# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/121 "2012-06-12T01:32:03Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Pure malice? It’s pure malice for force someone to personally witness an act that is morally offensive to someone’s sacred beliefs. There’s no such thing as a “sacred belief”. There are just beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/122 "2012-06-12T01:35:50Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > According to the Bible, the Holy Word of God is named Jesus (cf. John 1:1-14). And if you plan on quoting Romans 1:26-27 to condemn gay people, you might tale a gppd look at Romans 2:1-3. Christians are saved by **grace** , the unearned gift of God, and told to follow Christ’s commandments. Your performance here, **GEEPERS** , makes me wonder if you sincerely intend to keep them. You can’t just take a single scripture out of context and ignore the rest of the Bible. Romans 1:26 certainly does not forbid Christians to speak out against sin. It talks about a Christian commiting a sin while judging other people for commiting the same sin. I am not actively commiting homosexual sin so I can certainly speak out the truth. You also have to consider other verses that speak favorly about judging. Jesus even commended Simon for judging in Luke 7:43 and promotes judging in John 7:24. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/123 "2012-06-12T01:36:55Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Pure malice? It’s pure malice for force someone to personally witness an act that is morally offensive to someone’s sacred beliefs. Would you like it if you were forced to take photographs of something that offended you greatly? So would you object to serving anyone who is actively a sinner? As I mentioned earlier, a couple who have been living together and having pre-marital sex. Or someone marrying for the second time. Which sins are not offensive to your sacred beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/124 "2012-06-12T01:49:06Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > So would you object to serving anyone who is actively a sinner? > As I mentioned earlier, a couple who have been living together and having pre-marital sex. Or someone marrying for the second time. > > Which sins are not offensive to your sacred beliefs? Would you object to photographing a registered child molestor smiling with a young child? Maybe not, but I imagine you wouldn’t like being forced to witness and accept something that you found extremely wrong. AS for your above examples, I would object if I was forced to photograph them having premartial sex right there in church. Likewise, I would object to having to photograph a kissing gay couple in church. It’s an abomination before God, a complete reversal of the natural union He designed. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/125 "2012-06-12T01:49:53Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I am not actively commiting homosexual sin Pretty sure being a bottom counts too, mate. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/126 "2012-06-12T01:57:44Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Would you object to photographing a registered child molestor smiling with a young child? Maybe not, but I imagine you wouldn’t like being forced to witness and accept something that you found extremely wrong. > > AS for your above examples, I would object if I was forced to photograph them having premartial sex right there in church. Likewise, I would object to having to photograph a kissing gay couple in church. It’s an abomination before God, a complete reversal of the natural union He designed. A registered child molester with a child is most certainly violating the law, a restraining order or a court order. Being gay is not illegal. A couple who are not married and having sex is, by my understanding, committing a sin. So is someone marrying for a second time. Why are those sins acceptable? A gay couple is not having sex in front of you. Do you also object to hetero couples kissing in your sight? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/127 "2012-06-12T02:08:46Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > You can’t just take a single scripture out of context and ignore the rest of the Bible. Funniest line in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/128 "2012-06-12T02:15:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Funniest line in the thread. Yeah, I guess that means we can’t just point him to Luke 6:37-42. Drat. Always with the loopholes ! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/129 "2012-06-12T02:18:50Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Pure malice? It’s pure malice for force someone to personally witness an act that is morally offensive to someone’s sacred beliefs. Would you like it if you were forced to take photographs of something that offended you greatly? Sorry. Taking offense is not the same thing as being complicit in a sin. Taking offense is generally letting one’s pride and prejudice rule one’s emotions. In the case in question, no one was being asked to record any sexual acts, in church or outside church. A commitment ceremony is merely an expression of love, irrespective of sex. Given that the bibe, (to the limited extent that it does), condemns homosexual actions, but not the expression of love between any two persons, your claim of malice and the “offense” on which it is based is nothing more than your own projection of malice and hatred on other people. I don’t recall any condemnation of the love between David and Jonathan or between Jesus and “the disciple whom he loved.” I am not claiming that either relationship included anything sexcual, so don’t get all riled up over things not said. I simply note that a ceremony in which two people commit themselves to care for and love each other is not, in and of itself, condemned by God and your haste to make disparaging remarks about it demonstrates a pretty serious breach of God’s commandments. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/130 "2012-06-12T02:19:35Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > And the slipper slope to lack of religious freedom continues. Now in NM, it is against the law for a Christian photographer to refuse services to a gay couple. Otherwise, it is discrimination. > > This is pretty outrageous. If I was a photographer, I should have the freedom to not produce photographs of something in which I had a moral objection. One good point that was made is that the government would never force an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy yet the same principle is applied here. > > "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.” > > [Christian Photographers to Appeal Decision Forcing Them to Cover Gay Marriages](http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-photographers-lawyers-to-appeal-decision-forcing-gay-marriage-services-76278/) > > This is merely just one step away from my prediction that churches will be forced to admit gay members and conduct gay wedding ceremonies. The better legal claim is to assert this is compelled speech and a violation of their 1st Amendment right of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Sudden\_Kestrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@Sudden\_Kestrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sudden_Kestrel)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/131 "2012-06-12T02:20:55Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > AS for your above examples, I would object if I was forced to photograph them having premartial sex right there in church. Now you’re against premartial sex, too? Does that mean you also oppose prenaval sex and paramilitary sex? Criminy, boy, you’re going to run out of options pretty soon. 😃 Seriously, I was going to read the whole thread and then I thought, “Oh crap, it’s just another **GEEPERS** anti-‘anti-Christian’ thread where he’ll say a lot of silly stuff about which people will offer interesting and informative discussion/debate, and then **GEEPERS** will studiously ignore salient points and/or questions directed at him and spout endless meaningless, useless, and baseless rhetoric that he dredges up from some website on the frayed, tattered edges of the known internet,” so what’s the point? Can’t we just make him post this crap in IMHO where it belongs, since he has no intention of carrying on an actual debate? Y’know, I think I _will_ go back and read the thread, because the topic is interesting, even if the OP presents it with what _I perceive to be_ an intent to spread fear rather than to debate. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/132 "2012-06-12T02:41:16Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > AS for your above examples, I would object if I was forced to photograph them having premartial sex right there in church. If we had civil rights laws that said that businesses couldn’t refuse to do business with couples having premarital sex in church, then you would be prohibited from discriminating. Seeing as how we don’t have that law, your point doesn’t matter. Our society has decided that it won’t tolerate discriminating against people for a certain set of reasons. Race and religion are some of them. In some places, they’ve added homosexuality to that list. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/133 "2012-06-12T02:52:47Z")
> [@Sudden\_Kestrel](#): > > Now you’re against premartial sex, too? Does that mean you also oppose prenaval sex and paramilitary sex? Criminy, boy, you’re going to run out of options pretty soon. 😃 Your ignorance of Christianity is most revealing. Try Hebrews 13:4 > [@Sudden\_Kestrel](#): > > Seriously, I was going to read the whole thread and then I thought, “Oh crap, it’s just another **GEEPERS** anti-‘anti-Christian’ thread where he’ll say a lot of silly stuff about which people will offer interesting and informative discussion/debate, and then **GEEPERS** will studiously ignore salient points and/or questions directed at him and spout endless meaningless, useless, and baseless rhetoric that he dredges up from some website on the frayed, tattered edges of the known internet,” so what’s the point? Can’t we just make him post this crap in IMHO where it belongs, since he has no intention of carrying on an actual debate? No seriously, in the real world, I offer solid arguments backed up with supporting evidence which are laughed off the stage by a hostile audience who would rather chew their tongues off than bow down and admit that gasp, a Christian is actually right about something. Even the posters who don’t feel completely comfortable joining the black rebellion still feel the need to distance themselves from my OP. I speak the truth, and if I was truly spouting nonsense, these threads would be ignored and die early deaths instead of enraging the atheist hordes to attack me viciously and unfairly. I have no problem with your ilk calling my arguments stupid and incoherent. I do get annoyed if you refuse to demonstrate without backing support exactly why they are stupid and incoherent. Otherwise, it is nothing more than boasting arrogance. I welcome a civil and fair debate anytime. Unfortunately, I won’t get on this forum. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/134 "2012-06-12T02:54:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Public Accommodation under New Mexico Law states, "A “public accommodation” is “any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . to the public, but does not include a[n] . . . establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private.” Section 28-1-2(H). > > Willock points out, and we agree, that the expansive language of the current NMHRA “extends protection to ‘services’ and ‘goods’ as well as ‘facilities’ and accommodations,’ making [it] clear that [the NMHRA] reaches commercial activity beyond the nineteenth-century paradigm of an inn, restaurant, or public carrier.” It should be emphasized that the Legislature explicitly amended the wording of the statute to remove the narrow and specifically enumerated traditional places of public accommodation relied upon by Elane Photography. See NMSA 1953, § 49-8-5 (1955 Supp.). The Legislature replaced the narrowly identified places of public accommodation with the broad definition of “any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public.” Section 28-1-2(H). This broadly worded definition includes only one exception and that exception is inapplicable in this case. > > For example, in Roberts, 468 U.S. at 612, 616, the United States Supreme Court addressed constitutional attacks on a Minnesota Supreme Court opinion holding that a non-profit membership organization whose bylaws limited membership to men was a public accommodation. The United States Supreme Court noted that “Minnesota has adopted a functional definition of public accommodations that reaches various forms of public, quasi-commercial conduct.” Id. at 625. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]his expansive definition reflects a recognition of the changing nature of the American economy.” Id. at 626. The United States Supreme Court also emphasized that the “fundamental object [of civil rights] was to vindicate the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies [the] denial of equal access to public establishments.” Id. at 625 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). > > [\*16] The Superior Court of New Jersey supported a similarly expansive definition of a public accommodation, concluding “that the hallmark of a place of public accommodation [is] that ‘the public at large is invited[.]’” Nat’l Org. for Women v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 127 N.J. Super. 522, 318 A.2d 33, 37 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974). The Superior Court also noted that “we are warranted in placing considerable weight on the construction of the statute by the administrative agency charged by the statute with the responsibility of making it work.” Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). > > [\*17] Elane Photography argues that these expanded definitions of public accommodations fail to take into account or distinguish the unique artistic nature of certain services, such as those offered by Elane Photography. However, Elane Photography avoids addressing the critical factor that a photography business does offer its goods or services to the general public as part of modern commercial activity. In response, Willock specifically emphasizes the numerous jurisdictions that have adopted a broad definition of “public accommodation” and have included businesses “providing services to the general public,” and have not recognized a special exception for nonessential, artistic or discretionary businesses. See, e.g., N. Coast Women’s Care Med. Grp., Inc. v. San Diego Cnty. Super. Ct., 44 Cal. 4th 1145, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708, 189 P.3d 959, 965 (Cal. 2008) (physician group); Matter of U.S. Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 N.Y.2d 401, 452 N.E.2d 1199, 1203, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. 1983) (boating safety courses and membership); D’Amico, 652 N.Y.S.2d at 296 (commodities exchange trading floor); In re Johnson, 71 Wn.2d 245, 427 P.2d 968, 973 (Wash. 1967) (barber shop); Crawford v. Kent, 341 Mass. 125, 167 N.E.2d 620, 621 (Mass. 1960) (en banc) (private dance school). Jurisdictions that have recognized broader definitions for public accommodations acknowledge the changing landscape of modern commerce and that the definition of a public accommodation has been expanded over the years. See Roberts, 468 U.S. at 626. > > [\*18] Today, services, facilities, and accommodations are available to the general public through a variety of resources. Elane Photography takes advantage of these available resources to market to the public at large and invite them to solicit services offered by its photography business. As an example, Elane Photography advertises on multiple internet pages, through its website, and in the Yellow Pages. It does not participate in selective advertising, such as telephone solicitation, nor does it in any way seek to target a select group of people for its internet advertisements. Rather, Elane Photography advertises its services to the public at large, and anyone who wants to access Elane Photography’s website may do so. We conclude that Elane Photography is a public business and commercial enterprise. The NMHRA was meant to reflect modern commercial life and expand protection from discrimination to include most establishments that typically operate a business in public commerce. As a result, Elane Photography constitutes a public accommodation under the NMHRA definition and cannot discriminate against any class protected by the NMHRA. [http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf](http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/135 "2012-06-12T02:56:30Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Your ignorance of Christianity is most revealing. Try Hebrews 13:4 Woosh. > [@](#): > > I welcome a civil and fair debate anytime. Unfortunately, I won’t get one of this forum. And yet, like bad seafood, you keep coming back. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/136 "2012-06-12T03:06:26Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Your ignorance of Christianity is most revealing. Try Hebrews 13:4 > > No seriously, in the real world, I offer solid arguments backed up with supporting evidence which are laughed off the stage by a hostile audience who would rather chew their tongues off than bow down and admit that gasp, a Christian is actually right about something. Even the posters who don’t feel completely comfortable joining the black rebellion still feel the need to distance themselves from my OP. I speak the truth, and if I was truly spouting nonsense, these threads would be ignored and die early deaths instead of enraging the atheist hordes to attack me viciously and unfairly. > > I have no problem with your ilk calling my arguments stupid and incoherent. I do get annoyed if you refuse to demonstrate without backing support exactly why they are stupid and incoherent. Otherwise, it is nothing more than boasting arrogance. > I welcome a civil and fair debate anytime. Unfortunately, I won’t get on this forum. A problem with your argument, at least legally, is this law does not violate her religious freedom. Justice Scalia eviscerated this notion of a religious freedom exemption under the 1st Amendment for neutral laws of general applicability. _Employment Division v. Smith_, 494 U.S. 872 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC\_CR\_0494\_0872\_ZS.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZS.html) The better legal argument is a 1st Amendment compelled speech argument. The 1st Amendment Free Exercise of Religion argument is essentially negated by Employment Division v. Smith. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/137 "2012-06-12T03:08:46Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > No seriously, in the real world, I offer solid arguments backed up with supporting evidence which are laughed off the stage by a hostile audience who would rather chew their tongues off than bow down and admit that gasp, a Christian is actually right about something. This is the last time I will give a reminder about this. From here on it’s formal warnings (for you or anyone else). Stick to the topic instead of complaining about atheists or religious believers. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/138 "2012-06-12T03:12:36Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > The better legal argument is a 1st Amendment compelled speech argument. But (coming back to my earlier discussion w/ **Farmer Jane** ) would taking pictures be considered a form of speech, legally speaking ? Not exposing them or displaying them, but simply snapping the shots ? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/139 "2012-06-12T03:30:24Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But (coming back to my earlier discussion w/ **Farmer Jane** ) would taking pictures be considered a form of speech, legally speaking ? Not exposing them or displaying them, but simply snapping the shots ? But she isn’t “simply snapping the shots.” She is exercising the same editorial control and discretion as a newspaper or publisher. She is staging the scenes, choosing the lighting, the angles, the arrangement of people and objects in the pictures, each done to celebrate, recognize, and memorialize the event and occasion, which constitutes as artistic expression. After all, photography is protected by copyright because of the creation of expression in photography such as wedding pictures. Yes, a photographer of a photography company taking wedding pictures at a wedding constitutes as speech, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/140 "2012-06-12T03:33:01Z")
I suppose that’s a fair point. Thanks for elucidating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=8)