LittleBoy:

No, they should have went to another photographer, told their friends about the first photographers and acted like adults... in other words, quit whining to the government because the infants couldn't have their petty little way.

They were dead wrong for taking it to court and the judge showed his incompetence by reinforcing their whining by taking the case at all.

This is why government officials feel empowered to treat us like children. Too many Americans insist on being treated like children.

The women had every right to have a photographer, but no one has the right to someone else's skills simply because they want them.

I was discriminated against by a double post! :~D

It is still open to subjective interpretation, though.  I'm not trying to be difficult.  My whole belief structure is based, first of all, on tolerance.  Anyone professing to have faith, of any sort, who then prove to be intolerant, only make themselves out to be hypocrits.

Wanting to be treated fairly is not acting like children. You make it sound like it's easy to find another photographer. If they can't find a photographer because every one decides to discriminate against gay/black/woman/jewish (and the past has showed us that's it's not hypothetical) then I think the government has the right to get involved.

I prefer the government to stay out the way, but discrimination and safety laws are among the things I think should be enforced. It would be nice to live in a world where everybody is nice to each other, but that's not the case. If someone is not respecting safety laws and your child is hurt because of it, you will sue them out of business. It's the same thing here, if you don't want to abide by the law, then don't start a business.

Not being available or the customer being difficult are perfectly good reasons to refuse to do business. But if your only excuse is that the customer is not the right color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, you're probably going to regret it.

If this was racist people refusing to do business with blacks (or worse, racist black people not wanting to do business with white people), I'm not sure people would have a problem with them being sued (it sure wouldn't make the news).

No, I don't mean it like you're taking it. You're leaving out the next sentence I put down.  I mean while I may not want to comply I know I have to change myself to line up with what scriptures say.  I may not want to (because of the flesh)  but because I love God, I do my best to comply even when it's hard for me to do so.  It can be a struggle sometimes. 

Yes it is an abomination both in the OT and NT. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow this behavior.  I never said that.  I said, as a Christian we are not to enable, condone or accept this as ok or any other behaviors not glorifying to God.  We can't NOT allow it.  It's going to happen regardless but we don't have to take part in it. 

I never said I was ok with not doing what the scriptures say.  You're putting words in my mouth all over the place here. 

I think Ted made a good point and I agree with him.  They couldn't settle it, and take care of it themselves so they went to an authority figure, in this case this judge.  They had to go to a third party (court system) to have it settled for them.  To me, that is saying they are running to the government to take care of what they most certainly could have done themselves.  They could have boycotted this photographer getting the news out to their friends not to use their services.  Word of mouth is the best advertisment and what many business thrive on. 

I think this Christian couple in the photography business were the victims here, not the lesbian couple. 

I know you're not....but how is it still open to subjectivism tho?  I really want to know exactly what you mean here and I'm not trying to be difficult either. 

Christians were never called to be tolerant.  Never.  We were called to be witnesses to the truth.  Christ was about as intolerant as one could be.  I mean he came out and said....it's my way or the highway.  He said there is only one way and that way was thru him.  Many look at his statements as being very intolerant. 

There are two diff types of tolerance.  The old way is when one would tolerate another's behavior or lifestyle and go on his way not agreeing or accepting of this but being able to co-exist with one another peacefully. 

The new way is we HAVE to accept one another regardless if we agree or not. We are being forced to accept this.  If we don't accept their lifestyle or behavior,  then we are labeled intolerant.  But where is the tolerance for the intolerable? 

 

 

 

 

take it to the government..........:P

They're there to help! 

take it to the government..........:P

They're there to help! 

Sorry, that really wasn't my intention. I think I better understand where you're coming from now. I'm still interested in knowing how you deal with it in practice though.

Take my quote of Exodus 35-2 for example. How exactly do you explain that part (killing people is not something you try to comply to, right?) and what would be an objective reading of that part for you? I'm asking because you said about the issue of homosexuality, that it was "not about interpretations and judgments. It's absolutely clear.". This part seems pretty clear to me, so I really don't understand how you can reconcile the two. Enlighten me

So you're asking why I don't advocate killing people who don't keep the seventh day today?

We're not under the law. When Christ came, he was the end of the law. He brought in a new covenant called Grace. Grace and the law don't mix. Galatians and Romans speak alot about this. The Christians were never put under the old system. They were never given the seventh day as a day of worship. That was for a particular dispensation. It's not the same with homosexuality which is named as being an abomination both in the OT and the NT along with many other sins. The sin list hasn't changed. What has changed is the covenants. One was the law and the other grace. We are now under grace.

In Exodus 35 you see the reason for the Sabbath is that it belongs to the first creation. God said that the Sabbath was a peculiar sign between himself and the Hebrews. God began to lay down rules that actually applied more to Israel in the Promised Land than to any other place. Can you imagine not being able to kindle a fire in say Siberia or Alaska? Death could result from obeying the Sabbath at that point just as well.

But during that time, yes, God said anyone breaking the Sabbath needed to be put to death. From what the OT tells us, they did wander away from God and didn't keep the Sabbath at times.

I'm not arguing the 'logic' of the scripture you posted, but the subjectivity when applying this to a modern world.  Lots of things were considered, by the bible (and therefore God), to be "dishonorable passions" back then but would hardly be considered so today.  Homosexuality, while not YOUR preference, is recognised as a preference, hence the laws identifying and protecting homosexuals from discrimination. 

Well, this certainly goes against everything I was ever taught as a schoolboy.  I was taught to turn the other cheek and to be tolerant and fogiving of others.  But again, it is all subjective, isn't it? 

 

Well I already said this back in #16 when I said to you:

There's nothing subjective about homoxexuality being an abomination to God biblically speaking. Even many homosexuals will admit this. They may rationalize it saying it's old news or that was then this is now...but it's not subjective at all.

I still maintain there is nothing subjective about this scripture taken at face value. If you want to say it's not applicable for today, that's an opinion, not a fact. I can't argue with that. Your opinion is yours to have. You can say the same about me. Do I believe it's still applicable for today? Yes. It's my opinion based on the fact that I read in scripture.



No you were taught well. We are to turn the other cheek and to be forgiving of one another when we are wronged by each other. Take the case we're talking about. The Christian couple are to forgive this lesbian couple for doing them wrong. Absolutely. But they still did the right thing in NOT participating in their sin by celebrating it. Do you see the diff? We are called to flee immorality not embrace it.

Thanks a lot.

A lot of my christian friends are taking the Bible more as an human creation inspired by God (and thus not to be taken literally) and for them those passages are not to be taken seriously today (more like historical tidbits). They generally keep the NT, and kind of disregard the OT. I'm simplifying a great deal here, but you get the point.

It's always interesting to discuss with people that see things differently. I still disagree with a lot of what you say, but knowing how you came to those opinions is something I find really interesting.

If we are to take the literalist road, I don't agree with you. Do you mean that law should be disregarded as "obsolete", or am I missing the point completely? From what you said later, it seems that some of the laws of God do not apply anymore.

Some people disagree with that interpretation, and argue that we are still under the law of God from the OT (how they actually apply it I do not know, but whatever).

Do the parts of the OT that treat it as an abomination still apply, or should we only follow what's in the NT? If we choose to refer to some of the laws in the OT and not others, then I have a problem with that. It seems some people choose to keep the moral laws and disregard the others (hey, why not, I like shrimp too!).

And I would love to know where exactly homosexuality is named as being an abomination in the NT (I'm using the King James version, but if you can point me to another version with those words, that would be fine too). AFAIK the word "abomination" appears 2 times in the NT, and none of those have anything to do with homosexuality.

 

That's what his by-line says.

Littleboys:

Actually, unless you live in Mayberry, it isn't hard to find photographers.



See, that is the difference between the freedom of choice and institutionalized discrimination. Each photographer has the right to decide what kinds of events they want to shoot. Each customer has the right to decide what events they want to have shot. When we had institutionalized discrimination, there were laws and policies preventing one side or the other.

The way you're talking, we should have no choices, only force.

Guess what, every one of us have the right to discriminate, in fact, we do it every day. There is nothing wrong with individual discrimination. There is something wrong with institutionalized discrimination.



No, you don't.

KFC

Thnx for the plug! :~D

Littleboy

I take the bible as literally as I can although I know there is a growing trend to not to especially among the young people today.  Would you be speaking about the Emerging Church by any chance? 

 It's to be taken both literally and symbolically.  A general rule of thumb is.......if it makes sense seek no other sense.   In other words when Jesus said he was the door.  Now we know...he's not a door so it must be symbolic for something else. 

To disregard the OT means they don't have a complete understanding.  You can't do that really.  The OT is very important to the new.  Without it you can't quite understand what the NT is all about.  I look at the OT like the beginning of a movie.  If you miss it, you've lost the foundation for the rest of the movie and it won't make complete sense without watching the OT first.  I see the gospels and the letters as the middle of the movie and the book of Revelation as the end of the movie.  You need all three parts to make it a whole. 

Christ fullfilled the OT law and writings.  Again, you have to have a working knowledge of the Old to understand all this.  If you want...read the letter to Galatians (especially Chap 3) and you'll read Paul writing about Jesus being the end of the law.  Christ himself said this in Matthew 11:`3 when he said:  "For all the prophets and the law prophesied UNTIL John"   We are not under the law but under Grace right now. 

Yes there are some who still believe we are under the law. Man has this need to have to do something.  It's very hard to just accept that faith is all that is needed and that salvation is a free gift from God.   But again, if you read the letter to Galatians you'd see that Paul had no patience for this type of belief.  It's his only letter written with no commendation because he was very upset with the Jewish Legalism that was creeping into the churches.  They were saved by the spirit yet wished to be put back into bondage.  He said:

"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth...?"  He then asks them "did you recieve the spirit of God by faith or did you work for it?"  He calls them foolish because they know they had begun their walk with God in the spirit but are now trying to be perfect by keeping the law.  Made no sense. 

The word itself isn't used in the KJV so you're correct here.  Abomination is used many times in scripture (including more than 2x in the New).  I'm sure you know it's used in Lev 18:26 where it mentions homosexuality as abominable along with other acts of sexual immorality.  We see in the NT it's labeled as "unrighteous"  1 Cor 6:9, reprobate Romans 1:28, or "vile affections" Romans 1:26"    The language is the same.  It's an abominable practice before God.  So when I said it's called an abomination I'm just saying that God finds it very objectionable along with other immorality named in scripture.   There is no diff practice from the Old to the New. 

Hope this helps. 

 

The answer to the question that resolves all this is "Is Elaine Photography a public accomodation or not?"  If it is, then she discriminated.  If it isn't, then she didn't.  In the search for this particular answer, the internet makes things tricky.  You'll see why I say this in a moment.

 

In the Net Age, many businesses are rolling up their sidewalks and shutting down their facilities and replacing them with a Web Store.  This saves them a ton of overhead that they don't really need to move their products.  People just shop on line and stuff gets sent right to their homes.  Is such a web store a public accomodation?  I think it certainly is.  And that's Elaine's problem here.  She has a web store where examples of her product are displayed and where she solicits her services as a photographer.

 

Oddly enough, I think Elaine screwed the pooch by trying to be polite.  You'll see below in the emails involved.  The customer uses the phrase "if you are open to..."  Elaine should have just said "I'm actually NOT open to that."  Instead she said "As a company" blah blah blah.  Defined, (as it relates to this), "company" means a business enterprise.  As a self admitted business enterprise, whether an actual business location is required for that business or not, Elaine put herself in the public accomodation hot seat.  She has a website, she sells a product, so the judge seems to have seen it as needing to fall under laws dealing with public accommodation.

 

So if you agree that Elaine Photography is a public accommodation (and you might not) then all you have to establish now is whether or not Elaine denied services based on religious reasons (which is prohibited under most anti-discrimination acts both local and federal.)  Well, that part at least is pretty clear.  She definitely did.

 

This is why separation of church and state is important.  If you enter into a business in the United States, you understand that your personal convictions do not hold sway over the law.  Otherwise, our country becomes Orwellian.  We believe that all people are created equal, but some are more equal than others.  If you want a Theocracy, and some do, then try to vote one in.  In the meantime, it's not a theocracy.  It's a country built on the principle that individual rights are paramount.

 

Here are the emails if anyone is curious.

 

Vanessa (the complaintent):

We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.

This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information.

Thanks

 

Elaine responded:

Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.
-Elaine-

 

Vanessa responded:

 

Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
Vanessa

 

And finally from Elaine:

Hello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine

 

 

Ockham. I can see your point, but running a business does not negate rights. if a person chooses to run a photography business, does that mean they have to take pictures of everything? I know a photographer who only photograghs action shots. He'll take your picture at the local race track, jumping out of airplanes, at your ball game.. etc. Is he discriminating against everyone who would hire him for weddings?


When I did security for special events, the company I worked for signed a contract to cover security for a gay dance. There were companies who chose not to contract for that event, and that was their right.

Not only did the company I work for have the right to choose whether to take that contract, but each of us working for the company had the right to choose if we wanted to work that event or not. If this "judge" had his way, no one would have any choice when it came to "protected" groups.

The couple and the judge were just plain wrong. They care nothing for liberty, only for their own pathetic little agenda.

Well, first, as I understand it, contracts are bid on.  It's easy to opt out of providing a service...you just don't put in a bid.  So that really isn't the same.

 

For the rest of what you said, I don't think you really read what I posted.  Two things have to be established for Elaine to be wrong.  That her business falls under the laws that govern public accomodations and that she chose not to serve a customer based on religion.  You can WANT it to not be so, but currently, it IS so.  When you say the judge was wrong, you're speaking from an emotional position.  The judge himself may have been just as pissed off as you are, but he doesn't have the luxury to just throw around epithets on JU - he has to judge by what the law says.  No need to hate on the judge - he doesn't make the laws.

 

As for the lesbian couple, a part of me finds what they did to be in pretty poor taste.  Seems it would have been easier just to find a different photographer - especially after opening with "if you are open to" which seems to imply that if she hadn't been, it would be ok.  But another part of me feels bad for gay folks.  The constant societal outcast syndrome and the underlying suggestion that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, on either a mental or a spiritual level probably gets to be a bit much at times.  You have to remember, no matter what YOU believe, THEY think they're normal.  Is it so weird that they'd then wish every minute of every day that people would just forget about their sexual orientation and treat them like any other people?  It doesn't surprise me when stuff like this happens.  They're mad as hell, dude.  With the exception of the radicals, gay people just want to live and let live, but everywhere they go outside of their established gay enclaves, they get targetted for derision.  I'm sure it gets really old.

Have a cookie, heck, have the entire friggin' bag. Kudos and all that for this comment!

Exactly! I agree, oh, and have a cookie. It's pretty hard to live life when everywhere you go (or darn near) you have a big target on you.

Ironically (right term?), I hear the same claim from Christians (who judge and all against gays/lesbians). The whole, "Everywhere I go, I see Christianity being bashed." Turn the table 'round, and step into their shoes. You may not like what they practice, but yes, it takes a bit of emotion, compassion if you will, to realize what they go through. (Yes, I mean you KFC, and yes, I am referencing a previous discussion.)

I would know, I get enough flak for being bisexual. God only knows (:-P ) how bad it can get for gays.

Live and let live, that's all it should be about.

How is a photographer refusing her services "targetting her for derision". Sorry, "no, we won't take your picture" is not morally equivalent to "no blacks allowed at the swimming hole".

Live and let live? Good motto. too bad this particular couple doesn't see it as you do!

I didn't say the photographer targetted them for derision, Gid.  I was saying that what seems like such a small thing to us is more like a straw that breaks the camel's back to them.

Not all contracts are "bid" on. In fact, most aren't. The couple approached a photographer with a business proposal. The photographer didn't like the terms of the proposal, so she chose not to enter into the contract.

The way the couple and the judge think, everyone is required to accept the terms of a business deal with everyone that falls in a protected group. That's just stupid.




And this is the problem. The judge felt bad for gay folks too. This "judgment" had nothing to do with the law, or rights. So a photographer chose not to be part of their celebration... big deal.

 

Source?