Nego majore.
Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” and your repeating that claim over and over does not change the fact that you are wrong. No one “chooses” to be homosexual.
Since your major premise is wrong, your conclusion is either wrong or irrelevant, (take your pick), but you have failed to make a case.
Having run into a similar semantic issue elsewhere, let me raise the possibility that GEEPERS is using “homosexuality” to mean “choosing to engage in gay sex acts,” rather than “having an unchosen orientation to find some persons of the same sex attractive as romantic or sexual partners.” I have seen this dichotomy of meaning throw many conversations way off track.
Actually, he’s stated that it’s a lifestyle choice. Period. He hath spoken.
Yes sir, sorry about that, missed the mod note.
What about that first statement is not true? You do have a choice to perform a crime. I assume you choose not to. Millions of people choose to do otherwise every week. Some of them get caught, and some of those pay the consequences as determined by our legal system. Whether the crime is a parking ticket, mass murder or refusing service based on sexual orientation, the concept is the same. It’s part of living in a free society. Don’t tell me you’re against freedom!
This is almost as funny as the “single bible verse” line, especially to those of my ilk. And yes, I know that is not overtly the main topic of the thread, but I do believe it forms the basis of your inability to understand why this case does not represent escalating oppression of Christians by unbelievers.
I get your point. I share your belief that being ignorant and bigoted is not against the law and people who broadcast these views should not be jailed or drawn and quartered. I was totally enraged when Marge Schott was banned from managing the Cincinnati Reds due to her racist public statements. It would have been more just and way more fun to see her forced into bankruptcy by the very players she looked down upon. However, the business in this case breached the laws governing businesses of its type in the state where it did business, so it should be forced to pay the penalty for that breach. I don’t get the “artistic work” exemption that’s been bandied about. They weren’t taking these photos to be hung in a gallery or a museum, and they weren’t snapping shots for the National Geographic. They were advertising a business service to the general public, which should always be assumed to include at least a few people from the GLBT community, even in New Mexico.
I don’t think a hairdressing salon that targets its services exclusively to ladies should be legally obliged to accept male customers - or that a tailor of men’s suits should be legally obliged to also make dresses for women, regardless whether their reasons for doing so are logistic, economic, or driven by seething bigotry.
I’m in two minds whether wedding photography services are really anything like the above scenarios, however, or if it really is more akin to segregated seating by race on buses.
Is either company running a private club? Then they have to accept male and female customers. The salon can tell the man that they don’t have much experience in cutting hair in a male style. The tailor can say he only sells suits, not dresses. But they can’t refuse to serve them simply because they don’t want to serve a particular sex. If the man wants his hair cut in a woman’s style, and the woman wants a men’s style suit, why should the business owners be allowed to refuse them service?
There is nothing about photographing a same sex ceremony that is technically different from photographing an opposite sex ceremony. The issue isn’t that they can’t, it’s that they don’t want to, and that’s not a good enough reason.
There are now 2 people asking you the same essential question here. I respectfully ask that you address this issue.
Not sure if anyone cares, but look at this Vermont case. It was in the npr story I posted.
Now, that was 10 years ago, so I guess times they are a-changin’.
I wouldn’t be surprised if clergy would be asked to do this (or asked to stop charging). A couple years ago, I would’ve said no way. But some officiants do this as their job. They are providing a public service.
There are other reasons why someone in the marriage industry may want to be discriminatory. Like if I didn’t agree with that 15 year old marrying that creepy old actor guy, maybe I wouldn’t want to do the cake for their wedding. But am I discriminating because of age?
Well, in the example given, it’s that they’re being expected (obliged?) to provide a variety of service that isn’t in the catalogue.
That’s not quite the same thing as my example (although it is in fact more closely analogous to the photography question).
[/quote]
There is nothing about photographing a same sex ceremony that is technically different from photographing an opposite sex ceremony. The issue isn’t that they can’t, it’s that they don’t want to, and that’s not a good enough reason.
[/QUOTE]
There’s notthing about selling oranges that is technically different from selling apples, but should a store specialising in apples (and only apples) be expected to accommodate a customer asking for oranges?
I’m not quite sure where the line belongs here. Should someone specialising in nature photography be obliged to photograph a sports event? (let’s assume he’s got the skill and equipment, but just doesn’t want to)
Actually, some do. Some are born gay. That beings said, whether it is a choice or not isnt the issue.
I think that is getting close to a debate on what is meant by “choice.” But, as is said, legally it makes no difference if the person is born into, joins of their own free will, or is forced into by life circumstances a given protected class of personhood.
The membership in that protected class cannot be used as a reason to refuse them service, and anyone who does do so must be willing to accept the legal consequences.
The catalogue. I like it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Elane Photography also didn’t do racy photos. She didn’t say, “I don’t film gay people,” she said, “As a policy, we don’t film non traditional ceremonies.”
Im not disputing that. But people are trying to “classify” homosexuality with a single distinct qualifier. Im just correcting that interpretation. There are some who chose to participate in homosexual activity, and then, there are homosexuals who are born homosexual (my best friend is in this category)
I don’t really feel comfortable on either side of this question, to be honest. Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc is not right, but it also doesn’t seem right for the government to be dictating the range of products a business must offer; "We don’t film non-traditional ceremonies’ also, excludes furries, clowns, underwater weddings, naked weddings in a forest, etc (which, OK, are not protected groups).
The store isn’t selling a service called “selling apples”. They’re selling a product, apples. If they did sell that service, (let’s say as a middleman) then refusing to sell oranges would be rather curious, especially if the government considered refusing to service oranges an important enough problem to specifically protect oranges from being refused service over their orangeness.
Of course not. The line is drawn when the business refuses to accept someone as a customer due to their inclusion in a protected class. When you accept someone as a customer, you are willing to engage in a mutually agreeable transaction, that transaction may never happen. The point is, if the transaction doesn’t happen, it can be because of any factor you want to name besides being part of a protected class.
The issue is not what they choose to do, but who they choose to do it for. If they’d do it if you’re straight, but not if you’re gay, the status of the client is the issue, not the event.
Not necessarily. You don’t know if they would’ve rejected a portrait of the woman because she was gay. Or if they would partake in a heterosexual commitment ceremony.
Again - ssm isn’t allowed under New Mexico law. They were asked to film a statement, not witness anything legal taking place. If these people are serious Christians, the likelihood is that they wouldn’t photograph a polygamous ceremony, either.
If the State of New Mexico doesn’t extend marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, then why should this person extend her photography services?
That seems to make sense… so… if the photographer says “We don’t provide services for any kind of non-traditional occasion”, that excludes a whole bunch of stuff, including clown weddings, dog weddings, and also, same-sex weddings. Is that permissible?
See my post #362 above. You’re defining the term by action, not by orientation. Whom I boink is obviously a choice; whom I consider boinkable is not.