There’s no such thing as a “sacred belief”. There are just beliefs.
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.
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.
Pretty sure being a bottom counts too, mate.
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?
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 !
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.
The better legal claim is to assert this is compelled speech and a violation of their 1st Amendment right of free speech.
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.
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.
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.
Woosh.
And yet, like bad seafood, you keep coming back.
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
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.
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.
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.
I suppose that’s a fair point. Thanks for elucidating.