Should Christians Be Forced to Photograph Gay Weddings?

[monavis]

@GEEPERS

It doesn’t matter if the government is forcing animal rights activists to create videos or not. It is a hypoethical, and you can be darn sure they would be furious if the government forced them to do so. But The hunting community is being discriminated against!! Homosexuals have essentially defined themselves as a race or class of citizens. So basically, anyone can make up their own class and fly the discrimination flag. Is that really the route you want to support? WOW.

Funny the argument last week was that Christian organizations have the right to excluse members as long as it is not part of government or a college. Now, the goal posts are shifted. Atheists (generally speaking) will always be against Christians.

To generalize and state that All Atheists are against Christians is not true. I know a lot of Atheists, and they are not AGAINST Christian’s, they just want them to keep Church and State separate. That protects all people of all faiths or non.I wonder if the Christians who worry about losing their faith really have Faith; if they did, no one could take their faith from them. No one is stopped from practicing their faith,just not making others to follow things that they believe in. The wisdom of our founding fathers.

Imagine living in a country that was 80% Muslim etc. Our Founding fathers experienced the churches running the state or vice-versa.Hence they decided the Church must be protected from the State and the State from any certain religion.Should any religion be in the Majority, it protects the minority!

[monavis]

@Marley23

No. We are not doing this again. You will confine your comments to the topic at hand and to related issues and refrain from these kinds of irrelevant broadsides. And everybody else will refrain from responding to them or making them.

Sorry I responded before I read this delete if you wish.

[dngnb8]

@ITR_champion

I agree, and I’d also point out that the tax code is something like nine million words long. Nine million words all dedicated to telling us that some groups will pay more taxes and others will pay less. I’m sure that anyone could look in there and find a basis for countless claims of discrimination if they wanted to. For starters, the rich pay the highest tax rates, but no one outside of Ayn Rand followers thinks the rich need special protection.

The real point I’m trying to make here is just that the premise that gays are an oppressed group needing special protection seems shaky to me. Sudden Kestrel has mentioned “the emotional toll of discrimination” as the basis for those protections. I’m personally not aware of any common theory of governance that views avoidance of emotional pain as a reason for the government to step in and regulate private sector business. There’s a possibility for emotional pain whenever people interact, and the government can’t manage it out of existence.

So youre saying that taxing someone more because of who they have sex with is okay? Yes, that is what is happening. Youre comparison is apples and oranges. Taxes based on earning versus based on who you have sex with are not equal. It would be like taxing a black person more because his skin is black, or taxing a woman more because she doesnt have testicles.

Bad comparison is bad.

[Marley23]

@monavis

Sorry I responded before I read this delete if you wish.

Since GEEPERS was banned about a week ago, I’m not going to worry about it. But either way I wouldn’t delete the post. We pretty much only do that for spam.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@monavis

To generalize and state that All Atheists are against Christians is not true. I know a lot of Atheists, and they are not AGAINST Christian’s, they just want them to keep Church and State separate. That protects all people of all faiths or non.I wonder if the Christians who worry about losing their faith really have Faith; if they did, no one could take their faith from them. No one is stopped from practicing their faith,just not making others to follow things that they believe in. The wisdom of our founding fathers.

Imagine living in a country that was 80% Muslim etc. Our Founding fathers experienced the churches running the state or vice-versa.Hence they decided the Church must be protected from the State and the State from any certain religion.Should any religion be in the Majority, it protects the minority!

The (US) Founding Fathers didn’t want a national established church, but had no problem with satate established one.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by** ITR champion**
The real point I’m trying to make here is just that the premise that gays are an oppressed group needing special protection seems shaky to me.

If you have any interest in a different perspective I suggest the film. “The Bible tells Me So”

It’s handled quite well, and deals with some real life families coming to grips with a gay child. What it made more clear to me is that religious indoctrination about gays being sick, perverted, a sin against God, etc etc. has caused a lot of pain and damage to innocent people. The only reason protected classes came about was because the courts were not enforcing existing laws equally.

Gays certainly have been and are still, an oppressed group. Things are better because people are pushing the issue and making the facts known.

[cosmosdan]

@Aji_de_Gallina

The (US) Founding Fathers didn’t want a national established church, but had no problem with satate established one.

I think that’s pretty debateable. but regardless of your thoery about the founding fathers, sates cannot create a state religion.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@cosmosdan

If you have any interest in a different perspective I suggest the film. “The Bible tells Me So”

It’s handled quite well, and deals with some real life families coming to grips with a gay child. What it made more clear to me is that religious indoctrination about gays being sick, perverted, a sin against God, etc etc. has caused a lot of pain and damage to innocent people. The only reason protected classes came about was because the courts were not enforcing existing laws equally.

Gays certainly have been and are still, an oppressed group. Things are better because people are pushing the issue and making the facts known.

Just saw that a couple of weeks ago. Made me tear up.

Protected classes came about because laws were not enacted to apply equally, though, not because courts did not apply them equally.

[cosmosdan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Just saw that a couple of weeks ago. Made me tear up.

Protected classes came about because laws were not enacted to apply equally, though, not because courts did not apply them equally.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.
AS an example, assault is agasint the law, but courts can enforce it very differently.

It was especially obvious with our black citizens in the south a few decades ago, but also with our gay citizens.

[tomndebb]

@cosmosdan

I think that’s pretty debateable. but regardless of your thoery about the founding fathers, sates cannot create a state religion.

His point was that while that is certainly true, today–and has been since the enlarged interpretations of the 14th Amendment–at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, several states had relationships with various churches that amounted to an establishment of religion at the state level and several states explicitly established religions; they also had various restrictive rules that were punitive of various religions. The religious test that is prohibited by Article 6 of the Constitution was not initially thought to apply to the states and numerous states have Constitutions that still apply a religious test to various offices such as governor. (Whether they can still apply those tests, today, is a separate issue.) The last state to formally dis-establish a religion was Massachusetts in the 1830s.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’m not sure what you mean by that.
AS an example, assault is agasint the law, but courts can enforce it very differently.

It was especially obvious with our black citizens in the south a few decades ago, but also with our gay citizens.

Yes, but that’s not how protected classes work. Suspect classifications are generally used to analyze the legitimacy of government enactments, not individual actions. You can’t get your conviction overturned just because people of your race are more likely to be convicted of your particular charge.

[BigT]

First off, there is one thing being debated here that can’t be debated. There is a factual difference between “I don’t photograph gay people” and “I don’t photograph gay weddings.” The first is clearly illegal. The second is not, as it can be argued as a speach issue.

By taking a picture of something, with your business’s seal on it, you are implying that you support what you took a picture of. I’m sure we’d all agree that I shouldn’t have to take a picture of, say, a banner saying “Jesus hates fags” because I do general photography. Yet that statement could very well be part of that person’s religion, and thus, by your arguments, should mean that refusing to take the picture would be discriminating against my client, since I’m refusing one of his actions.

There have to be limits on this sort of thing, and what we are arguing here is where the limits are. At what point does it become discrimination. It is a perfectly rational position that refusing gay wedding ceremonies does not cross that line, but refusing all gay people does. Don’t assert as “fact” that they must be the same thing.

Note, this is not the case in any non-representational art. A sandwich maker’s sandwich doesn’t contain any speech about what it is being made for. There’s no problem with a speech element here. Photographs are unique in that the service what was happening in the moment, and lasts forever. These photographs can be spread amongst the general public, and seem to have the backing of the person who took them. (All professional photos I’ve seen have logos on the back.)

I personally found I intrinsically have a problem with forcing a photographer to take pictures of a situation they don’t want to be in. The photographer is practically participating in the event. It doesn’t bug me for pretty much anything else, but it does with photography, and I’m pretty sure it’s the freedom of speech issue.

Oh, and I believe that ITR’s position is that the Civil Rights Act was okay at the time because there was a large need to fix a systemic problem, but that the problem has been fixed, and thus the act is no longer necessary. His government philosophy is that it can only intervene in cases of emergency, Not one I agree with, but I think it’s disengenuous to pretend that his argument is that he wants discrimination. He just hates government, and only tolerates it when necessary.

[CurtC]

@BigT

First off, there is one thing being debated here that can’t be debated. There is a factual difference between “I don’t photograph gay people” and “I don’t photograph gay weddings.” The first is clearly illegal. The second is not, as it can be argued as a speach issue.

Hmm, let’s see…

“I don’t photograph black people.”

and

“I don’t photograph black weddings.”
Nope, not seeing the difference.

[Noone_Special]

@BigT

By taking a picture of something, with your business’s seal on it, you are implying that you support what you took a picture of.

I take it that you have never seen any news footage/photos of various natural and man-made calamities, then?
Some which win various prizes, even!!

In other words… WTF?!

(bolding obviously mine)

[mister_nyx]

@BigT

First off, there is one thing being debated here that can’t be debated. There is a factual difference between “I don’t photograph gay people” and “I don’t photograph gay weddings.” The first is clearly illegal. The second is not, as it can be argued as a speach issue.

By taking a picture of something, with your business’s seal on it, you are implying that you support what you took a picture of. I’m sure we’d all agree that I shouldn’t have to take a picture of, say, a banner saying “Jesus hates fags” because I do general photography. Yet that statement could very well be part of that person’s religion, and thus, by your arguments, should mean that refusing to take the picture would be discriminating against my client, since I’m refusing one of his actions.

There have to be limits on this sort of thing, and what we are arguing here is where the limits are. At what point does it become discrimination. It is a perfectly rational position that refusing gay wedding ceremonies does not cross that line, but refusing all gay people does. Don’t assert as “fact” that they must be the same thing.

Note, this is not the case in any non-representational art. A sandwich maker’s sandwich doesn’t contain any speech about what it is being made for. There’s no problem with a speech element here. Photographs are unique in that the service what was happening in the moment, and lasts forever. These photographs can be spread amongst the general public, and seem to have the backing of the person who took them. (All professional photos I’ve seen have logos on the back.)

I personally found I intrinsically have a problem with forcing a photographer to take pictures of a situation they don’t want to be in. The photographer is practically participating in the event. It doesn’t bug me for pretty much anything else, but it does with photography, and I’m pretty sure it’s the freedom of speech issue.

Oh, and I believe that ITR’s position is that the Civil Rights Act was okay at the time because there was a large need to fix a systemic problem, but that the problem has been fixed, and thus the act is no longer necessary. His government philosophy is that it can only intervene in cases of emergency, Not one I agree with, but I think it’s disengenuous to pretend that his argument is that he wants discrimination. He just hates government, and only tolerates it when necessary.

It was very, very helpful of you to revive this dead thread with your well-reasoned and well-cited opinion about the legal aspects of the issue. I think everyone’s glad to hear your insightful and unique ideas on the issue.

Please don’t let anyone stop you from continuing to share your ideas about sandwich artistry. The world needs to hear them.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Noone_Special

I take it that you have never seen any news footage/photos of various natural and man-made calamities, then?
Some which win various prizes, even!!

The World Press Club endorses hurricanes! :eek:

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@mister_nyx

Please don’t let anyone stop you from continuing to share your ideas about sandwich artistry. The world needs to hear them.

I want to submit to sincerest thanks to you for posting that. The world needs to hear your ideas about BigT’s posts and his manner of constructing them, and I hope you won’t let anyone stop you from continuing to share your ideas thereof.

[Bone]

The photography company lost at the State Supreme Court.(opinion PDF)

[FriarTed]

@Bone

The photography company lost at the State Supreme Court.(opinion PDF)

That’s why the appeals process exists. Hopefully a higher court will vote for religious freedom.

[Napier]

I’m glad the SSC is not allowing discrimination against gay people using Christianity as a shield.

Thank you, Bone, for updating this thread!