Jun 5, 2012
Print This Post
The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the state’s Civil Rights Commission that a Christian photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s discrimination law.
JOIN TODD IN THE CULTURE WAR FOXHOLE! CLICK HERE TO JOIN HIS FACEBOOK PAGE!
“Elane Photography may not discriminate in its commercial activities against protected classes as the basis for expressing its religious freedom,” Judge Tim Garcia wrote in a 45-page ruling.
The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock tried to hire Elane Photography for a “same-gender ceremony.” New Mexico law does not recognize either marriage or civil unions between persons of the same sex.
Elane Hugenin declined to accept the job and explained to Willock that because of their Christian beliefs the studio only handled “traditional weddings.”
In 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination. The studio is owned by a young Christian husband and wife who based their refusal on their religious beliefs.
The Court of Appeals determined that a photo studio is considered a public accommodation – much like a restaurant or a store. As such, the photo studio may not refuse services based on sexual orientation or gender identity – even if doing so would violate the religious principles of the owners.
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these government interests,” Garcia wrote..
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group, represented the photography studio. They plan to appeal the ruling.
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement. “Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
But the court ruled that once a business offers a service publicly, they must do so “without impermissible exception.”
Elane Photography posed a hypothetical situation to support its argument – imaging what would happen if an African-American photographer refused to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally because the photographer “wanted to refrain from using her photography to communicate a message that she finds deeply offensive.”
However, Judge Garcia said the argument fails as a matter of law.
“The Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class,” he wrote. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
The court ruled that the Christian photography company must pay fines totaling nearly $7,000.
You can read the entire court decision by clicking here.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
What's next: Bestiality legalized! Give the liberals an inch, they take a Parsec!
That is an absolutely disgusting thing to say. Comparing two consenting adults to Man in beast is not only irrelevant, it's revolting.
That is an absolutely disgusting thing to say. Comparing two consenting adults to Man in beast is not only irrelevant, it's revolting.
That is an absolutely disgusting thing to say. Comparing two consenting adults to Man in beast is not only irrelevant, it's revolting.
That's funny, because that's the same thing I (and I'm sure many Christians) said about same sex marriage.
Your point is irrelevant.
Oh okay. That one is laughable. Why is it that when liberals cannot concede a point, it becomes irrelevant. Typical!
Chuck Turkowski That is exactly the same argument against interracial marriage in the 1960s.
"If you let godly whites breed with dirty negroes and produce mongrel children, we'll end up legalizing bestiality too."
Chuck Turkowski That is exactly the same argument against interracial marriage in the 1960s.
"If you let godly whites breed with dirty negroes and produce mongrel children, we'll end up legalizing bestiality too."
a) I'm not a liberal.
b) I've already explained to you why your point is irrelevant. Two consenting adults are not the same as 1 consenting adult and 1 beast who cannot give consent.
c) Find me a beast that can verbally consent and sign a marriage contract and then I will be willing to entertain your disgusting paranoia.
Ah yes, Christianity, the religion of love and tolerance.
Good to see you only care about something when it affects you, while completely ignoring the rights of others (such as gays), just how Jesus intended!
rights of "gays"? lol. Don't make me laugh. Since when does an artiificial sexual identity merit special protections according to the Constitution? Did the Founders really intend that? Get a clue..
14th Amendment, Equal Protections clause.
Funny…I always thought that amendment was enacted to further enforce the constitutional rights of blacks to equal application of the law. Can you point out. The clause that lists homosexual privileges as trumping free speech? While you're at it…if you're going to make the case that homo is the same as race, can you point to me the name and number of the specific dna strand that establishes genetic homosexuality? I will look for your response here or on Cnn, whichever is preferable to you:)
This is not a religious issue… It is about a mental disease that has afflicted many along with many other diseases, even those who hold high offices… It is one thing to recognize the disease and another to seek a cure… It`s not any different than alcoholism or many other diseases that appear in a social setting… They should never be condoned and should be vigorously treated… But before treatment can have any real effect, it must first be acknowledged by everyone, more so by the ones who suffer such deviance that removes rational decision making.. It`s funny how we pursue physical diseases, but when it comes to diseases of the mind it left alone to spread as somewhere helping someone escape the vicious cycle that is entered into is ignored… But now that those who by any classical account of insanity have been trying to make what is insane look sane… This is only an excuse for their not seeking a cure and those who are enablers are as guilty as those who perpetrate these deviancies… The funniest thing about this, is in many cases the under lying problem began with abuse, then there was no out cry from the victim due to how the public at large act towards many issues in ridicule…
This case sounds like a set up. My guess is that the gay couple knew the owners were Christians and probably would deny them services, so they tried anyway to bring attention to their cause.
To look at this absurdity from another angle, will Christian couples soon be required to patronize businesses owned by gays? It's not as far off as you might think.
unbelievable! hum I better check the laws out here if Joey n I decide to pursuit the photography business.
Instead of same-sex marriage, imagine the issue were interracial marriage. All the people bitching about "their rights" to refuse interracial couples service got a rude awakening with the Loving v. Virginia case. Still, the same bigots are using the same arguments, substituting "gay" for "interracial." There are NO new arguments against gay marriage that were used to oppose interracial marriage.
The cliche "the Bible forbids it," "it's unnatural," "I don't want to see it," "it's just a lifestyle I don't want to recognize"… all the same arguments. Not a single argument has stood the might of the SC that was put up during the interracial marriage fight.
It's also amazing that almost all the states that banned interracial marriage before SC ruled on the issue were Southern States. Just shows their history of racism, intolerance, hate, and bigotry (no disrespect to the tolerant Southerners out there).
That was an absolutely awesome post. I live in Virginia and every year when the anniversary of Loving v. Virginia rolls around, I thank my lucky stars that society progressed beyond such stupid, baseless hatred. Had it not been for the bravery and persistence of the Lovings, I might have missed out on my totally amazing husband!
yeah, sometimes I think we are de evolving judging by the back ass thinking of those "christians"
Aaron gales once again you prove to everyone here that a keyboard in your hand has the same acute effect as a liquoe bottle does to the town drunk.
Loving vs virginia did not magically establish marriage as a right despite what you or the prog icon earl warren might think.
Loving established that blacks could not be denied from PURSUING the same ends that were guaranteed to other americans on the basis of race alone. It did not establish marriage as a right because
A marriage is not the creation of the government
B the burger SCOTUS would have heard and ruled in favor of the gay plaintiffs on the appeal of baker vs nelson.
Those homose tried to use loving and the 14th amendments as a basis to justify denial of rights, but the court ruled. The lowercourt had made such an effective case it was unnecessary hence "for want of a substantial question"
And just to clarify: the bible NEVER condemned interracial relationships only INTERRELIGIOUS ones.
And lastly, a judge does not have free reign to create a right by mere personal biased volition alone. Earl ruled the right ruling for the wrong reason.
Ask yourself this if a judge decided to sentence a man rightfully accused of murder to a stoning because he believes in allah and that's how allah says to deal with murderers would you go along with it? of course not. Judges have personal opinions like everyone else but unfortunately activist judges prefer to judge by bias rather than constitutional integrity. If you are familiar with the 3 branches of our govt you should know by now judges are charged with verifying that laws are constitutional and that any court case maintains constitutional guidelines. For something to be turned into a right it has to first go through 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of the house and senate. The Founders made it hard like that intentionally to prevent abuse at any level.
Author Daniel Ramos Loving ALSO established that whites could not be denied from pursuing the same ends that were guaranteed to other americans on the basis of race alone. but why is the denial of benefits/rights/privileges on the basis of race alone wrong, while denial of the benefits/rights/privileges on the basis of sexual orientation alone okay?
it doesn't take A NEW amendment to establish a right. brown v education established a right to equal education, but was there an "equal education amendment"? no, because the case was an application of a current amendment. what legislative interest does the gov't have in denying 1,138 benefits, rights, and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation when no private citizen is harmed?
by the way, your understanding of article 5 is wrong. it doesn't go thru 3/4 states first, it goes through either 2/3 both houses first or 2/3 states first, and then it goes through 3/4 state legislatures. nowadays the archivist certifies an amendment instead of the sec.state
I just wonder if the owners had been Muslims what would the judge have ruled? I doubt if it the ruling would have been the same. The PC is alive and well in America the land of the free unless the government says you aren't. They taking away all of our rights. Even into eating now.
While I have mixed feelings about the court's ruling, I find the "Christian" photographer and "gay" couple verbiage interesting. What if the gay couple was a "Christian Gay Couple"? There are many of those, believe it or not. And while I also appreciate the sentiment that government is taking away all our rights, I have to, just have to point out that gay people know a lot more about not having rights than a lot of folks do who are unhappy with this court ruling. Just sayin'.
I'm also not sure of my feelings on this ruling but I am, once again, astounded at the Christian people who spend their time deciding who to place their negativity and ridicule on this time. I think, as a Christian, my God would be best served by my showing love and respect and willingness to work hand in hand with all my brothers and sisters. White, black, gay, muslim, even Christians that are being misled into thinking they have the right to judge anyone else.
Sad really, for the lost person who is right now being dissuaded from Christianity because they think they'd be in one of those categories that are shunned by Christians.
I thank God every day for the good people, from all walks of life, that he has surrounded me with and I'm inspired by the goodness I see in people as well as their contributions to making this earth a better place. Their ethnicity, sexual preference, or what they had for dinner is really irrelevant.
Gee I dunno. Whatever happened to if I open a store I can serve whoever whenever I want? This gov't has run amuck. This appeal court is wrong. Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) does not preclude denying business to a certain client group. What the heck has happened to this nation?
My business will serve those I choose to serve, if I choose to refuse service to someone, that is on me, not the government….last I checked we still lived in a FREE country. Time to take our country back! this is getting out of hand!
My business will serve those I choose to serve, if I choose to refuse service to someone, that is on me, not the government….last I checked we still lived in a FREE country. Time to take our country back! this is getting out of hand!
This court ruling and all 45 pages are BS!
Ugh! The lawyers should have done a better job. The orientation of the couple was protected by law. However, the act being performed by the two… a marriage ceremony was the issue at hand. Refusing to photograph someone because of their orientation is not the same as refusing to photograph an act that violates someone's beliefs. The lawyers defending the photographers should have focused their attention on the ceremony… not the orientation of the couple. If a straight couple came in and requested to be photographed having intercouse, the photographer would have probably refused as well. Again, because of the act being perfomed, not the orientation of the couple.
If these fine folks want to do business with the puiblic, they'll have to abide by the laws that apply to the public.
Whatever happened to the common posting "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is a clear moral issue and only God is judge of that. People have to follow their conscience. People of faith have limits, borders, guidelines to follow, and they are not the world's view or the "politically correct" view. When is enough going to be enough? Do Christian's have to succumb to being eliminated, quit/lose their jobs, be sued for being strong to their beliefs, and become a minority before they have any rights? Ludicrous. Talk about 2 steps forward 3 steps back.
Stupid!
So according to Judge Garcia an African-American CAN refuse to photograph a KKK rally because the KKK is not a protected group. However, a photographer who is a KKK member CANNOT refuse his services to an African-American event because they are a protected group. Don't get me wrong, the KKK is downright evil and this is a poor example presented by the defense, but the double standard in our legal system is disgusting. It allows "protected" groups to blatantly discriminate while it refuses to allow religious individuals and groups to exercise their rights established in our Constitution. Our inspired founding fathers intended to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.
I'm so sick of the double standard! I can't believe this photography company ended up being forced to pay a fine!! Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, and for whatever reason they wish!
I'm so sick of the double standard! I can't believe this photography company ended up being forced to pay a fine!! Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, and for whatever reason they wish!
So, in effect, your business is not yours to run. The state will tell you how to run your business.
wait til Sharia gets a hold of him. then he will talk a diferent story.
BULLSHIT FOREVER!!
BULLSHIT FOREVER!!
Wake up people. It's not "Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights".
It's the sharia law of the Gay Taliban trumping what used to be an American Right of Private Property.
This is yet again another example of how the homosexual community is totally NOT about "live and let live". They're engaged in a "take no prisoners" jihad to force all of society to affirm, celebrate and promote their perversions. People like George Takei are just the smiling façade of the gay Gestapo that is seeking to bully all of America into submission to their agenda.
I mean seriously, like there were no other wedding photographers in the area? Like no gay people know how to use a camera? Why couldn't the homosexual activists have just left these people alone? Like can’t you grow up enough to accept the fact that not everyone is going to like how you live your life – no matter how you choose to live it? Does being gay give you the right to be a perpetual cry baby control freak?
It's time for the Christian people in America to start having our own version of the Stonewall Inn riots.
gay people have been pushing the "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others" for too long… I remember when it was okay for a private business to do transactions with the "right to refuse" clause… so that is gone… if a straight male goes to a lesbian bar for a beer, and expects to be treated with respect, he is sorely mistaken… obvious double standard…
How about the nerve of those Black Taliban activists in the 1960's! Marching in the streets for equal rights. The nerve! You have people like Martin Luther King Jr. stirring up trouble in the streets forcing society to treat people equally.
I mean COME ON! What's wrong with the back of the bus or separate water fountains? Don't black people know that it was made just for them and it's the same water anyway? Why can't they just except that not everyone likes there skin color?
Now the gays think they have the same rights as black people? The nerve of these people! How dare they throw a lifestyle of love and equality with a same sex partner in our face!
I would like to know what guy this judge is sleeping with.
I would like to know what guy this judge is sleeping with.
This disgusts me, if we cannot do business based on our moral beliefs then America is lost. This judicial activism must be stopped….NOW!
What the judge refuses to take into account is that whom the court arbitrarily does and does not recognize as a protected group has zero bearing whatsoever on the morality of the analogy, which is the real issue.
So the judge just used a red herring to not have to address the real issue.
Will somebody please remove Col. Kangaroo from the bench?
It is too bad that this business couple did not know the law more thoroughly. Had they merely declined service stating that the gay couple was too butt ugly to photograph, they would be in the clear. I would direct a rebuttal to Aaron's "An incorporated business does NOT have the right to 'accept or decline any job'" but someone that makes such a statement is clearly beyond help as one who is convinced of their advanced acumen yet utterly incapable of sustaining a logical thought.
Gay rights? Sorry but this group has no rights other than the right to an immoral lifestyle.
They should become priests?
Time for Christians to leave New Mexico….
Time for the christians and all the other ignorant 'god' believers to leave planet earth….
Howard, you may get your wish…:).
Howard, you may get your wish…:).
I'm gay and I think this is wrong. I remember this story from way back, and the woman was very polite in declining. Why anyone would want to FORCE someone to do something against their beliefs is beyond me, but I'd bet these same lawsuit-hungry hippos would be horrified if someone made a Muslim woman remove her headgear. On behalf of… well just me… I'm sorry Gay is the new Black when it comes to whining.
The homosexual community needs to get over themselves, I am sure there are plenty of other places to go. Stop looking for a fight, and respect their beliefs, isn't that what you homosexuals say about Christians? You hypocrites! You say Christians aren't tolerant, and you demand tolerance, but refuse to demonstrate it! Do you really think you are more special than others? "A protected class", what are you animals and endangered of being wiped out, stop looking for pity. Repent of your sins, all of them, and trust in Jesus today! I don't want to see you fall under judgement and end up in hell. I feel so sorry for you people.
The homosexual community needs to get over themselves, I am sure there are plenty of other places to go. Stop looking for a fight, and respect their beliefs, isn't that what you homosexuals say about Christians? You hypocrites! You say Christians aren't tolerant, and you demand tolerance, but refuse to demonstrate it! Do you really think you are more special than others? "A protected class", what are you animals and endangered of being wiped out, stop looking for pity. Repent of your sins, all of them, and trust in Jesus today! I don't want to see you fall under judgement and end up in hell. I feel so sorry for you people.
Let's for a moment assume that the majority here are correct, and that businesses can discriminate in any way they want.
How does it look when you tell someone "We don't serve your kind here"? In what way does it make you look like a decent person? How does it look from a historical perspective when it was applied to black people? Or Irish? Jews?
History looks down upon those who said it 60 years ago and used religion as their reasoning. I should know. I grew up in a church that taught that being black was the mark of Cain, that they were unclean, and that interracial marriage was an abomination. So, the question I have now is, 60 years from now, why will those refusing service be seen any differently?
um, well… One of my last times with tachycardia? the admitting RN reading my med list flat out asked me if I was trans (and coping to that is easier than trying to explain chimerism or mosaic's) and the cardiologist who came to the emergency room litterlly siad "I dont treat those kind". with a pulse zooming from 60 to 250bpm, not a fun night for me.
To be clear, I'm not in any way defending said discrimination. But I think it's possible that history could be more lenient with discrimination against LGBT persons. Brynn, it seems that you're comparing two (at least partially) differing power dynamics: one dynamic between certain white men in power and everyone else, and the other arising from distinguishing people by sexual orientation. It's natural for history to frown on racism expressed by those "certain white men" because they are increasingly a minority in the ever changing racial makeup of Amercia. But will LGBT persons ever not be a minority? Isn't the marginalization of minority groups one of the "features" of democracy? ;P Another example to consider: I've seen "we don't serve your kind here" happen with homeless people. When is history going to frown about that?
Discrimination is wrong in any form. For example, I don't like red shirts. I don't hire you because you wear a red shirt. I'm treating or considering you based on class or category rather than individual merit, reducing your opportunity because you wear red shirts. I am discriminating. I frown at all discrimination.
Legally though, I can discriminate based on things not covered by local, state, federal law, or case law. That's the point I was trying to make overall within this forum: if state guidelines prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, and NM legal definitions of public accomodations include businesses providing services, the the court there didn't have much choice in their decision. Very open and shut based on the law. Courts interpret law, they don't make it.
brynn im sorry you went to a church that taught such things, but it is inadvisable to use an example like that to condemn ALL churches as being spiritually fraudulent. And to respond to your statement: businesses discriminate ALL THE TIME. Im sure you have heard of "no shoes no shirt no service" correct? Or when was the last time you were allowed to use the Men's bathroom? Those qualify as legally sanctioned discriminations. Bottom line: sexual orientation is NOT the equivalent of race, and ergo protected, anymore than being a nymphomaniac is. There is no credible evidence that it is anything more than thoughts and behaviors one adopts through various stimuli and precipitated in large part by psychological comorbidity especially in childhood.
brynn im sorry you went to a church that taught such things, but it is inadvisable to use an example like that to condemn ALL churches as being spiritually fraudulent. And to respond to your statement: businesses discriminate ALL THE TIME. Im sure you have heard of "no shoes no shirt no service" correct? Or when was the last time you were allowed to use the Men's bathroom? Those qualify as legally sanctioned discriminations. Bottom line: sexual orientation is NOT the equivalent of race, and ergo protected, anymore than being a nymphomaniac is. There is no credible evidence that it is anything more than thoughts and behaviors one adopts through various stimuli and precipitated in large part by psychological comorbidity especially in childhood.
Did you know that John Adams sent the Treaty of Tripoli to be ratified by the senate in 1797? Did you know that this treaty contained the lines "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? Did you know that the senate voted unanimously to pass this treaty and that it is the one of only 3 votes in senate history to be passed unanimously? Let me ask you, if you were a senator would you have voted yes on a treaty that contained that line? Probably not, but our founding fathers did, showing that they don't have the same fundamentalist christian values that the right wing has today.
jonathan folder you really should do more research. Your facts are as shoddy as your argument. Try researching the treaty of tunis like i suggested instead of posting farcial logic such as this
jonathan folder you really should do more research. Your facts are as shoddy as your argument. Try researching the treaty of tunis like i suggested instead of posting farcial logic such as this
I refuted your point about the Treaty of Tunis, you replied and completely ignored my point, I assume because you had no answer to what I had to say. Ill copy and paste that part here so maybe you will actually say something about it.
To address your other point, yes the Treaty of Tunis proclaims John Adams as a christian man. What does that have to do with my point? I made the point that most of the men in the government at that time were Christian. This is only further evidence for my claim, John Adams was a Christian man, but was okay with the statement that the US was not founded on the Christian religion. Obama has the same stance yet, which greatly upsets the right. No right wing politician would make such a statement today, yet the president and all of the senate did make that statement 200 years ago. So unless you can prove that a modern republican christian would sign a document with such a statement today, my case stands and is irrefutable.
I refuted your point about the Treaty of Tunis, you replied and completely ignored my point, I assume because you had no answer to what I had to say. Ill copy and paste that part here so maybe you will actually say something about it.
To address your other point, yes the Treaty of Tunis proclaims John Adams as a christian man. What does that have to do with my point? I made the point that most of the men in the government at that time were Christian. This is only further evidence for my claim, John Adams was a Christian man, but was okay with the statement that the US was not founded on the Christian religion. Obama has the same stance yet, which greatly upsets the right. No right wing politician would make such a statement today, yet the president and all of the senate did make that statement 200 years ago. So unless you can prove that a modern republican christian would sign a document with such a statement today, my case stands and is irrefutable.
I also made a posting (another one you wouldn't reply to) that shows that the Church of Holy Trinity trial supports the inverse point of the one you think it does. Ill paste that here too so you can't pretend like you didnt see it.
Daniel, are you not even going to acknowledge the points I made in my last post. Either way I will acknowledged yours. Ill assume you are referring to the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States case, in which the majority opinion states that "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Did you know that Justice Brewer, who originally wrote that line, later wrote (on the subject of the courts opinion in the trinity case) "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." Notice that last line, where he states his intention with the originally court decision where he states that the government is independent of all religions.
I didnt ignore your point, i told you i have far more important things than to exchange unpleasantries with someone who is more interested in bias than in actually participating in research. And btw, i responded to your first comment on the other thread. I told you that the govt technically isnt founded on Christianity because the Founders weren't trying to establish a theorcracy, but a republic. But that DOES not mean they didnt want that republic to have God and morality as its central underpinning.
Jonathan Holder that red herring argument doesnt diminish the significance of Trinity vs the US, simply because a judge is making a comment that is technically true. He was simply mentioning that the US govt is not designed to function as a theocracy, and yet it still exists with tenets of faith as absolutely necessary underpinnings. People like you read into the words of the past and take it as youd like it to be, not as itactually is, which is why you all see "separation of church and state" as meaning anti faith when Jefferson based it off his understanding of the first amendment and his belief that faith should be protected from govt molestation. George wAshington in his farewell address mentioned how important it was for God to be active in the affairds of America, John adams mentioned how blessed and important the Country was to be free under God during the days prior and after the revolutionary war was over. You are simply trying to use the TOT as a farcical basis to challenge what most everyone who bothers to do research already knows: America as a nation (NOT a govt) was designed to function as a judeoChristian moral one. Only the secular laws were designed to be impartial. I'll match you point for point on this and guarantee you ill have more evidence to support my statement than you would for yours.
Thank you for finally agreeing with my point, although it was in a round about "It was really my idea" kind of way.
Thank you for finally agreeing with my point, although it was in a round about "It was really my idea" kind of way.
Jonathan Holder lol if that makes it easier for you to walk away with your head held in vain pride…have at it.
Jonathan Holder lol if that makes it easier for you to walk away with your head held in vain pride…have at it.
I could mention the Founders making laws against homosexualty (moral laws) that Washington kicked a homo out of service for open displays of homosexuality, and how many laws in the US were based off of bible laws, or even that congress paid for the publication and dissemination of a bible with PUBLIC COFFERS aka the aitkens revolutionary bible…but i wont. that would be overkill:)
You did agree with my point. You said yourself that our government is not founded on the christian religion (quote: America as a nation (NOT a govt) was designed to function as a judeoChristian moral one.). Read my first post, that was my only point. Yes I know that our nation and my of our laws were originally based on the christian faith. I never said they werent. You just saw what I said and then made your own little strawman. You assumed I was an anti-theist, anti-religion, atheist and started arguing against the beliefs that some of those people hold, very few of which are beliefs that I also hold. Perhaps you should stop grouping people into stereotypes and realize the large majority of people actually do think for themselves and have deep and varied opinions on a wide variety of subjects.
Your original point was to argue against the position that our NATION was founded on religious principles, ((ergo it being ok for the govt to do what it did to this Christian couple) using the specious argument of the treaty of tripoli which YOU even admitted was dubious in authenticity (regarding article 11)
your damage control efforts mean nothing to me. As a former atheist ive already researched the arguments people like you have made to diminish the significance of constitutionally based religious protections in the US.
Now if you are having trouble learning the difference between a religious nation and the secular government which it creates to make laws applicable to all, i suggest you do the appropriate research.
Wow. So aggressive, and when I'm trying to extend an olive branch no less. I was referring to our government, that is why I used the words "our government was not founded on the christian religion". I never mentioned the idea that our nation was or wasn't founded on the christian religion until my previous post. I never argued that what the government did was or wasn't ok. I simply presented alternate situations to see if people still agreed with their original assessment of the situation. Play the devils advocate is one of my favorite things to do, I feel it greatly increases your critical thinking skills and broadens your worldview.
News flash…. being gay is natural, believing that snakes talk, virgins have babies and dead men come back to life is a sign of insanity…..
Be honest. How many of you fox kool-aid drinkers think it should be illegal for an African American man to marry a white woman?
According to a Rasmussen poll in 2010, over half of Mississippi republicans don't think that interracial marriage should be legal.
two people with the name "aaron" each sharing the same half a brain lol
two people with the name "aaron" each sharing the same half a brain lol
Don't like facts? Just call people names! Its conservative 'reason' at its finest.
Don't like facts? Just call people names! Its conservative 'reason' at its finest.
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman of two different races is not against my Christian religion but forcing me to define marriage as between two people of the same sex is.
Religions don't make legal definitions, Jeff. That's what courts are for…
However, your chrisitan religion calls for any man who shaves or cuts the hair around their temples to be put to death…..You would look less like a fool if you started requiring the actual laws of your religion to be followed instead of the ones you make up as you go along…..
Your reply shows you are ignorant of Christianity.
If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. simple. Nobody is forcing you to marry somebody of the same sex.
If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. simple. Nobody is forcing you to marry somebody of the same sex.
It's forcing me to define marriage in a way that I don't want to.
I actually kind of agree that the photographer should not have been forced to take the photos, but what right do you have to have your definition of marriage imposed upon gay people?
What's a gay christian?
That's a man that likes women more than little boys!
Enjoy!
OK, if all of this is so that its purely a Right's Issue and that is all that Matter then I want to marry 7 wives; and by the words of this decision I now have That Right! Hey, there is No difference, and at the very least this has/was done before!
But, then of course the best post to this group is what Matthew Stump posted, and also the fact that when did a small business fall into the category that it can not refuse business? After all it is not a public entity, like the govt. and they refuse to help people everyday, even minorities, and certain social groups that they deem as not important.
This ruling (and a great many of these comments) are a sign of our nations prideful existence. Pride has blinded the hearts and eyes of our leaders, our lawmakers, our judges, our governors, our statesmen and our people to the fact that God requires righteousness, justice and retribution—that is, punishment for sin. In pride and by folly we've been beguiled from the truth – “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” Proverbs 14:34. We've become a nation that hates discipline, hates justice, hates righteousness and hates God’s retribution. In pride "we the people" have exalted ourselves above the knowledge of God and departed from the basic principles of equity and truth, and therefore we are now in a state of confusion. Made worse by, that in our pride we object to the one thing that will make it all right again — bowing to the authority of God’s Word and listening to God’s voice where He tells us to humble ourselves before Him and seek His face in righteousness. It would be the height of wisdom, godly wisdom, to lay down the arms of our rebellion, admit we and our ways are wrong and that God’s way is right — that is, that righteousness, justice and retribution should be exercised. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:18. My prayer is that God, by His Spirit, will convict and convince of this sin of pride which blinds our hearts until we cry unto God for deliverance in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Actually, Terri… what we dislike is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is the strongest and most consistent theme found within monotheistic religion…
When I see chrisitians following ALL of the rules of the bible to the letter instead of conveniently picking out those that fit their agenda I'll rethink my ideas about religion….
Until then, every single christian that has ever done a minutes worth of work on the sabbath is a despicable sinner that needs to be put to death, just as 'god' commanded….
You won't ever see that here on this earth Howard. We are all sinners – some sanctified and some not. Hypocrisy would be to deny that truth, not to admit it and live our lifetime seeking to follow Christ instead of our sin nature. If you're waiting for perfect people to convince you that we all need Christ, you'll continue to be deceived into believing that we don't.
Actually, what I'm looking for is people who are willing to point the microscope at themselves before they point it at others, and what's the sense of embracing a belief system if you aren't going to follow it?
As a Christian (and as we are called to do as Christians) I have and do point that "microscope" at myself, continually. The lens of our microscope is the Word of God and it was by zeroing it in upon myself that I came to see that we all need Christ. His lens shows me where I ere, it shows me where I need to repent, who I am in Christ, and what I am to do and be as a Christian – and it makes that all very clear because He knows we're all struggling in our sin nature, even as followers of Christ. As a Christian I'm called to share the truth according to God, not Terri Lynn, and that's what I'm doing.
I respect that, except for where you say that we ALL need to do likewise…
It's not the road that one takes, it's the final destination…
Mankind did quite well for tens of thousands of years before monotheism was created, after all…
The truth of monotheism was proven at creation. The term monotheism was established in the 17th century, which was quite later than it's origin of truth. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1. And from that beginning, apart from God man has made a mess of things.
We do all need Christ, we just aren't all accepting of the truth of it. And that is where you're misunderstanding me. While we do indeed all need Him, we do not all have to accept Him. That is the right, established in the divine design of free will. However, the right to deny Christ does not negate our need for Him, nor His existence for that matter. It is pride that leads the choice to deny our need and/or His existence.
There are only two eventual destinations after this earth – eternity in heaven and eternity in hell. And each has it's own road. Heaven is found at the end of the road of the acceptance of Christ – and hell is found at the end of the road of the denial of Christ. Everyone has the exact same freedom to choose which road to take. Sharing the truth of each destination is what God calls Christians to do. Not by yanking others up by the nape of their neck and shoving them down the road of acceptance – but simply by saying – Hi Howard (Mary, Jane, Joe, etc.), I'm Terri Lynn and I was walking down this road called denial of Christ, a road adorned with beguiling lies of how good life could be in my own will, doing what I wanted to do, and believing in whatever made me happy at the time. I gotta share with you how I kept walking down one tempting path after another and every single solitary time those paths lead to lies that propelled me back to the beginning of the road of denial looking for the next path that would relieve the pain/disappointment/destruction/loneliness/betrayal/sin filled existence the last one caused. Until someone shown a light up ahead so that I could see that the road of denial has an innumerable amount of paths to choose from. Each one eventually leading to the same sucker punch twist that won't end unless we either get off that road or we die – and death on that road just leads to an eternity of the same sufferings the paths did. I actually had enough pride that I was battered pretty bad before I decided it wasn't the road I wanted to be on. I had that right to choose. And so do you and everyone else. And I do respect that right to choose, but that respect of the choice is born in our God who gives that choice. As is my hope that He'll turn that light on for you and others too.
Some one shoot me now!!!!!!!!!
C'mon Jesse, you know you don't want to be shot. Reading any of this is a choice. And you know from past experience that I'm just going to pray for you whenever you show up to remind me that you're reading. Consider it done.
If u feel that I need to be prayed for then do what makes u feel good.
Recall the judges. Hey, the left really likes that tactic in Wisconsin.
An abomination.
They do this, because they know we are weak and will let them throw away the U.S. Constitution, our religious freedoms, and everything our country once stood for. If we had any balls, whatsoever, we would be protesting and rioting, by the millions, DEMANDING that the Supreme Courts to take this case and make to correct ruling. If the Supreme Court refuses to life a finger, then we picks up arms and spill some blood, if need be! But we have no heart, and we have no balls. In fact, the commy, liberal, bastards have more balls than we do. They don't mind getting a little dirty, but it seems we do. That's why they will win, and that's why our country will lose its sovereignty and we will lose ourselves.
Reading the farcical and facetious arguments here of those who are card carrying members of the chronically confused constitutionally clueless left has inspired me to say this:
If ignorance passed as currency our friends on the left could pay for the national debt by virtue of their pocketbooks alone:)
What do you call a christian conservative who understands our Constitution?
No one knows, there's never been one….
It's OK, little fella, we understand that you are intellectually challenged…..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
. .says the insignificant soul who found it preferable to engage in a sardonic display rather than address the issues of contention here in an intellectual fashion:)
Mr aubrey I will be more than happy to run rings around you when it comes to our Constitution.
After you…
Reading the farcical and facetious arguments here of those who are card carrying members of the chronically confused constitutionally clueless left has inspired me to say this:
If ignorance passed as currency our friends on the left could pay for the national debt by virtue of their pocketbooks alone:)
I know this isn't exactly the same thing, but by what right then does a restaurant have to issue a dress code? Ya know, no shoes, no shirt, no service. If it is a public place then that seems to me as though they are discriminating against those who may not own a pair of shoes. I realize it is not in the constitution, etc., but still, where does it stop.
Next thing you'll read is that a church is being forced to marry a couple that is living outside of the biblical guidelines. I was told I could not get married in a Nazarene churce because I had been married before. Also, the minister that did marry me required my husband and I to speak our vows with him first since we were living together.
Freedom of (christian) religion is only free until it steps on the toes of someone elses beliefs. What I don't understand is why would you want someone to take your picture or perform a ceremony that are not in support of it? I want only those in support of me to surround me during that special time.
I think this hinges on whether homosexuality is by choice or by genetic coding. If homosexuality is just the way someone is, then not selling them a service that you sell to others is discrimination the same as not selling that service to someone based on their race is. If homosexuality is not genetically coded, and is just a behavior that some pick up because it is fun, then it would not be discrimination.
Does the new testament have something in it about how people should shun each other for committing sins that I don't know about?
I would personally like to see much less regulation, but see people being accepting of differences without regulation telling them to.
Whether it is a choice or a genetic marker should not make a difference. What of Transgendered? Or Crossdressers?
If a photographer cannot say no to a job, then I suppose neither can a caterer or any other person, place or thing that might be involved in the planning/making the event happen. What about a minister?? Are they allowed to say no to marrying people in their church??
I absolutely will NOT condone Homosexuality/Lesbianism. I also won't condemn them. But the Bible (Old and New Testaments) does speak clearly about it going against Gods law.
So really what you are saying is that their feelings come first and that rather someone believes in it or not we need to just shut up and accept it? So my minister should be required to marry anyone that wants to be married, simply because it is what they want??
As a non-profit, and not a business, I don't think ministers are legally required to not discriminate.
I am an atheist, if you have not figured it out yet. My viewpoint is a very scientific viewpoint. I also tend to believe more in nature over nurture (not that nurture has no effect though), so it is my opinion that gay people are probably coded to be gay. I know how hard it is to overcome my own coding. Like, I'd like to be thinner, but I hate being hungry, or like I do enjoy my own heterosexual relationship. So, I do not expect gay people to go against their nature and be in a heterosexual relationship. Neither do I expect them to be satisfied with no relationship at all.
My moral compass is based on the golden rule. As long as someone is not hurting others, I am okay with them. So, me personally, I would serve all except someone who hurts others. I, of course, wish everyone else would be that way too (don't we all wish that others would share our values that we hold dear). I don't really want to regulate it. I really just wish people would be more accepting of others differences.
I even think believing in God is genetic. There is a twin study that shows that identical twins are far more likely to agree on whether they think there is a god or not than fraternal twins. So we atheists and religious people should just accept each other too, and just agree to disagree.
The old testament also says that any person who does ANY work on the sabbath is to be put to death…..
Here is but one example aaron http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/wangs-chicago-gay-bar-ban_n_1327766.html
Here is but one example aaron http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/wangs-chicago-gay-bar-ban_n_1327766.html
wow interesting
I talked to a gay man about this and he thought it was a ridiculous suit and that it makes them all look bad……. he said he wouldn't want that photographer and would find someone else to give his money to…. He has the right to be gay, but we should also have the right not to participate…. period……
Well I guess next time they just need to refuse the job but not state their real reasoning! This is ridiculous! Don't give up Christians! God will see us through this!
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
1 corinthians 5:9-13 "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister* who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ "
1 corinthians 5:9-13 "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister* who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ "
So with the above verse being said and understood, those who bear the name of CHRISTIAN and conduct themselves in that way not to associate with them, that would mean and is mentioned that you kick them out of the church for conducting themselves in that way. But as far as just assosiating with them and treating them like a human? that I would do but if you say you are christian and act that way? that goes in the face of GOD.
So with the above verse being said and understood, those who bear the name of CHRISTIAN and conduct themselves in that way not to associate with them, that would mean and is mentioned that you kick them out of the church for conducting themselves in that way. But as far as just assosiating with them and treating them like a human? that I would do but if you say you are christian and act that way? that goes in the face of GOD.
Private Business RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!
Sexual deviants make up 1% of the population which has appx. 80% of the nation’s AIDs and 64% of the syphilis. (AIDS was not the original name for the disease. It was called GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) before the medical community was physically threatened and intimidated into changing it from the rightful dishonor of the deviant behavior that spread it.
Lesbians on average have 4 times the number of male partners and are twice as likely to have an STD as normal women.
Sexual deviants have much higher alcohol and drug abuse rates and the highest suicide rates in the nation.
Many Homos suffer from 'gay' bowel syndrome – just the act of what they do causes numerous physical problems.
Every nation in the history of the world that has allowed homosexuality to infect their society has fallen within two generations.
No nation of civilization has allowed or embraced homosexuality on the way to the top, it is always on the way to the bottom and near their destruction that it becomes allowed and common.
With these facts in mind, why would anyone want to refuse to do business with them?
Any links to support these claims?
I didn't think so…..
Homophobia= latent gay tendencies…..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angry-straight-male
That would be you Sparky, enjoy!
It really amazes me what comes out of the mouths of MOST (not all) homosexual men. You can ascertain that they are not paying attention in school (or elsewhere), because they have been (and still are) thinking with the wrong "head". My remark is NOT an attempt to dumb them down, but rather to point out their bizarre thinking pattern. Our country was founded on moral principles, found in the Bible (God's instruction manual on how to live a life that will honor Him); and when we deviate from God's morality, it opens the door to all immorality; such as we are seeing occurring in this country since our government began to take God out of everything. Those acts by our government is making Satan jump for glee; because Satan is the god of this world and he wants our children to be so confused that they will follow all the hogwash coming at them in the public schools they attend~~then they grow up to hate God and His precepts for living. Then those children get involved in making laws to further take themselves and their own children down the slippery slope to Hell. It is a vicious circle, and a spiritually deadly one. Bottom line: We need to READ the Bible every day, and have a conversation with our Creator every day; and then listen to what He lays on our hearts. THAT is the ONLY way to obtain TRUE FREEDOM (inner freedom, inner peace)~~~which will then lead us to legislate morality. Satan's goal is to steal that from us and to distort our view. I reject Satan; I say "Get thee behind me Satan", just as Jesus did when Satan tried to tempt Him. So if Jesus (Who is the PERFECT Son of God) was tempted; how much MORE are we, who are mere humans, able to be tempted by Satan and FALL into his temptations?
The question comes down to several issues. First, does the state have the right to deny them religious conscience? Is this predjudice based on refusing services on a moral issue? Could someone refuse to perform the service because the marriage was a result of an immoral behavior such as adultery? This case is not comparable to predjudice based on race. I do not recognize homosexuality as anything more than a choice. There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. However, I tend to be libertarian in that if it hurts no one else then their behavior is their choice. I just feel people should have no obligation to support a behavior or choice they may see as immoral. Particularly if it violates their conscience.
Second, to address the issue of religious freedom. If a own a business, why can't I operate it based on my own values? Individuals do not have to be religious organizations in order to have a values. And I feel the first amendment applies to individuals and organizations.
What the couple should have done is take the client's information, checked their schedule and told them they were already booked that day. Then refer them to another photographer. That is completely legal.
So, do you Marines fight for and defend the Constitution, or your religious beliefs? If it's a theocracy you're after, tell me now.
It's not a question of whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination. It's a question of what forms of discrimination will be permitted or required by the state. This is naturally a legal question and hence a political question. Homosexuals are gaining political power and Christians are losing political power. This flows from the end of the freedom of association out of the 'civil rights' movement.
There is absolutely NO reason why there should not be marriage equality across America. Gays are people too.
No kidding. People against gay marriage say it because it is against so and such religion. This is America you know separation of church and state.
Indeed…interestingly enough, I have yet to hear one legitimate secular argument against gay marriage.
Indeed…interestingly enough, I have yet to hear one legitimate secular argument against gay marriage.
dale you obvious havent spoken to me yet.
How about the fact that the Founding Fathers made homosexuality a crime in each of the 13 original colonies? Let's start with that.
Second, and you can share this with your equally clueless friend ruben: SOCAS is NOWHERE lsited in the Constitution..it exists ONLY because the Earl Warren court DELIBERATELY misinterpreted Jefferson's letter to the DBA expressing his support and empathy for their perceived potential persecution by the state.
Just because something was illegal doesn't make it right. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just asked. The question isn't whether homosexuality was a crime, the question is why was it? The founding fathers making an incorrect law has nothing to do with secularism.
Secondly, while it may be true that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution, it is important to understand that the absence of this phrase does not make it invalid. For example, you will not find the right to a fair trial in the constitution. Does this mean that a fair trail is unconstitutional? What about the right to privacy? Care to show me where that is in the constitution? The constitution mention none of these directly, but rather sets up conditions and principles for them. Therefore, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there.
Also, I must ask you to please be polite if you decide to continue this conversation. Ad hominems do not add anything of value to your position but instead hinders it.
Oh so according to you dale nance's opinion trumps the opinion of the people who created the very legal fabric of our Country? Is that the best you can rebut with? What legal qualifications do you have to aggrandize your biased opinion over the nation's Founders?
Second, i find your statement here ironic, given that you would be just the sort of fellow making the case that this couple at the theme of this page dont have a right to refuse a service to potential employers simply because of a verbatim protection listed in the very first sentence of the very first amendment.
As far as privacy goes, that has been genearlly considered to fall under the 4th amendment which protects against unlawful seizures. However there is contention among purists as to whether this should apply absolutely or be suspended when there is probably cause (our laws lean towad the latteR)
Dale Nance very well i apologize for implying you are "clueless."
Dale Nance very well i apologize for implying you are "clueless."
dale nance neither your opinion nor mine matters in a court of law, only what the Constituton STATES. And nowhere does it state that a person can be compelled to go against their religious beliefs by the government (when justifiable) and nowhere does it list Marriage as a legal right to be had by all. In baker vs nelson the SCOTUS threw out the appeal of two minnesota homos who attempted to marry using many amendments as their means of contention. The court didnt even bother to take the case "for lack of a federal question" meaning the state had already proven quite effectively that the homo couple's argument was completely devoid of fact and ergo did not merit reviewing.
dale nance neither your opinion nor mine matters in a court of law, only what the Constituton STATES. And nowhere does it state that a person can be compelled to go against their religious beliefs by the government (when justifiable) and nowhere does it list Marriage as a legal right to be had by all. In baker vs nelson the SCOTUS threw out the appeal of two minnesota homos who attempted to marry using many amendments as their means of contention. The court didnt even bother to take the case "for lack of a federal question" meaning the state had already proven quite effectively that the homo couple's argument was completely devoid of fact and ergo did not merit reviewing.
I have never stated nor do I support a totalitarian society. Please show me exactly where I said that. I specifically asked for a secular reason to reject marriage equality. You've gave me an answer that had nothing to do with my question. At all. That is not me promoting my "biased opinion".
Just because an act was once illegal is not an excuse to continue making it legal. If you honestly believe that our Founding Fathers had the highest 100% accurate best interest city-of-the-hill view of America, than I suppose you would advocate stripping woman's voting rights away. After all, those where once illegal too, and what the founding fathers have stated must be entirely correct.
I've never once stated my position on this story and I find it ironic that you put words in my mouth. I have not settled on a position, I have only settled on marriage equality. I do believe in separation of church in state. I also believe in the freedom of denying service. Your assumption of my positions is quiet invalid.
Ah, but does the constitution explicitly states a freedom of privacy? If not, is is unconstitutional? If it's not unconstitutional, than that means that it's the principles within the constitution, not the words themselves, that gives us that right–the exact principles which support separation of church and state.
As far as the constitution and marriage goes, I personally believe that the 14th amendment, albeit accidentally, provides everyone, including homosexuals, the right to marriage. No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is absolutely NO reason why there should not be marriage equality across America. Gays are people too.