# Should Christians Be Forced to Photograph Gay Weddings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847 "2012-06-11T19:50:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/81 "2012-06-11T22:04:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Religion is made-up. It’s a fairy story. Again: this is not the issue in this thread. Take it to another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/82 "2012-06-11T22:04:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No, but they should be forced to look at ultrasounds of gay weddings. 10/10 ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/83 "2012-06-11T22:08:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@GEEPERS](#): > > > > Do you think it’s ok for a Christian to hang out at a strip club or prostitution house? Same principle. > > That depends; is it OK for a Christian to hang out with thieves and criminals? Considering some of the Christians I’ve met (and others who’ve made the news in various spectacular ways), I’d suggest a better question is “is it OK for a _stripper_ to hang out with thieves and criminals?” ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/84 "2012-06-11T22:19:25Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Just because someone doesn’t support ssm doesn’t make them a piece of shit. Of course it does. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/85 "2012-06-11T22:37:02Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Except when it is in accordance to the Holy Word of God. Mark 12:31 certainly set the standard against racism. Romans 1:26-27 does not support homosexuality. Sorry, it doesn’t. Mark 12:31: [QUOTE=Jesus of Nazareth] And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. [/QUOTE] Aren’t gay people at least as likely to be your neighbours as people of different races? Doesn’t that mean you should love gay people? (Just as you should equally love criminals, strippers and tax collecters – loving them does not mean that you support everything that they do.) ---
**Author:** ![Mewl\_Dear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mewl\_Dear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mewl_Dear)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/86 "2012-06-11T22:43:29Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Atheists (generally speaking) will always be against Christians. And you are making things better how? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/87 "2012-06-11T22:45:26Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Again - and for Clarity - > > PUBLIC accommodations - businesses, etc - are not allowed to discriminate > > PRIVATE accommodations - churches, you, your house, an in house service provided by a church for the exclusive usage of the membership - can be as discriminatory as they want to be. > > No goalpost shifting. You just can’t quite grok the concept of public vs. private. Although this is the key point to the issue, and in fact to every issue I’ve seen the OP bring up here, I fear he or she will never get it. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/88 "2012-06-11T22:55:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s a bit surreal… The law already prohibits anyone from touching anyone who doesn’t want it. There isn’t any discrimination involved: no one is allowed to lay a hand on someone else who doesn’t wish it. This is what I was thinking: If a religious woman didn’t touch men re:religion but say, offered services to women only (like a salon), can she be sued for gender discrimination? > [@Lobohan](#): > > Every person on Earth who is against SSM is being a dick-hole. Every single one. > > They may be nice otherwise, but they’re still prejudiced against homosexuals. Is someone who thinks blacks shouldn’t be able to marry whites not being a jerk? I think there’s a difference between people who are against ssm legally and people who just belong to a religion that does not recognize it. There are plenty of rabbis in my religion who don’t object to the laws that do allow ssm but won’t perform those ceremonies. I really resent you calling them ‘dick-holes’. > [@](#): > > Well, a Catholic or Jew who follows their religion closely, certainly would be anti-woman. Again, please refrain from your attack on religious peoples. I think they’re a protected class on the Dope. > [@Lobohan](#): > > No one is asking Christians to take part in pride parades. [Except for when they do.](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/16/appeals-court-upholds-verdict-pride-parade-firefig/) > [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, they were. The distinction you’re making is nonsensical and not worth the effort. That being said, I’d like a clear explanation of what is going on in this case. I can’t find a lot of explanations of the meaning of “public accomodation” in New Mexico law, and most of the hits I’m getting on Google are related to this case, so that doesn’t help much. I find myself thinking there has to be more to this law. See, I disagree. If a gay person had said, “Please come and photograph my 50th birthday!” and the photographer said, “We don’t do gay people’s birthdays”, that’s a difference. The photographer said that she didn’t film/photograph/whatever same-sex ceremonies. That’s an _action_, a political belief, a religious belief. This is where I think the NM HRC erred. When someone’s religious rights are trumped in favor of someone’s civil rights, then the law should be applied narrowly unless the government can find some invested interest. And if NM doesn’t have enough interest in making same sex marriage legal, what’s the purpose here? But even if the couple was discriminated on the basis of being gay, I think the ‘public accommodation’ thing is sketch. It’s the only basis the commission had for fining the photography company. Now, if they had provided a service like car rentals, I see where it would stick (just like the [NJ case](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340)). If services equal public accommodation, then that has to apply to massage therapists, psychologists, lawyers, cleaning ladies, and so forth. eta: [NM law](http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2006/nmrc/jd_28-1-7-bcb3.html) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/89 "2012-06-11T22:58:50Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Nope, last week, atheists argued that the Vanderbilt Christian group did not have the right to exclude gays as leaders as long as they operated on campus grounds. Now you are saying it doesn’t matter where they operate. Christians must accept gays everywhere. Goal shifting. Not goal shifting–simply a complete lack of understanding on your part. Vanderbilt offer a public service–education. They would be in violation of the law to refuse to permit a person to purchase that education on the grounds that that person was of any particular race, religion, or country of origin. Once they have accepted a person as a student, that student is expected to live under the rules that Vanderbilt, as a private entity, sets. So Vanderbilt has the option of making really stupid rules regarding the leadership of school sponsored organizations and a prospective student has the option of reading their handbook and choosing to go elsewhere for that education. Elane Photography offers a public service–photos and videos of people’s life events. They would be in violation of the law to refuse to provide that service on the grounds that that person was of any particular race, religion, or country of origin. If you do not understand those differences, you have no business starting this thread. Now, whether New Mexico law offers the same protection from discrimination to homosexuals as it does to people of different races, religions, and countries of origin, I do not know. One agency in New Mexico says yes. That is the point of the discussion, a discussion that will be resolved in court. It still fails to amount to an “attack” on religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/90 "2012-06-11T23:01:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I can’t find a lot of explanations of the meaning of “public accomodation” in New Mexico law, and most of the hits I’m getting on Google are related to this case, so that doesn’t help much. I find myself thinking there has to be more to this law. The definition of public accomodation under the New Mexico Human Rights act is found in NMSA 21-8-1-2 H. “public accommodation” means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private; and 28-1-1-7 covers sexual orientation “F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;” If a photography business advertises on the internet and the Yellow Pages, as this one did, it is almost certainly going to be considered a public accommodation. If the photographer only photographs events occurring at a particular church which does not perform same-sex ceremonies and only advertises to members of that church, it’s very likely not going be considered a public accommodation. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/91 "2012-06-11T23:14:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Elane Photography offers a public service–photos and videos of people’s life events. They would be in violation of the law to refuse to provide that service on the grounds that that person was of any particular race, religion, or country of origin. But you’d have to prove they were being discriminated against based on sexual orientation and not the act itself (and ssm isn’t done in NM, anyway). The state of NM is getting awfully circular if it say that private businesses have to do what the state won’t. > [@doreen](#): > > The definition of public accomodation under the New Mexico Human Rights act is found in NMSA 21-8-1-2 > > H. “public accommodation” means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private; > > and 28-1-1-7 covers sexual orientation > “F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;” > > If a photography business advertises on the internet and the Yellow Pages, as this one did, it is almost certainly going to be considered a public accommodation. If the photographer only photographs events occurring at a particular church which does not perform same-sex ceremonies and only advertises to members of that church, it’s very likely not going be considered a public accommodation. So you can interpret it in two ways: 1. Public accommodation = services (which is a real floodgate, imo - does this mean that attorneys in NM have to take up all cases now?) 2. Businesses that qualify as ‘public accommodation’ provide services Finally, what about the [New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act](http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html)? ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/92 "2012-06-11T23:32:03Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Do you think it’s ok for a Christian to hang out at a strip club or prostitution house? Jesus did. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/93 "2012-06-11T23:32:31Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > So you can interpret it in two ways: > > 1. Public accommodation = services (which is a real floodgate, imo - does this mean that attorneys in NM have to take up all cases now?) > 2. Businesses that qualify as ‘public accommodation’ provide services > > Finally, what about the [New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act](http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html)? I don’t see two ways to interpret it- one defines public accommodations and the other identifies the bases on which public accommodations may not discriminate. And yes, it does mean that attorneys can’t refuse to take a case because of the potential client’s race, religion, gender, gender identity sexual orientation, etc. They are of course, free to refuse to take a case because it’s a loser, because they are too busy, because the potential client is a pain in the ass or for any other reason that is not an illegal one. And about the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act > [@](#): > > A government agency shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless: > > A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and > > B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. It’s definitely a rule of general applicability , and it seems the court has decided it doesn’t _directly_ discriminate against religion or among religions and also that it’s “essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/94 "2012-06-11T23:37:46Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But you’d have to prove they were being discriminated against based on sexual orientation and not the act itself (and ssm isn’t done in NM, anyway). The state of NM is getting awfully circular if it say that private businesses have to do what the state won’t. > > So you can interpret it in two ways: > > 1. Public accommodation = services (which is a real floodgate, imo - does this mean that attorneys in NM have to take up all cases now?) > 2. Businesses that qualify as ‘public accommodation’ provide services > > Finally, what about the [New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act](http://www.essexuu.org/nmstat28-22.html)? red herring, photographers aren’t required to take all clients, they just can’t say “no I won’t do this because you are (black|female|gay|under 5’2”)" ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/95 "2012-06-11T23:41:56Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I think there’s a difference between people who are against ssm legally and people who just belong to a religion that does not recognize it. There are plenty of rabbis in my religion who don’t object to the laws that do allow ssm but won’t perform those ceremonies. I really resent you calling them ‘dick-holes’. Too many people fought my rights as a Jew- to live where I want, no quotas to get in college, get jobs etc for me not to fight for SSM rights. I would never join a shul whose Rabbi wouldn’t perform SSM marriages, especially if they don’t object in principle. It is a dick move and they should be ashamed of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/96 "2012-06-11T23:43:59Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I don’t see two ways to interpret it- one defines public accommodations and the other identifies the bases on which public accommodations may not discriminate. Perhaps I’m reading it wrong. (: > [@](#): > > And yes, it does mean that attorneys can’t refuse to take a case because of the potential client’s race, religion, gender, gender identity sexual orientation, etc. They are of course, free to refuse to take a case because it’s a loser, because they are too busy, because the potential client is a pain in the ass or for any other reason that is not an illegal one. So if if the photographer didn’t want to take pictures of, say, a Romney event, they’d also be in violation of this law? (Re: political ideology) How is taking a picture not considered ‘speech’? Shouldn’t the nature of the business be protected under the First Amendment because it is speech? > [@](#): > > And about the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act > > It’s definitely a rule of general applicability , and it seems the court has decided it doesn’t _directly_ discriminate against religion or among religions and also that it’s **“essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”** If the compelling governmental interest is to include same sex marriages in one’s photography resume, why won’t the government allow same sex marriages? Not convinced it is the ‘least restrictive’, because it’s not only a matter of religious rights but also political rights. And speech. It’s not about what’s morally right here (to me), it’s about the law. And I feel that all artists, photographers, writers, etc. here on the Dope would feel their expressions are protected under free speech. Photography is an art form, not a place to hang your hat. This is the same Constitution that allows the KKK to have marches. The photographer’s liberty may have been violated. I have issue with a government telling artists what their message is supposed to be. I guess we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/97 "2012-06-11T23:45:10Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But you’d have to prove they were being discriminated against based on sexual orientation and not the act itself (and ssm isn’t done in NM, anyway). The state of NM is getting awfully circular if it say that private businesses have to do what the state won’t. I have no particular opinion regarding the way that the court case will be resolved or even the way the court case should be resolved. I do object to the way that the OP continuously confuses issues and claims martyrdom. = = = In terms of your claim that they were not discriminating against the person, but the act, I would be interested in how you separate those. Would Elane Photography be amenable to providing services to an unmarried hetero couple who chose to engage in a commitment ceremony? I don’t know. Have they ever asked to see a marriage license for a couple celebrating an anniversary to be sure that the couple was not living under common law marriage? With the really sketchy information provided, so far, it is difficult to tell that they were motivated by the act and not the relationship. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/98 "2012-06-11T23:49:00Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And yes, it does mean that attorneys can’t refuse to take a case because of the potential client’s race, religion, gender, gender identity sexual orientation, etc. They are of course, free to refuse to take a case because it’s a loser, because they are too busy, because the potential client is a pain in the ass or for any other reason that is not an illegal one. > > So if if the photographer didn’t want to take pictures of, say, a Romney event, they’d also be in violation of this law? (Re: political ideology) Where do you see political ideology mentioned in the list of protected classes? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/99 "2012-06-11T23:49:40Z")
And another thing: if a Christian business was operating outside the scope of Christian law, wouldn’t that alienate the kinds of customers it was trying to attract? Let’s say Elane Photography advertised in the church’s bulletin and directory. Don’t you think that would harm her marketing efforts to her target base there? People have the right to _not_ speak. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/100 "2012-06-11T23:57:08Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > "The ADF, a Christian legal alliance group, believes the court’s verdict in this case sends a clear message that: “you will be punished if you don’t fully endorse or promote the homosexual agenda, whether you agree with it or not.” > Do you disagree with this statement? If so, please demonstrate why. The ADF does not speak for all, or IMO even most, Christians. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=6)