It is, actually. You still haven’t posted a consistent and convincing reason it’s different.
See, that’s the thing about the OP. I don’t think he’s really interested in actual debate about the topics he brings up. I believe he’s really interested in something else.
Jesus said you guys* would be persecuted for following him. The OP isn’t getting enough persecution for his beliefs IRL, so he comes here, posts in a hostile and arrogant manner (all for the purpose of saving souls, of course), correctly expecting hostility in return. Then when he gets it, he can say “See, I’m being persecuted for following Jesus”. Never realizing, of course, that it’s his hostility he’s getting reamed for, not his beliefs. The rest of you guys never get that shit.
All I can say to that is “Nice example of a ‘True Christian’! Way to save those souls, dude. I’m sure Satan appreciates your efforts.”
*(I believe you’ve said you are Christian, and with that user name it’s an obvious assumption)
GEEPERS: It does not matter if your particular sect of Christianity does not like a particular class of people and thinks that it is acceptable to discriminate against that class. The law trumps your sect’s discrimination practices. The law says that a public business cannot discriminate against clients because of the fact they are in a protected class. If they want to break the law, that is up to them to do so, and then face the consequences.
So to sum up: No, Christians cannot be forced to photograph gay weddings. However, businesses who service the general public cannot discriminate against someone just because they are gay, even if their religious sect, or their individual interpretation of scripture tells them to. It is against the law to do so.
Your personal religious interpretation does not render the law incorrect.
It’s not a matter of ignoring it. It’s a matter of trying to interpret what exactly Paul meant in the context of his letter to the Romans during that 1st century.
You, apparently have a different interpretation than I do. I feel convicted that my interpretation has been guided by the Holy Spirit. You may feel the same way.
I didnt assign the definition. Urban Dictionary did.
Im laughing at you, not with you
GEEPERS, your only argument here seems to be that you feel that the law should be changed so that sexual orientation is no longer a protected class.
You seem to feel that they should not be a protected class because they are sinners.
You base this on your personal interpretation of Christian scripture, an interpretation that is not shared by all Christians, and is not shared by others in the country from other faiths.
Essentially, you feel that the laws should be changed, against the will of the people, so that you would be free to discriminate against gay people because your own interpretation of Christianity tells you that this would be OK to do so.
It’s really closer to hiring a PETA activist to shoot an event that turns out to be a retirement party for a local taxidermist, and then expected him to show up and take the pictures.
Please drop this tedious hijack or take it to the Pit.
Sorry.
OP, you live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Want to do a job? Be prepared to do it without prejudice according to society’s laws. Don’t expect your bigoted religious views to trump democracy.
You perceive human rights legislation as an attack on your religion, rather than a mechanism to balance the various individual and societal needs and beliefs. In that your brand of religion is bigoted, I have no problem at all with you feeling persecuted (although in fact you are not persecuted at all, as has been explained repeatedly up-thread), for the solution is for you to change your prejudiced attitude, rather than for discrimination to continue.
Religions over the millenia and throughout the world have been used to promote horrid things. Fortunately, people in first world nations have recognized this, and attempted to put checks in place: witness your own constitution, and more recently, the promotion of human rights legislation. Your choice of religion is in confilict with these advances. It is time that you now step back from your hatred, and recognize that your personal religious beliefs concerning are truly vile.
It is your conclusion. Your judgment of him. He hasnt been judged yet.
I do believe I have to right to know that a sex offender lives in my neighborhood. Paying ones debt for a crime doesnt mean they wont commit them again. What one does with the information is the key
Yes it is. No matter how much you insist it isnt, it is.
Simple solution. Dont make the business available to general public. Many Christian organizations list Christian service’s. Problem solved. This is a case of not knowing the laws of Caesar. There is an out. They can use it.
Ironic. You continue to ignore the scripture, that points to your behavior being not withing Biblical standards, and you continue to defend that behavior and call me arrogant for not agreeing.
Was was that about a tree in your eye?
Really?!? You wouldn’t discriminate against a registered sex offender if you were looking for a babysitter? I have no idea what led to this little sub-hijack, but we all discriminate all the time. It’s just that society has decided that certain forms of discrimination are so vile, that we’ve made it against the law. Christian business owners refusing service to someone because he’s gay is a vile kind of discrimination, and several places have made that illegal.
How do you figure that racial discrimination is not the same sense as sexual orientation discrimination? It seems the same to me, and to the legislators of New Mexico.
Your saying this about gays is completely equivalent to another person saying “Christians are being forced to accept and witness immoral acts (photographing interracial couples kissing for example) or be punished. You don’t think that is wrong?”.
No, I don’t think that’s wrong.
I think I get this, and it’s at the core of GEEPERS issue with all this.
Item 1- Being gay is a sin.
Item 2- Sinning is bad, and forbidden by whatever church he attends.
Item 3- Being gay is a ***CHOICE ***, ergo…
Item 4- Being gay should not be a protected class, and thus should be able to be treated like the sinners that they are.
Anything else is handwaving, and nothing one can say will convince him of the wrongness of this position.
GEEPERS, is that about right?
I’d bet he or she doesn’t care if it’s a choice or not. If the Bible said being black was wrong, then making racial discrimination against the law soul be an "attack“ on his or her religion.
I suppose we could tease out an answer to this by having a look at NC’s standards for what constitutes a public accommodation, AND whether NC places gender/sexual orientation into a suspect class for the purposes of protected rights.
OTOH, it might be quicker if you find someone who wants to marry you, book Rev. Worley and his facility for the wedding, and offer the gig to the first gay wedding photographer you can find.
Report back to us with what you learn.
I think I agree on just about every point. Photographers who refuse to service this sector of the business on the grounds of their personal opinions are dumb and wrong, and maybe they’re helping to maintain a stronghold of ignorance and personal intolerance, but by not wanting to take photographs, are they really infringing anyone’s fundamental rights?
If it’s art, I don’t think it’s right to impose upon its content - kinda better if they can openly express their prejudice, and try to educate the hopeful majority of openminded customers to vote with their cash.
And you haven’t posted any good counter-argument with supporting evidence demonstrating exactly why I am wrong. I posted a clear distinction between homosexuality as a lifestyle choice vs other forms of discrimination where a person does not have such a choice. Now this did birth the genetic homosexuality discussion which unfortunately got buried under countless replies. Maybe I’ll get back to it someday.
Of course not. Being a loud-mouthed jerk is not a protected class. As a business owner, you are well within your rights to turn away someone that is just obnoxious, no matter if that person is also a member of a protected class, as long as you can reasonably prove that you turned them away just because of their obnoxiousness.
There is no objective difference - someone who had a firm religious conviction that interracial relationships were sinful, they’d feel the same way as you do about being forced to watch a black man kissing a white woman - and there is no special objective reason why they would be any more or less right than you.
It’s certainly not comparable to the civil rights era where blacks did not have a choice. This gay couple could have easily went to another photographer, but they decided to raise a big stink about it, most likely costing taxpayers a good deal of coin.
The Christian photographer is not even saying to the gay couple that your lifestyle does not meet our standards of approval. They are merely saying that they are uncomfortable photographing a gay couple. I wouldn’t be either especially if it was in a church.