An odd legal case-Only in America??

bsdunek said:
If someone doesn't want to be associated with something they don't believe in, they have that right.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have that right. There is no argument on that issue. What is illegal (in most of the civilized world) is saying "No, because you are (homosexual, Jewish, Black, Christian, female, male, etc.).
 
sweathog said:
By taking it to court they are impinging upon the photographers right to practice her particular religion.
Click to expand...


We do not have an absolute right to practice a religion. We have an absolute right to think what we will, but not an absolute right to behave as we choose, even if we claim God made me do it. If you accept that alleged religious belief excuses you from discriminating against someone, then you must also except that religious belief excuses you from murdering someone.
 
Where on earth in the Bible does it state "thou shalt not photograph gay people"? This is the basic fallacy that the photographer got stuck in - that doing her job was somehow a religious practice. Two different things.

Just like the refusal: "I won't do your job..." may be acceptable and legal (if rude) under most circumstances - though doing a damaging thing does not have to be strictly illegal to lead to a tort claim. But "...because you are gay and I abhor your lifestyle on religious grounds" is clearly discrimination/hate speach/human rights violation - what have you. Again two different things.

Just like the misguided idea that photographing the ceremony (a job) is the same as "promoting a lifestyle my religion tells me is wrong" (a fallacious moral judgement). Was the couple planning on forcing the photographer to publish the photos somewhere - maybe in her church newsletter? Not likely.

The photographer is confused. Her religion does not excuse her confusion.

The gay couple is doing what they need to do. The Bible was used for hundreds of years to support slaveholding, too.

Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus.
 
Larky said:
But again, if it's her religious belief than to call her up on it is to discriminate against those beliefs - however absurd they appear to others.
Click to expand...
No. Her religious belief isn't the problem.
The problem is her way of refusing the job.
She can believe whatever she likes, but refusing the job in the way it's alleged she did is a human rights violation.
Being a bigot is one thing, advertising it is another.

Definition of bigot to make sure I'm not misunderstood: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."
 
One of the links that I found had it as Elaine Photography, so that's what I Googled. She does not, however, have anything in the Yellow Pages, I have never heard of the business, and she has no address posted on her web page. So let's be nice and say it's a new business. If she is a Christian, than good for her staying with her values. If her religion is going to guide her business decisions to this extent, she should celibrate her values in her web page, and such problems would not arise. Too bad, based on the images on her web site, she is good. On the other hand, she's getting some publicity.
 
bsdunek said:
If someone doesn't want to be associated with something they don't believe in, they have that right. I would refuse that job in a minute!!!
Did anyone notice any of the comments with the article? The best was, what if the photographers were Musulim? After all, Amadinajad (sp?) said they don't have homosexuals in Iran (because they kill them).
I don't care if homosexuals want to have some kind of union, just don't ask me to photograph it.
We Christians know right from wrong, and pray for those on the wrong path, but don't always wish to join them.
Click to expand...


Are you for real?

If a gay couple asks you to photograph their wedding, and that goes against your religion, fine. Just tell the couple you are booked, or whatever. There are a whole lot of people in this world who do not agree with your religion.

I damn sure know right from wrong and I am not a Christian at all.
 
There is an important point in all of this. People who run a business must take some care in how they handle customers or prospective clients. The choice of words used to decline working for someone in this case were (allegedly) inappropriate. It's a cautionary tale that one should not let one's beliefs/prejudices lead you to tread on the rights of those you deal with.
 
It's funny that with a simple Google search you only find this mentioned on right-wing conservative websites. My guess is there's more to the story, with anything conservative you'll have to dig for the truth. Wonder why you can't find the names of the couple getting married?

The truth really does suffer at the hands of conservatives.

For everyone defending the Christian photographer do you know how she refused? Did she just say, "No, not at this time, prior commitments..." How did she reply? Is it possible she went off on the couple with a holier than thou diatribe? A simple no from her would not have cause the couple to go to some made-up sounding court. Someone mentioned it earlier, if you want to see how messed up these conservative sites are just look at what they did with Photoshop to Hillary Clinton.

Do you honestly believe this website or these people?
 
Last edited:
Have you read the first amendment to the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Click to expand...

Yes, it's been repeated several times, now. The right to practice religion isn't a 'get out of jail free' card that allows a believer to break the law while practicing his religion.
 
Hey, everybody, there's a 4th-generation Summicron on eBay right now with a BIN of $75!



[...thought that would clear the room, heh-heh...]
 
I do wet plate civil war era photography for a living, one day a customer asked me if I would do a Tintype of him in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. I refused, he said that he could sue me. I told him he would loose because the Klan wasn't formed until AFTER the Civil War. I did not refuse to photograph him, I refused to photograph him in That outfit. I offered to photograph him in Civil War attire. I think if the photographer in this case offers a service to heterosexuals , by law she has to offer the same service to homosexuals. There may be merit to this case, though I don't agree with it.
 
DougFord said:
Just wait till the liberal fascists are in power. The photographer would already be in jail for ‘committing’ a hate speech crime.
Freedom of religious expression was one of the freedoms revered by the founders of this country. 😡
Certainly there are other photographers for hire?
FYI – Native Americans are allowed to use peyote in their religious ceremonies
Click to expand...

I suggest you re-read this thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom