Lawsuit, Religion, Photography, Gay Couple

[phee]

**THEORETICAL QUESTION**

What if the situation were the same, but they were refused because they were an interracial couple? And their faith (much like mormonism untill somewhat recently) refused to do it because they were an interracial couple...

[Steven]

**THEORETICAL QUESTION**

What if the situation were the same, but they were refused because they were an interracial couple? And their faith (much like mormonism untill somewhat recently) refused to do it because they were an interracial couple...

I have definately been descriminated against in this way.

my white sister and her children call me "that fucking mexican"

that was just a precurser to say that I get it.

ok - fair question - fair answer?

id find another photographer.

id talk some mad smack to the person in charge, but I would definatley not bother with a lawsuit over something so small.

quick edit on my personal expereince with discrimination: racism yes. racism coupled with religosity? no.

lets push it further:

how bout a couple that wants to pay for a chruch wedding - but they have been living togethor in a sexual situaton and the church pastor says no.

lawsuit fodder?

[phee]

I have definately been descriminated against in this way.

my white sister and her children call me "that fucking mexican"

that was just a precurser to say that I get it.

ok - fair question - fair answer?

id find another photographer.

id talk some mad smack to the person in charge, but I would definatley not bother with a lawsuit over something so small.

quick edit on my personal expereince with discrimination: racism yes. racism coupled with religosity? no.

lets push it further:

how bout a couple that wants to pay for a chruch wedding - but they have been living togethor in a sexual situaton and the church pastor says no.

lawsuit fodder?

That is a good question Steven...

(this is not dodging BTW).

But it comes down to choices I believe... Do people choose to be homosexual or not? In the case of the above question, living together is definitly a choice, and a person can say: "because of this choice you have made, I am choosing not to work with you" (kind of like a no shirt, no shoes, no service kind of thing). But if someones preference is NOT a choice (much like skin color)... then yes that is grounds for a lawsuit IMO.

[freydis]

I have definately been descriminated against in this way.

my white sister and her children call me "that fucking mexican"

that was just a precurser to say that I get it.

ok - fair question - fair answer?

id find another photographer.

id talk some mad smack to the person in charge, but I would definatley not bother with a lawsuit over something so small.

quick edit on my personal expereince with discrimination: racism yes. racism coupled with religosity? no.

lets push it further:

how bout a couple that wants to pay for a chruch wedding - but they have been living togethor in a sexual situaton and the church pastor says no.

lawsuit fodder?

Apples and oranges.

Churches are not public businesses, and do not operate under a business licence.

[ttogreh]

great example.

conform or be cast out.

what happened to this couple was wrong.

they lost their livelihood, when Tri-Pride could have gone elsewhere to have their business handled.

home of the free, land of the brave? Its a big machien in the end - and getting more and more mechanized.

Ok, there is a fine line between the minority being protected from the minority and the minority terrorizing the majority. In the case of Standard Printing, a private company decided to refuse service on the basis of conflicting interpretations of a moral code. This seems to be the same issue between the evangelical photographer, and the gay couple.

If Standard Printing or the photographer had been a restaurant, hotelier, auto mechanic, or any other business where the moral code of the customer and the moral code of the business have less of a chance to be an issue, would the refusal of service be acceptable to you, Steven? I think you have answered that it would indeed not be acceptable.

So... it really isn't the difference of a moral code that seems to be the issue here. The issue, is whether or not a business has the right to a moral code AT ALL.

The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, is the refusal of service in the case of Standard Printing and the photographer an exercise of religion, or is it a pure act of discrimination? In my view, it is the latter. Let me explain why.

The Hansens were not clergy, nor was their business a wholly-owned subsidiary of any religious organization. So, they can only act in a manner that is secular, as I see the law. The same goes for this photographer... when she is charging money for pictures. If she became an ordained minister of some kind, which would take about four minutes on the internet with a computer connected to the printer, then we would have a different situation.

In my opinion, Steven, commerce is at default... AMORAL. It can be imbued with a moral code, but if you don't have the paperwork, you are SOL.

[the eternal]

So, I'm chatting with Mark about something completely unrelated and he ropes me into this topic

Then I make this wonderfully beautiful long post,

with points that haven't been brought up, that would earned either a Pulitzer.

That or the collective sound of one dozen mouse roll bars scrolling to the next post.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Then my computer jumped and it went away.

Don't thank me, thank Compaq. Or Comcast. Or possibly Verizon.

So instead, I will address a comment you've all forgotten.

"Equal rights does not mean special rights."

Spook, no matter what side you take on this, you need to know something.

There is no line that has been used more often than that one to excuse the wholesale denial

of literally HUNDREDS of civil rights that are afforded on the base of skin color, but not sexual orientation.

To read you saying the same words that bigoted southern senators have used to justify hate crimes, makes me want to vomit in my own mouth.

________________________________________________________________________________

That said, I'll leave you with this----

I honestly can't believe this board has their liberal heads so far up their own asses that you didn't notice

that we are discussing this because of the Washington Times.

The most right-leaning newspaper on the national landscape.

This is a mass-market publication read by tens of thousands of conservative Christians who, after they sit down and finish listening to Paul Harvey re-runs that were recommended to them in their last large-print Reader's Digest compendium,

like nothing more than to see little anecdotal stories like this, alongside the one of the Australian company who asked their Santas to say Ha Ha Ha instead of Ho Ho Ho,

so that they can feel there is a widespread culture war in America,

and "the g-dless Islamo-communist fags (like Ellen DeGenerate) are winning"

You honestly think this studio will be run out of town for this???

This was the best free publicity a little evangelical mom and pop photography shop ever got.

(It's okay. I'm sure the ACLU got a few more donations because of this too)

______________________________________________________________________

Back to your discussion, already in progress.

_{Edited because I forgot to do spell check}

[Destroit]

I'm so sick of living in a "free country". Notice the quotes. I don't advicate hate, I try not to, but in my mind if you live in this country you should be able to discriminate, so long as you aren't harming anyone physically. I personally discriminate very rarely, but I believe everyone should be able to. I'm sick of people having a fit because their "feelings are hurt". If you didn't get punched in the face, beaten up, shanked, shot, have property vandalized, or if someone didn't shoot your dog, IMO sit down and shut up.

I didn't know the goal of George Washington would have been to expect everyone to sit around and have a tea party while singing "Cumbaya, My Lord" and holding hands. I thought that our forefathers came over with one vision and one vision only: FREEDOM FROM PERSECUTION FOR THEIR BELIEFS, whatever those may be. If it's your belief to hate/disagree ANYONE for ANY reason in this country, it should be allowed. If you don't like it, move your ass back to Europe (or elsewhere).

In a free country we should be able to have BOTH gay marriages AND people who oppose them, freely. That goes for anything, not just gay people. I almost wanna say "Uh-Oh America, your bias ways are showing!" Soon they're probably going to make a law where you aren't allowed to disagree with anyone without being persecuted or sued. Just wait for it.

If this photographer believes that her religious rights would have been violated by participating in this couple's marriage, then she should be able to tell them no. End of story. It appalls me that this is going to court.

Must I reiterate my opinion/point? If you can't handle a FREE country where you know that everyone will be different and you may or may NOT be okay with that...then MOVE. You have NO right to be here.

But somewhere along the line we tragically lost that vision...

[Steven]

That is a good question Steven...

(this is not dodging BTW).

But it comes down to choices I believe... Do people choose to be homosexual or not? In the case of the above question, living together is definitly a choice, and a person can say: "because of this choice you have made, I am choosing not to work with you" (kind of like a no shirt, no shoes, no service kind of thing). But if someones preference is NOT a choice (much like skin color)... then yes that is grounds for a lawsuit IMO.

Good counter (I didint feel dodged, and thanks).

on the issue of choice - what do we do with this potential scenario:

The church Pastor, based on his lifestyle and teachings, believes that the acting upon homosexuality is indeed a choice, just as acting upon premarital sex (of any sexuality) is a choice, or acting upon a desire for sex outside of ones committed marriage is a choice, or acting upon a desire to have sex when one is committed to chastity in general is a choice.

And because he beleives (beleif being the key word here) in the power of choice - he also beleives that he cannot violate the statutes that allowed him to become a minister (by the way thats also a legaly recognized "religeous" position that authorizes him to perform weddings) in the first place.

what do we do?

[Steven]

Apples and oranges.

Churches are not public businesses, and do not operate under a business licence.

But I cannot marry somebody - I do not possess the recognized state authority, whereas an ordained minsiter - does have the recognized state authority and can perform the ceremony.

that is public business. he gets paid for it too.

[Steven]

So, I'm chatting with Mark about something completely unrelated and he ropes me into this topic

Then I make this wonderfully beautiful long post,

with points that haven't been brought up, that would earned either a Pulitzer.

That or the collective sound of one dozen mouse roll bars scrolling to the next post.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Then my computer jumped and it went away.

Don't thank me, thank Compaq. Or Comcast. Or possibly Verizon.

So instead, I will address a comment you've all forgotten.

Spook, no matter what side you take on this, you need to know something.

There is no line that has been used more often than that one to excuse the wholesale denial

of literally HUNDREDS of civil rights that are afforded on the base of skin color, but not sexual orientation.

To read you saying the same words that bigoted southern senators have used to justify hate crimes, makes me want to vomit in my own mouth.

________________________________________________________________________________

That said, I'll leave you with this----

I honestly can't believe this board has their liberal heads so far up their own asses that you didn't notice

that we are discussing this because of the Washington Times.

The most right-leaning newspaper on the national landscape.

This is a mass-market publication read by tens of thousands of conservative Christians who, after they sit down and finish listening to Paul Harvey re-runs that were recommended to them in their last large-print Reader's Digest compendium,

like nothing more than to see little anecdotal stories like this, alongside the one of the Australian company who asked their Santas to say Ha Ha Ha instead of Ho Ho Ho,

so that they can feel there is a widespread culture war in America,

and "the g-dless Islamo-communist fags (like Ellen DeGenerate) are winning"

You honestly think this studio will be run out of town for this???

This was the best free publicity a little evangelical mom and pop photography shop ever got.

(It's okay. I'm sure the ACLU got a few more donations because of this too)

______________________________________________________________________

Back to your discussion, already in progress.

_{Edited because I forgot to do spell check}

I dont read that paper....

[Steven]

I'm so sick of living in a "free country". Notice the quotes. I don't advicate hate, I try not to, but in my mind if you live in this country you should be able to discriminate, so long as you aren't harming anyone physically. I personally discriminate very rarely, but I believe everyone should be able to. I'm sick of people having a fit because their "feelings are hurt". If you didn't get punched in the face, beaten up, shanked, shot, have property vandalized, or if someone didn't shoot your dog, IMO sit down and shut up.

I didn't know the goal of George Washington would have been to expect everyone to sit around and have a tea party while singing "Cumbaya, My Lord" and holding hands. I thought that our forefathers came over with one vision and one vision only: FREEDOM FROM PERSECUTION FOR THEIR BELIEFS, whatever those may be. If it's your belief to hate/disagree ANYONE for ANY reason in this country, it should be allowed. If you don't like it, move your ass back to Europe (or elsewhere).

In a free country we should be able to have BOTH gay marriages AND people who oppose them, freely. That goes for anything, not just gay people. I almost wanna say "Uh-Oh America, your bias ways are showing!" Soon they're probably going to make a law where you aren't allowed to disagree with anyone without being persecuted or sued. Just wait for it.

If this photographer believes that her religious rights would have been violated by participating in this couple's marriage, then she should be able to tell them no. End of story. It appalls me that this is going to court.

Must I reiterate my opinion/point? If you can't handle a FREE country where you know that everyone will be different and you may or may NOT be okay with that...then MOVE. You have NO right to be here.

But somewhere along the line we tragically lost that vision...

That was a dang good post M' Love....

[pharoh]

I know.

even know a couple.

oddly there are Mexican Christians too....

NO WAY.....mexicans don't have a god, and thier blood is not like ours it is like oil.........born sinners I tell ya

[Kit Kat P]

I am sorry that you have to do that...

*shrugs* it is what it is

I would like to know what store this is, and where if you are comfy with that.

Both stores were here in CA (land of the liberals my ass), one was the Berean and other a local small store in Salinas

[Steven]

*shrugs* it is what it is

Both stores were here in CA (land of the liberals my ass), one was the Berean and other a local small store in Salinas

ahhhh the Bereans.....they are supposed to be a flagship model of knowledgeable beleivers......many a sermon Ive heard on "be like the Bereans".....

do you mind PM'ing me that info?

Inquiring minds would like to know.....

(and by the way how does a girl from artichoke land end up on DGN anyway????)

[freydis]

But I cannot marry somebody - I do not possess the recognized state authority, whereas an ordained minsiter - does have the recognized state authority and can perform the ceremony.

that is public business. he gets paid for it too.

A minister performing marriages is not doing so under a commercial business licence. So still--apples and oranges.

[Steven]

A minister performing marriages is not doing so under a commercial business licence. So still--apples and oranges.

ok. But I really do beleive were still talking about similar things here.

services are rendered, payments are exchanged, even churches are rented.