CHRISTIAN BUSINESS FINED FOR REFUSING TO PHOTOGRAPH GAY CEREMONY.

In the June 2008 edition of Charisma magazine, there is an article on page 29 about a Christian business that was fined by an American court for refusing to photograph a lesbian “commitment” ceremony. As Americans, should we not have the right to photograph whom and what we wish? Does the government really have the right to force Christians to do that which they don’t believe in ? Why don’t they force gays to take “straight” classes ? Since when does the government have a right to tell me who I must hire and what type of services my company must perform?

A New Mexico human rights panel [ humans have rights as long as they are not Christians!?] ruled in April that a Christian photographer violated state discrimination laws for not photographing the lesbian ceremony. Well, let me tell you, I feel violated when they shot that gay last supper photo as well as when they made the movie ” The Last Temptation of Christ”, which portrayed Jesus as a swinging homosexual. I felt darn violated. What about my rights? See, I have a right not to look at their photo or watch their stupid movie; I should also have a right to run my business as I see fit.

It is not the Christians who are trying to “force their morality down everyones throats”; it is being done far more by the other side. In one sense of it, I could care less who you marry. You are going to do what your rebellious hearts lust after any way. But don’t tell me what my business has to do. I am a straight man and I get no special treatment. I’ll tell you right now, I will hire who I feel like hiring and run my company as MY conscience leads me. You have no right to tell me my values are wrong. Isn’t that what you always say to us? If I don’t wish to take your picture, then I’m not going to take your picture and you are going to just have to get over it.

[Olsen]

I read your post with interest. I have previously written articles on decisions by the Massachusetts and California Supreme Court (read my articles under SEXUAL MORALITY (California Supreme Court Decisions and also Same Sex Marriage). I'm a lawyer myself and am extremely distraught over the legal and medical trend to "normalize" what is clearly abnormal and always will be. The gay activitist community through a combination of social indifference and extraordinarily well financed propaganda have achieved what use to be completely unimaginable. The whole process illustrates the insidiousness of gradualism which have lead our courts to equate "sexual orientation" with differences in race, gender and national origin.

This trend in effect, equates the abnormal, perverse and pathological with what is normal, natural and healthy. it is almost unbelievable that such has been achieved, but it has.

This tread, as I have previously pointed out, has also been immeasurably helped by the fear of being labeled a bigot in this age of political correctness. Although this trend will continue as I've also said in the past, I feel that it should be opposed vigorously. The real test for the Christian is to balance opposition without hatred. This is a tall order but I strongly believe that it is the only appropriate response. The homosexual who may want help for his pathology is increasingly frustrated in his search since his pathology has, after all, been depathologized and normalized.

There should never be a scenerio where a photographer is required by law to memorialize what he deeply opposes on religious grounds. A homosexual marriage is an affront to God; asinine by any civilized standard; and the ultimate propaganda victory of the gay activist. To require its endorsement by anyone is wrong. The Anglician Community is on the verge of disintegration over this issue. Can you imagine that?

[Davis]

I agree the photographers ought not to have been forced to photograph the ceremony. The two previous posts seem to have expressions of high levels of anger, though.

PastorLen... I feel like you are on too something here. Some of your other posts are a bit out there. But this one you hit out of the park! I think it would be interesting to see if there were a contractual agreement between the lesbian couple and the "christian business" that would make more sense as of the discrimination lawsuit. If there wasn't one then I am sure the business could appeal it and win. Of course the liberal media won't print that story....LOL. I would like to say however that there is a lot of documention out there that shows how christians tried to"shove" their moralities down other peoples throats. Unfortunatly it still goes on to this day. I think we as Christians often forget what Jesus said when he was asked what the greatest commandment was... Where it gets sticky is when we are asked to side step our biblical convictions while still loving our neighbors. Good post

Ok I just read that article from the Alliance defense fund website. There is no indication that there was a contractual agreement. The fact is the photographer simply refused to engage in business with the lesbian couple because in doing so would violate his/her religious beliefs. Sooo I would have to agree with Len on this one. I live in Michigan and there are many issues involving Muslims. Fittness U.S.A. had to give Muslim women there own night to work out or construct a wall so that other male members could not see their form while working out. In Hamtramek and I think Dearborn they blast the call to prayer over head. Kind of like a air raid siren. Christians and our beliefs are going to continue to take a beating. Especially over the next four years...

[ICT7133]

Originally Posted by Davis

I agree the photographers ought not to have been forced to photograph the ceremony. The two previous posts seem to have expressions of high levels of anger, though.

Well, imagine yourself living in a "gay" world where the straights are the exceptions. You have a personal conviction that men should marry men and women should marry women, and here are a pair of "straights" who are doing a "commitment" ceremony which is an affront to your personal moral convictions and the court says you are guilty of discrimination and orders you, as well as others, to photograph the ceremony, and you're living in a country where there is supposed to be freedom of opinion.
Will you feel anger or not ?

[Rose]

I don't think it is ever easy to be "different" no matter what the circumstances might be. Yes, we do live in a country that believes in freedom of individual opinion but that does not necessarily give anyone the right to force that belief on anyone else.

I would hope that if I was faced with the situation you describe and my business was not wanted I would understand that what I wanted goes against the accepted behavior of society as a whole and simply go elsewhere where someone who believes as I do or at least tolerates what I believe in would be able to do the pictures for me.

Being able to have your own opinion does not translate into forcing me to accept that opinion. That does not mean that I am filled with hatred it simply means that I am also expressing my individual opinion not to accept what you may believe.

As far as I'm personally concerned any aggressive "in your face" behavior by anyone is unacceptable. I don't think that someone not being willing to take the pictures is being hostile, they are simply standing up for what they believe. It is their personal and individual belief and it should be respected as well.

..........

Originally Posted by Olsen

I read your post with interest. I have previously written articles on decisions by the Massachusetts and California Supreme Court (read my articles under SEXUAL MORALITY (California Supreme Court Decisions and also Same Sex Marriage). I'm a lawyer myself and am extremely distraught over the legal and medical trend to "normalize" what is clearly abnormal and always will be. The gay activitist community through a combination of social indifference and extraordinarily well financed propaganda have achieved what use to be completely unimaginable. The whole process illustrates the insidiousness of gradualism which have lead our courts to equate "sexual orientation" with differences in race, gender and national origin.

This trend in effect, equates the abnormal, perverse and pathological with what is normal, natural and healthy. it is almost unbelievable that such has been achieved, but it has.

This tread, as I have previously pointed out, has also been immeasurably helped by the fear of being labeled a bigot in this age of political correctness. Although this trend will continue as I've also said in the past, I feel that it should be opposed vigorously. The real test for the Christian is to balance opposition without hatred. This is a tall order but I strongly believe that it is the only appropriate response. The homosexual who may want help for his pathology is increasingly frustrated in his search since his pathology has, after all, been depathologized and normalized.

There should never be a scenerio where a photographer is required by law to memorialize what he deeply opposes on religious grounds. A homosexual marriage is an affront to God; asinine by any civilized standard; and the ultimate propaganda victory of the gay activist. To require its endorsement by anyone is wrong. The Anglician Community is on the verge of disintegration over this issue. Can you imagine that?

As someone who's been involved with exgay ministry, my fear is that we will be thrown into jail at some point for standing up to the truth. I see this happening sooner, as opposed to later. Do you have any thoughts on this?

If they did not have a contract then they should not have a case, Right?