She'd be better off just snake rubbish photos and risk being sued for that
instead...cheaper in the long run..
This is a sad day for freedom of religion and for the country. As the nation
pivots away from God's commandments His Spirit will be withdrawn from the
people. Our country will increase in violence and natural catastrophes, and
decline economically. God will no longer be able to bless America.
"The justices on Monday left in place a state Supreme Court ruling . . .
"And this is what they likely will do with the ruling of Judge
Shelby and others that permit same-sex marriage.
I cannot believe that any aspect of this case represents more than a pyrrhic
victory. That the Supreme Court now declines to hear the appeal has far more
implications than punitive damages for a photographer or whether or not one can
decline to take pictures at a homosexual celebration. Perhaps the greater
question to deliberate on is whether we are still justified in considering
ourselves a "free people", and what are the qualities that would make us
So, if you believe in God's plan for marriage and don't want to; bake
a cake for a gay wedding, take photos at a gay wedding, rent a room at your bed
and bath to a gay couple, or you want to donate some money for a proposition
that supports traditional marriage, stand by to be attacked by gay rights
activists. Seems like all the hate they talk about is coming from them.
Can't all businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? What
makes this any different? So if I'm a caterer and someone asks me to cater
to a bachelor party with strippers, do I have to do it even though it violates
my religious views? By refusing their service, could I be sued for
discriminating against the practice of immorality in bachelor parties? What a
sad day for religious freedom.
Bummer. I guess if I wanted to run a business like her, I'd have to stop
advertising. These courts are out of control. These judges have too much power.
What a sad commentary on the state of our country.
It becomes more apparent everyday that "rights" are now privileges for
certain "protected" classes. Gone are the days of natural rights being
protected by our laws. We now live under a system where those with power rule
according to their desires, without any restraint but self-restraint.
Easiest way to solve this issue: "I'm sorry, I'm not working that
day. Here are three of my competitors you should feel free to contact."
In a free society, businesses cannot practice institutional discrimination.
The system won't work if individuals are denied services based on religion,
race, or sexual orientation. This same debate happened during the civil rights
movement when businesses wanted to retain the right to decline serving minority
groups, and the nation took a big step forward by ending such a horrible
practice.It's time to extend the same rights to all Americans
regardless of sexual orientation. It's the right thing and American thing
For all those bemoaning the "assault" on individual religious freedom,
you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. As an individual, this person
still has the right to believe how she chooses. When, however, you seek a
license from the state to open and run a business you do so with the
understanding that your business must comply with the laws of the state in which
you plan to do business. If those laws prohibit discrimination in the conduct of
your business based on gender, as was the case here, then you have broken the
law. Period. Jesus understood that and for those of you who seemed to have
missed that in Sunday School, I'd suggest you take a look at Matthew
22:17-21 or Mark 12:14-17.
I wonder what would happen if she took the pictures but didn't seem as
enthusiastic about it as the client wanted. Would she be liable for a failure
to smile? Or, not smile broadly enough? What if she actually voiced her
reluctance? Would her right to express her opposition to being forced to do
something she felt was wrong be something for which she could be penalized?The fight for the freedom of thought and expression is something that
effects **everyone**!I hope the fight continues!I know
I'll never stop.
Declining to serve someone dinner because they are gay is completely different
from declining to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.
This is about revenge, not justice.I avoid giving my money to people
that bash Mormons. Why would a same sex couple want to give their money to
photographers or bakers that oppose their life style? It isn't like they
can find photographers and bakers that are willing to take their money.These people want to punish those who disagree with them. That is called
I couldn't agree more with Yodak. What's wrong with "I already
have a commitment that day."
I believe we do not have to agree with the SCOTUS in our hearts. We do have to
obey, yes. But agree, not so much. God is the ultimate judge. Making this
woman violate her conscience or go out of business is not appropriate. It truly
is part of the slippery slope, which, I believe, the GLBT community knows, but
won’t mention, hoping we won’t notice either. Up until
about 10-20 years ago, gay-rights were not even an issue. Citizens,
politicians, and judges all recognized that gay behavior is unhealthy for
individuals, organizations, and societies. Somehow, the GLBT community has
convinced them all that gay behavior deserves “equal protection”
under the law. At least in this country, they never HAD the right to engage in
such behavior (or institutionalize it) so I don’t believe anyone is taking
away their rights. They never had them to start with, not in this country.There is an undergirding premise that you must buy into to accept gay
behavior as an equal rights issue. It is that it is genetically uncontrollable.
I for one don’t buy it.
Bigotry comes from the same place and is wrong and un-American in every form.
Whether the bigotry is against Mormons, gays, women, men, minorites, or any
other class -- it's wrong and has no place in our free society. The Courts
recognize this and are acting exactly how they should in the spirit of the
I think same-sex attraction may be complicated and exist to some degree, but it
is not uncontrollable. Nor is desirable for a nation that wants virtue to rule
it. How could such a small faction convince so many otherwise? Through smoke
and mirrors. While all were talking about equality, few were questioning the
appropriateness of BASING equality on an unhealthy and controllable behavior.I also believe that if you don’t believe in God Who has some
absolutes (and a prophet as well), then anything goes. Any argument can be made
attractive enough as a philosophy of man that people will buy it. I respect
your right not to believe in God or His prophet. But then you can’t be
guaranteed the safety of obedience if you choose not to follow them. Why do we hesitate to say these things? Because some angry person will call
us a bigot or some other equally-inaccurate label.
Too bad the SCOTUS no longer values the 1s amendment.Next time she
should take the photos, but make sure none of them are in focus. Or improperly
frame the subjects.Boring guy,Yes, the system will work
– the “couple” had plenty of other options. ANY law that
requires one to violate their religious conviction is totally contrary to the
1st amendment. ANY! So the constitutionally delineated, named rights of
freedom of religion are trumped by a convoluted, tortured piece of judicial
mumbo-jumbo.my_two_cents_worthyep, this IS the right tree
– any state licensing requirement that requires one to violate their
convictions is contrary to the 1st amendment.militant gays and their
radical supporters who continue to use anti-discrimination laws to punish people
of faith for following their convictions should consider whether their actions
help or hurt their efforts to have such anti-discrimination laws pass in Utah.
My guess if my friends in the LDS faith were refused public accommodations
because someone felt serving them promoted religious beliefs they disagreed with
there would be an outcry. Cornell Law Professor Sherry Colb notes
that the upholding of the case against the photographer's actions
"recognizes and affirms the importance of protecting people from
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It acknowledges the
humiliation and suffering that come of being turned away by a business on the
basis of one’s identity and relationships."Professor Colb
also states: "The plaintiff chose to run a photography business
as a public accommodation. Rather than compelling a pro-same-sex-couples
narrative, then, the law simply demanded that the public accommodation extend
its services—the same services that it chose to provide to the public for
money—to everyone, without regard to sexual orientation."
@Lost in DC,The courts don't seem to agree. A for profit
business is a for profit business, not an individual, and subject to the laws
regarding conducting business within the state.
Hop in the hand basket folks, we're going for a ride.
The New Mexico anti discrimination statute is way too broad if it violates both
the 13th and 1st amendment, which it obviously does. One can easily support gay
marriage and still see that this chills the blood by compelling involuntary
servitude.Personally, I would perform the service and wish them
well, but I respect religious protections more than I do my own preferences. So
for others, one could reserve the right to cancel (penalty-free with enough
notice) if mistakes in planning occur (such as double booking) and utilize that
excuse with the quiet rationale that an unjust law violating both the 1st and
13th amendments should be subverted.There may also still be
legitimate ways of getting around it for religious reasons. For example, it may
be against a religious belief to photograph same sex ceremonies that involve
both certain iconography and same sex union, such as the cross, or more likely,
a wiccan symbol. Then, it is not simply a summary dismissal of service based on
sexual orientation; it is also based on an element that is more concretely
identifiable to both the service performed, the religious tradition, and the
practice of one's worship.
It is clear that gay marriage supporters do not want money going to causes which
promote traditional marriage, instead of gay marriage.So I think the
solution is simple for businesses that have a religious objection to providing
services to gay weddings:Say, "Thank you." Take their
business, as required by law, and let them know you will be donating their money
to a cause that supports traditional marriage. My guess is they will change
their mind about having you perform services for their wedding.
Once again, once knowing their attitude toward gay marriage, the Gays dont want
these business owners to actually make the cake or take the pictures. THey just
dont want them to have a legal right to deny them this service.My
solution before was to outsource this service to a competitor. Either that, or
you get sick and have to cancel out just prior to the event. I hope
that some legal right to not be forced to participate on these events will be
determined either by the courts or national laws be passed.
my_two_centsdoesn't matter if they are private individuals or
for-profit. look at recent SCOTUS rulings on the rights of corporations.your argument says people of conscience have no right to make a living.
talk about hatred!
Let me take the pictures please, I need to pay for tuition.............
Anyone who is in psychology or has worked with troubled teens/youth knows that
sexuality is 100 times more complicated than "born this way".
Though no one has said it, or indicated they would make use of this sought after
religious freedom to allow businesses to deny service based on race or national
origin, it is a concern that it might happen. Many of the comments that follow
an article like this say a business should have the right to refuse service to
whoever they want. This simply isn't true. Discrimination is like
pollution. When one person puts it out it dirties the atmosphere and many
suffer. Were the supreme court to rule that service could be denied because of
religious conviction, this would potentially begin us on a dark path which would
be extremely difficult to correct.
My suggestion. If you are a small/private business, post the following in your
window.Because the law has removed my 1st amendment rights, I am
forced to serve you regardless of my personal religious beliefs. However,
please note the following.1. I do not support Same-Sex Marriage, and I
volunteer my time to organizations which oppose it.2. If you ask me to
(photograph/bake for/DJ/etc..) your Same-Sex Wedding or Commitment ceremony, I
will donate 100% of the proceeds to an organization that advocates against
Same-Sex Marriage.3. The law forces me to act against my conscience, but
it doesn't require me to give 100%.4. I realize you will assume I am
bigot because of these views, but in fact I like you as a person just as much as
any other person. I am simply opposed to certain behaviors becoming acceptable
in our society.
@Henry Drummond"My guess if my friends in the LDS faith were
refused public accommodations because someone felt serving them promoted
religious beliefs they disagreed with there would be an outcry."Then you would be quite surprised. LDS have put up with discrimination since
before the state of Missouri issued the extermination order. We have pretty
thick skins and would likely just walk away and find another business to give
our money to.LDS in southern states do in fact deal with this even
today. You don't hear about it, because we learned to just let it flow off
This will create a firestorm between the two sides. This isn't over by
far.The GLBT movement took a huge step backward today on getting others to
support their cause.I was somewhat impartial until this decision. Now I
have taken sides.
Kirk R. Graves wrote:"LDS in southern states do in fact deal
with this even today. You don't hear about it, because we learned to just
let it flow off our backs."I agree that Latter-day Saints have
pretty thick skins -- outside of Utah, they've had to. But when the
situation warrants it, they've been know to seek relief via the courts, and
they absolutely should. The case below came out of Texas and went all the way to
the Supreme Court. The Mormon and Catholic families that filed the suit
eventually prevailed._____________Santa Fe Independent
School District v. Doe "The case was originally filed in 1995,
in response to the way that the Mormon family, and a Catholic family that joined
them in the suit, were treated by teachers and other students in the school
district. Both families felt that their children had been discriminated against
and harassed for belonging to a minority religion in the majority Southern
Baptist town, according to Mormon News' analysis of news reports and
contacts with those involved in the case."
A business does not have the right to "refuse service to anyone". There
are things one sacrifices to have a license to opperate a buiness, such as to
conduct the business within the confines of the law, which would include not
discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. It is the
law. I believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. However, if I were
part of the gay couple in question, I would have sought a different
photographer; one who was more supportive of me.
The handwriting appears to be on the wall.Hope folks in Utah and around
the country can handle the decision without hurting others with their lack of
understanding and lack of acceptance.
I guess I missed the part in the story that said the photographer was Mormon.
Not sure how this discussion turned to comments about Latter Day Saints, but
remember that Catholics and Evangelical Christians are also strongly opposed to
same sex marriage for the same reasons the Mormons are. Its not just a Mormon
issue. This issue is about all people of faith who believe that God created
marriage between a man and woman. Simple as that.
I thought I read somewhere that the photographer had signed a contract to take
the photos before knowing it was a SS marriage, but I could be wrong. If
that's the case, would be tough to get out of that contract. And I
understand why someone would sue if they thought they had a photographer in
place, only to have the photographer show up the morning of your wedding and
discover it was a SS marriage and refuse services -- would be difficult to find
another photographer on such short notice, so I understand how that could be
grounds for a lawsuit.That being said, businesses discriminate all
the time. What about "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? What about
"we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Can't tell you
how many times I've seen those signs posted in restaurants. If they
couldn't enforce those policies, why even put them up for everyone to see
in the first place?I guess one of the key questions in all this is
whether or not the LGBT community constitutes a protected class at all.
it is always sad to read comments so full of hate, what makes this particularly
bad is that LDS are taught to love, tolerate. I remember the message of this
general authority who said: "For the Saints there are two types of people in
the world: those who we love and those who we don't know".As an LGBT I can tell all of you. You are free to hate, close your homes and
churches to us, it is your right and we accept, respect and defend that
right.However in the open arena of capitalist transactions, the laws
are clear and we will use them to protect us and those we see humiliated and
discriminated. I hope we can do this without rancor and only as a mean to repair
a wrong. Obviously our Supreme Court see it that way.
@yodakAnother easy way to deal with this issue for any business in a
similar situation is, after getting the date and other pertinent details,
explain that you have other commitments. No need to explain any further. It is
a private business and any attempt to get your customer list could have some
unsavory consequences. In other words, no one can ask what those commitments
are. You don't have to say you'll not be working that day. Just be
sure to get ALL pertinent data before committing to the job. That way, there is
some truth to saying you have other commitments.
Good decision. Elane Photography violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by
refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony. As a country, we are on the right
path toward liberty and justice for all!
I miss the good old days when you could force those who believe other that you
do, out of your state and force them to find homes elsewhere. Religious freedom
at it's best. Don't worry, it all turns out great in the end, the
people that forced Mormons to leave the eastern US were just exercising their
religious beliefs that Mormonism wasn't a real religion. And without those
events, there wouldn't be a "Utah".
Unlike discrimination of a race, "gay rights" is not be a civil issue.
We cannot choose our race, but we can choose to be gay...and regardless of what
side you are on, that is the crux of the argument. In the name of
"gay rights", our society loses it's moral compass and becomes
subject to further movements. Uninteded consquences include "acceptance"
of more sexual preferences, pornography, lifestyles, beastiality (as long as the
animal appears comfortable and gengerally happy), etc. Eventually,
the very society that was supposed to protect the "rights" of gays will
only weaken and eventually decay to a degree where it will be unable to protect
the "rights" of anybody. We may not all see it now, but the
result of this story, and issie in general, is not good for anybody in the long
Let's address what actually took place:---There is a law of
equal public accommodation for businesses in New Mexico.If you are writing
from Utah, etc, remember that the law trumps opinions.--- No one can
force you to take photos or bake a cake -such stories are lies- but if you
violate the law, you have consequences.---There are few female
wedding photographers. Naturally, lesbians might prefer a woman (who might
understand women better), so it is obvious that this lady would get requests.---If the photographer deserves the trouble, if she was stupid and rude
enough to say to the couple that taking the pictures violates her religious
beliefs, rather than saying "I'm booked then" or "Would you
mind if I asked you to get someone else, because my heart won't be in
it?" She deserves the trouble she started.I am totally appalled
by the comments of folks urging her to take bad pictures and ruin a wedding out
of extremely non-Christian spite. Doesn't this forum belong to the lds
church?As for "radical" -- certainly Joseph Smith was a
radical to most of America, but he stuck to his beliefs.
@Social Mod Fiscal ConLet me address the same thing you just said,
but with the language you would have used fifty years ago. It is the same
argument then as it is now:"My suggestion. If you are a
small/private business, post the following in your window.Because
the law has removed my 1st amendment rights, I am forced to serve you regardless
of my personal religious beliefs. However, please note the following.1. I
do not support Interracial Marriage, and I volunteer my time to organizations
which oppose it.2. If you ask me to (photograph/bake for/DJ/etc..) your
Interracial Wedding or Commitment ceremony, I will donate 100% of the proceeds
to the Aryan Nations.3. The law forces me to act against my conscience,
but it doesn't require me to give 100%.4. I realize you will assume I
am bigot because of these views, but in fact I like you as a person just as much
as any other person. I am simply opposed to certain behaviors becoming
acceptable in our society."I only changed a few words and the
overall argument is the same then as it is now.
Jesus "participated" in social events with sinners quite frequently, and
was criticized for it.Where exactly in scripture is this 11th
Commandment: "Thou shalt not take pictures or make cakes for only the
sinners who are gay"?
Could she wear a "I support traditional marriage" t-shirt while taking
When you incorporate, your business becomes an entity of the State and is
therefore subject to public policy law. You want the benefits of incorporation?
Then you must abide by those laws that apply to corporations, period. Don't
want to have to photograph a gay wedding? Don't incorporate your business.
FatherOfFour's second posting (the one changed to interracial) really makes
one take notice if for nothing else as being rather dated. I wonder if the first
posting (SSM) will seem as archaic in a few years.
The justices got this wrong, but not because same sex unions don't deserve
legal recognition. It's important to realize that this isn't like
traditions in the South or elsewhere where African-Americans were refused the
opportunity to eat, drink, or lodge. This is very different because it involves
a wedding. That makes all the difference. It is compelling the vendor to
participate in the very act that contradicts the adherent's long-standing
religious doctrine. It is different than having tolerance as well.
One may respect and tolerate same-sex couples getting married, but it may still
be against one's religious beliefs and should not require involuntary
servitude to facilitate it. Racially-bigoted vendors are required to serve food
because it does not reasonably violate a longstanding religious tradition. The
court believes that the religious underpinnings in a marriage (which has been a
religious rite much longer than a legal event), can be properly extracted so
that it is viewed as a strictly legal event. Both the 1st and 13th amendments
have now been subordinated to the 14th amendment in the event of any conflicts.
That's a big change.
So, if I do not believe in the Girl Scouts and refuse to buy cookies from them,
does that make me prejudice? Does it make me a bad person? What if I
won't sell a drink of lemonade to a girl scout because I don't believe
in what she represents? There are literally thousands of places to get a
drink and hundreds of different cookies. The problem with this
ruling is they are judging intent. Honestly if any of these people refused
to help but gave no reason, there would be nothing to rule on. Unless of
course it becomes illegal to believe or think for yourself.
It is sad when the principles of religious freedom this nation was founded on
are being denied in the nation's high courts. We are grateful for women
like this photographer who stand for what they believe and are willing to take
the heat for their integrity. We pray our nation will return to honoring
@Social Mod Fiscal Con: "...I am forced to serve you regardless of my
personal religious beliefs...The law forces me to act against my conscience, but
it doesn't require me to give 100%."1 Peter 2:18 Servants,
be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but
also to the froward.Colossians 3:22-23: Servants, obey in all things
your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in
singleness of heart, fearing God; And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to
the Lord, and not unto men;Ephesians 6:5-8 Servants, be obedient to
them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers;
but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good
will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:If this was about
"deeply held religious beliefs" you'd follow the above instructions
and do the best job possible. This is bigotry and prejudice. Nothing
more, nothing less.
@FatherOfFourI don't have an issue with a business posting what
you have put up. It advertises what they stand for and lets people decide if
they want to do business with them. I have no issues with interracial marriage,
but I do support someone else's right to be opposed to it, and let others
know how they feel.Everyone seems keen on making the SSM issue the
same as interracial marriage issue. It isn't. It is completely different.
In the case of race, one cannot simply stop being black, white, hispanic, or
asian. In the case of homosexuality, it is not about someone *being* same-sex
attracted, it is about the *behavior* of homosexuality, and the effect a person
believes the public acceptance of that behavior has on society.For
me to claim moral opposition to a person because of their race is truly to be
discriminatory, a bigot. For me to claim moral opposition to a person because
of their behavior it not discriminatory or bigotry at all. It is strictly about
morality.You may not like or agree with that difference, but you
disliking it does not make it untrue.
Here is but one example on this post of the lack of understanding and hypocrisy
of the right. " That being said, businesses discriminate all the
time. What about "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? What about "we
reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Can't tell you how many
times I've seen those signs posted in restaurants. If they couldn't
enforce those policies, why even put them up for everyone to see in the first
place?"To not see the difference between no shirt and no shoes
and an inborn trait like color and sexual orientation is stunning.But this is compounded by the hypocrisy of in the same paper the same people
ranting against a business who fires it's CEO for behavior they found
embarrassing to their company. So a company can do anything it
wants unless we disagree. My, my my folks.
@lost in dc “your argument says people of conscience have no right
to make a living. talk about hatred!”I am sorry but that was a
stretch, This photographers right to believe what she wants has not been taken
away, her ability to use it to inflict (an action) what we know to be a social
harm has been. We know the horrible effects of allowing discrimination in the
pursuit of commercial enterprise and we as a society have the right to protect
ourselves from such harms. The first amendment (or any other for that matter)
is not a cover for causing social harms and never has been.
"A business does not have the right to "refuse service to anyone".
There are things one sacrifices to have a license to opperate a buiness, such as
to conduct the business within the confines of the law, which would include not
discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. It is the
law."The photographer did not discriminate based on sexual
orientation. She had gay clients. She did not want to participate in an event
that violated her beliefs.Should a gay printer be forced to provide
flyers in support of prop 8 for a religious group? Does the printer sacrifice
his right to decline because of his business license?
@Commenter88: "It's important to realize that this isn't like
traditions in the South or elsewhere where African-Americans were refused the
opportunity to eat, drink, or lodge. This is very different because it involves
a wedding. That makes all the difference."In '79 I was
stationed at the Navy Hospital in Pensacola. A man I worked with, who was black,
was marrying a woman, also active duty Navy, who was white. Locally
the Klan was active. When they heard about the wedding they made specific
threats to the point the Naval Inestigative Service requested the ceremony be
moved from a local church to the main chapel of the Pensacola Naval Air Station.
The base was on high alert with extra security patrols, the couple and their
families had armed security escorts - as Hospital Corpsmen that meant Marines
who were locked and loaded. The ceremony was uneventful. But the vitriol of the Klan was focused on interracial marriage violating the
will of God and the teaching of the Bible. This is same song, new
@SoCalChris"The photographer did not discriminate based on
sexual orientation. She had gay clients. She did not want to participate in an
event that violated her beliefs." please do remind us what was the
event?" a gay commitment ceremony, i think you are trying to split a
nonexistent hair and claiming since she had not discriminate in the past that
this was not discrimination is kind of like saying well he never committed a
crime before so this is not a crime, it does not make sense "Should a gay printer be forced to provide flyers in support of prop 8 for
a religious group? Does the printer sacrifice his right to decline because of
his business license?" Yes
@country mom "The problem with this ruling is they are judging
intent." the courts judge intent on a regular basis, for example the
difference between man slaughter and murder is intent. Free speech did not end
and business did not shut down by the thousands when people could no longer
discriminate based on race and this will be no different.
I'm fascinated with all of these good, moral letter writers who suggest
that business owners pretend to already be booked that day. I thought it
against your morals to lie.
@Laura Bilingtonthats the funny (sad not haha) thing about this whole
debate those (including the DN) that claim to object to same sex marriage on
moral grounds think nothing of using lies, misrepresentation and deceit to
defend their positions.
Nothing turns a man into a feminist faster than having his fully qualified
daughter turned down by a medical school.Nothing turns a
conservative, Bible thumping moralist into a questioning one--if not an outright
liberal--faster than having his beloved adult child come out as gay.And for Fred Vader and the others who suggested doing the work and donating
the proceeds to an anti SSM group--please do so. There is a palpable joy at a
gay wedding, different from any straight wedding you've ever been to. You
don't have to attend more than a few of them before you will start to
question all the trash talk you heard--or perhaps said yourself.
@ Social Mod Fiscal ConYou claim that objecting to the behavior is
not discriminatory because unlike race, behavior is not immutable. But I'm
not sure that I buy that your objection is really to the behavior. Because
heterosexuals also engage in the sexual behaviors that homosexuals engage in.
Is there something different about these behaviors when heterosexuals
participate in them? There is ONE difference - the gender of one of the
participants. Gender is immutable.
@ Social Mod Fiscal ConYou suggest sexual orientation is merely a
behavioral choice, and therefore opposition to gay people is not discrimination
or bigotry.By this logic, you should be perfectly willing and able
to stop your heterosexual "behavior" if enough people agree that you
should. So if you're a man, no kissing, falling in love, marrying or sex
with a woman. It might occur to you that you'd still be as
heterosexual as you ever were, just suppressing it. Comparisons to
racial discrimination are appropriate: Asking someone to change their sexual
orientation by not *behaving* gay/straight is like asking someone to stop being
black or hispanic or Asian by wearing a paper bag over their head. Like race, heterosexuality or homosexuality is inseparable from who we are.
To defend against accusations of bigotry, you say it's OK to
*be* gay-- just don't *do* gay. You accept "them" as long as they
"know their place," which is to do what you say, based on what you want.
That should have a uncomfortable, familiar ring to it.For all of us,
who we love comes from who we are.
What if the KKK was having a party and they went to a Black photographer? What
if a Religious group was having a fundraiser to denounce same sex marriage and
they went to a gay photographer? There is a big difference between
denying service, for say a meal or a hotel room than there is for denying
service that promotes something that goes against what you believe in. Would I
be forced to takes pictures at an adult porn movie shoot in Hollywood? This was
a very bad precedent the courts set in action.
@arand, yes, the black photographer would have to do the KKK gig and the gay
photographer would have to do the hate group's fundraiser. As far as the
porn shoot, I don't think there's a problem turning that one down, as
long as you don't do nude videorecording /photography at all.
@arand"What if the KKK was having a party and they went to a Black
photographer?"Is being KKK protected under anti-discrimination
law, as race, gender, sexual orientation? I don’t think so.
Do you really believe that Laura? We have a man that just lost his job at
Mozilla by donating to a political cause promoting marriage between a man and
woman. There is a double standard and anyone who does not believe it has their
head in the sand. There is a big difference between denying service and actually
having to participate in a service.
@arandDidn't evangelical Christians just force World Vision to
change their policy on gay employees? Do you call that double standard too?"There is a big difference between denying service and actually
having to participate in a service."the law in NM specifically
forbids discrimination on sexual orientation, as well as race, age, gender etc.
arand, please do not claim that Eich lost his Mozilla job because he believed in
"promoting marriage between a man and a woman". Proposition 8 did not
"promote" anything; it excluded the rights, privileges, obligations and
dignity of marriage for a substantial minority of Californians. I,
for one would love to see real steps taken to "promote" marriage and
responsible childbearing. We could use classes in financial literacy,
apprentice programs for blue-collar workers, grade and high school counseling
for at-risk students, programs to prevent homelessness--you get the idea. None
of these denies the dignity of our gay citizens--which was the sole focus of
Proposition 8 and Amendment 3.
My baptism was over 30 years ago, so it is prior, and baptism is a definitely a
commitment. So saying I have a prior commitment is the absolute
Best comment - The photographer 'uniform' should state that they
support keeping the traditional definition of marriage.Those of us
with morals really need to have a website where we can push every visitor to
sign a petition. Eich might still have his job if the our half of society had
made our voice heard in the same way the pro-homosexual movement did. Mozilla
didn't choose to keep all their clients. They chose the militant half over
the peaceful half. They have the homosexual agenda-ists to thank for cutting
their business in half.So suing businesses for large amounts of
money, and dividing their clientele in half certainly looks like the militant
homosexual movement is very hard on businesses.
county momMonroe, UT"So, if I do not believe in the Girl Scouts
and refuse to buy cookies from them, does that make me prejudice? Does it make
me a bad person? What if I won't sell a drink of lemonade to a girl
scout because I don't believe in what she represents? There are
literally thousands of places to get a drink and hundreds of different cookies.
The problem with this ruling is they are judging intent. Honestly if
any of these people refused to help but gave no reason, there would be nothing
to rule on. Unless of course it becomes illegal to believe or think for
yourself."----------No -- read my other post.Should we not try to walk in the other person's shoes, as Jesus told
us?--- how many woman wedding photographers are in that town? Probably
only the one.--- what laws should we ignore?The people wanted
her, but she did not say no -- she basically told them that the greatest
thing that ever happened to them was wrong, due to her religionThe
woman was unkind
@Badgerbadger: "Best comment - The photographer 'uniform' should
state that they support keeping the traditional definition of marriage."Great! Show they are unprofessional in a way they would not be able to
deny. If I saw that I would plaster the internet with pictures of a wedding
photographer making a scene like that... "Mozilla didn't
choose to keep all their clients. They chose the militant half over the peaceful
half."But World-Vision, an organization that feeds children,
just lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in "Christian" pledges
because they said they would hire gay married couples. The "peaceful
half" punished the children...Boycotts currently in place from
the religious right:DisneyJC PennysArchie Comics (Yeah, the
right is boycotting Archie, Jughead and the gang)StarbucksEA
GamesGeneral Mills - including Betty Crocker, Green Giant, Haagen-Daz,
Pillsbury,and Yoplait)Home DepotAnd Girl Scouts, hurting local
troops by not buying cookies.I think the real problem is calls for
boycotts by the right are usually flops - the company goes on. When the left
calls a boycott it has a bite that impacts sales and is noticed.
@Lost in DCYou said, “Look at recent SCOTUS rulings on the
rights of corporations.”Since the US Supreme Court refused to
hear the appeal, your point is moot.You said, “Your argument
says people of conscience have no right to make a living.”My
argument says no such thing. My argument is if you want to conduct business
under state license you have to obey state law. If you are unwilling to do that
you need to find a different line of work. New Mexico’s Human Rights Act
states that businesses such as Elane Photography can’t refuse can’t
a customer simply because of gender. You said, “talk about
hatred!” Your hyperbole is duly noted but the correct term you were
looking for is “pragmatic.”
The tide has turned people. It is no longer considered ok to discriminate
against someone based on sexual orientation. It's only going to become more
so as the older people die and the younger move up.