gay "wedding" or do they routinely turn down shooting weddings that conflict with their beliefs? Do they shoot non-Christian weddings? Buddhist weddings? Jehovah's Witness weddings? Do they shoot receptions where there is a lot of excess drinking?
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, anyone who does business in a particular state must follow the rules set forth by the state to have a business license.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Not in the eyes of certain state laws it isn't. New Mexico has such a law.
  
  There is a reason that the statue of justice (with the scales) has a blindfold on it.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  ...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.
  What would be wrong with that?
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  I don't see why someone who felt uncomfortable shooting gay weddings would need to also turn down all non-Christian weddings. The issue is not doing business with non-believers or people with different values--the issue is the event itself.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Well, if you look at the way a lot of spokespeople for the Church have acted in the past, it's not a stretch to think that's what Gloria meant.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Do you honestly think the ADF wouldn't be all over a lawsuit if some athiest refused to serve a Baptist?
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Who knows if they would? But people shouldn't be forced to do business in a way that conflicts with their faith. I would go with your other half and say, look, this person doesn't want to do business with Christians (or specifically Baptists). That's their choice and their loss.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Well, legally closing your business to observe whatever day you wish is a little different than refusing to serve a particular customer.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Mike- I'm confused as to how the issues is the event itself rather than not doing business with non-believers. If they aren't doing gay weddings, it's the gay part that they don't want to associate with, so it's pretty clear it's about who they are doing business with (gay people), not what the event is.
  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.
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Some interesting thoughts..
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  A gay wedding is different than those other cases. While unsaved, the other people are not participating in something that Biblically is inherently sinful (save for the drunken wedding party--at which point I personally would excuse myself).
  The problems here really stem from a belief system that turns homosexuality into a core aspect of a person's identity.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Well, kicking someone out of a shop or restaurant is a little different than politely declining to be personally hired to work at an event. If GLSEN wanted me to be their Youth Analyst, I'd refuse.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ensley

  1 year ago

  Well, not everyone thinks being gay is quite the same as being black, but that's a whole other post.
  reply
• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  Not in the eyes of certain state laws it isn't. New Mexico has such a law.
  There is a reason that the statue of justice (with the scales) has a blindfold on it.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Mike, wouldn't worshipping another God be biblically inherently sinful?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Robert

  1 year ago

  No, you are missing the point, any business should have the right to refuse business! No one would have been harmed, there are other photographers. If this is allowed, then what is to keep me from walking into a Mall naked and say that they don't have the right to refuse me service?
  
  It may seem like a stretch, but it really isn't. Think about it.
  reply
• 

  Robert

  1 year ago

  Ah yes, the politically correctness answer...
  
  Politically correct: oxymoron, there is no such thing!!!
  reply
• 

  Jim Phelan

  1 year ago

  You failed to mention an important piece to the story:
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  1 year ago

  Mike, wouldn't worshipping another God be biblically inherently sinful?
  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.
  reply
• 

  Robert

  1 year ago

  No, you are missing the point, any business should have the right to refuse business! No one would have been harmed, there are other photographers. If this is allowed, then what is to keep me from walking into a Mall naked and say that they don't have the right to refuse me service?
  It may seem like a stretch, but it really isn't. Think about it.
  reply
• 

  Robert

  1 year ago

  Ah yes, the politically correctness answer...
  Politically correct: oxymoron, there is no such thing!!!
  reply
• 

  Jim Phelan

  1 year ago

  You failed to mention an important piece to the story:
  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Great discussions everyone. I really enjoyed the civility expressed here and especially Nick's broadening of the moral considerations.
  
  Sorry I haven't been around but ... it's been really nice to pay more attention to offline concerns as of late.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Great discussions everyone. I really enjoyed the civility expressed here and especially Nick's broadening of the moral considerations.
  Sorry I haven't been around but ... it's been really nice to pay more attention to offline concerns as of late.
  reply
• 

  Mrs. Nicklebee

  1 year ago

  Interesting comments! I hadn't heard about this until I read it here while looking for something else.
  
  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
  reply
• 

  Mrs. Nicklebee

  1 year ago

  Interesting comments! I hadn't heard about this until I read it here while looking for something else.
  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
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thank you for stopping by and adding your thoughts. I also appreciate the encouragement regarding the blog.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thank you for stopping by and adding your thoughts. I also appreciate the encouragement regarding the blog.
  reply
• 

  silversurferswave

  1 year ago

  Randy,
  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
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thanks Greg, bless you!
  reply
• 

  Greg Parker

  1 year ago

  Randy,
  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
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thanks Greg, bless you!
  reply
• 

  ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collect

  1 year ago

  [...] forget, this is starting to happen here in the States ( on a state but soon to be federal level) as [...]
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  1 year ago

  I would just like to say that I am a photographer and I think the whole initial lawsuit is just plain ridiculous. We should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and for any reason, in fact. After all, this is the land of "freedom." If this photographer had a different religious belief system other than Christianity where homosexuality wasn't accepted, I bet the court wouldn't have even touched it. It is because it is a Christian belief, if she was Buddhist, Atheist, Mormon,etc. I bet there wouldn't have even been a fine because they would have been afraid of "discriminating" against their beliefs. It seems that Christianity is becoming more and more of a "sin" to this country than actual sin.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thank you for leaving a comment Kathy. I think you hit on the underlying issue that actually manifests in many ways including this incident. The real battle is moral relativism/secular humanism vs. traditional Judeo/Christian worldview.
  reply
• 

  Kathy

  1 year ago

  I would just like to say that I am a photographer and I think the whole initial lawsuit is just plain ridiculous. We should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and for any reason, in fact. After all, this is the land of "freedom." If this photographer had a different religious belief system other than Christianity where homosexuality wasn't accepted, I bet the court wouldn't have even touched it. It is because it is a Christian belief, if she was Buddhist, Atheist, Mormon,etc. I bet there wouldn't have even been a fine because they would have been afraid of "discriminating" against their beliefs. It seems that Christianity is becoming more and more of a "sin" to this country than actual sin.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  Thank you for leaving a comment Kathy. I think you hit on the underlying issue that actually manifests in many ways including this incident. The real battle is moral relativism/secular humanism vs. traditional Judeo/Christian worldview.
  reply
• 

  Lorin P

  8 months ago

  This has never been about live and let live. Instead its about squelching all dissent. This is perverse of course, but that goes without saying. A business owner has the right to refuse service for any reason as far as I am concerned to say otherwise is to say that you have a right to say what he does or does not do with his own property. Anti discrimination laws are a problem, if someone refuses to serve blacks or gay, let them, and then let the market decide wether they will stay in business or not.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  I agree with you to the point of non-essential and private businesses. Photography is non-essential with plllllenty of other opportunities for hiring other photographers.
  
  thank you for leaving a comment :-)
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Lorin- the only problem with that is when the market did get to decide, back when black people weren't allowed to go into certain places, the market decided incorrectly--that it agreed black people shouldn't be able to go to those places.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Brady, don't forget to hit reply on the actual comment to leave a comment. It will email her that you have responded. :)
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Sorry Randy, I keep forgetting! On that note, though, it doesn't email me when I get responses (which is why I sometimes miss them). Any ideas why?
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Hmmm. Is that why you never responded to the comment I left on the Homosexuality and Hollywood thread?
  
  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)
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  I don't think it emails people who don't actually register with Disqus. Just a guess though :)
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  That would make sense.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  I'm going to see if I can test that hypothesis.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  hmmm... not sure. it could be that they are getting caught in your spam filter. That's ok. I am about to install a new comment system (if it works) that is going native to Wordpress so I won't have to change it again :). I just got the invite code to do that.
  reply
• 

  Lorin P

  8 months ago

  This has never been about live and let live. Instead its about squelching all dissent. This is perverse of course, but that goes without saying. A business owner has the right to refuse service for any reason as far as I am concerned to say otherwise is to say that you have a right to say what he does or does not do with his own property. Anti discrimination laws are a problem, if someone refuses to serve blacks or gay, let them, and then let the market decide wether they will stay in business or not.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Lorin- the only problem with that is when the market did get to decide, back when black people weren't allowed to go into certain places, the market decided incorrectly--that it agreed black people shouldn't be able to go to those places.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Brady, don't forget to hit reply on the actual comment to leave a comment. It will email her that you have responded. :)
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  I agree with you to the point of non-essential and private businesses. Photography is non-essential with plllllenty of other opportunities for hiring other photographers.
  
  
  thank you for leaving a comment :-)
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  hmmm... not sure. it could be that they are getting caught in your spam filter. That's ok. I am about to install a new comment system (if it works) that is going native to Wordpress so I won't have to change it again :). I just got the invite code to do that.
  reply
• 

  Scientific Ellie

  8 months ago

  All right here is my test comment:
  
  Curiosity killed the cat...
  reply
• 

  Scientific Ellie

  8 months ago

  But Satisfaction Brought it back
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  And that.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Well, it hasn't e-mailed me back. That could be because it realizes that I commented on my own comment so don't need a notification. Hopefully it's not smart enough to figure out that my dummy account is me, too.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Another test.
  
  Ok, somebody else need to comment on both my Ellie and Scientific Ellie comments, to see if it e-mails me.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  Ok, Try this.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  It notified me of this comment, but not the other.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  y'all are funny. Thanks for your help.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  oh ... and this thread is seriously off topic. :)
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Well, you brought it up.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  All right, the final conclusion is that the Disqus system only notifies you if you are registered with Disqus. So since Brady is not registered, he is never notified.
  
  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?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  We can try but I bet that is something they hold for people who actually register. If I were them that is what I would do.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Thanks for figuring this out guys. Ellie- Yes, I believe that's why I never responded, especially if the post is old. Hope everyone is having a good Sunday.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  Brady, registration's free, if you're interested in having it mail you :)
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Thanks, Jonathan!
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  Hmmm. Is that why you never responded to the comment I left on the Homosexuality and Hollywood thread?
  
  
  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)
  
  
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  I don't think it emails people who don't actually register with Disqus. Just a guess though :)
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  That would make sense.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  I'm going to see if I can test that hypothesis.
  reply
• 

  Scientific Ellie

  8 months ago

  All right here is my test comment:
  
  
  Curiosity killed the cat...
  
  
  reply
• 

  Scientific Ellie

  8 months ago

  But Satisfaction Brought it back
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  Well, it hasn't e-mailed me back. That could be because it realizes that I commented on my own comment so don't need a notification. Hopefully it's not smart enough to figure out that my dummy account is me, too.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  Another test.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  Ok, Try this.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  And that.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  It notified me of this comment, but not the other.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  All right, the final conclusion is that the Disqus system only notifies you if you are registered with Disqus. So since Brady is not registered, he is never notified.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  We can try but I bet that is something they hold for people who actually register. If I were them that is what I would do.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  y'all are funny. Thanks for your help.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  oh ... and this thread is seriously off topic. :)
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  Well, you brought it up.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Thanks for figuring this out guys. Ellie- Yes, I believe that's why I never responded, especially if the post is old. Hope everyone is having a good Sunday.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  8 months ago

  Brady, registration's free, if you're interested in having it mail you :)
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Thanks, Jonathan!
  reply
• 

  BTCarolus

  8 months ago

  Well, Brady, now you apparently need an Intense Debate account.
  
  Randy changing his blog strikes again ;)
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  ID Blew UP my blog from the ground up. Screwed up the access files... all done.
  
  Disqus.
  reply
• 

  BTCarolus

  8 months ago

  Well, Brady, now you apparently need an Intense Debate account.
  Randy changing his blog strikes again ;)
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  ID Blew UP my blog from the ground up. Screwed up the access files... all done.
  
  
  Disqus.
  
  
  reply
• 

  ETC TOP TEN! : Say No To Porn,

  6 months ago

  [...] Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding - Actually written by Mike Ensley [...]
  reply