It's Getting Quite Slippery Out There

This issue is very old. It has originated, and not been resolved, with Catholic Hospitals and Abortion in California. But it does cross the grey area of choice versus heredity. Unfortunately, the government will not step in, and it is up to the courts to make law. As in this case.

My View? It is a conflict of church and state. And their fine is on the wrong side (as I believe their views are - but that is another story).

Question 1: Answer: Yes

well then it's time for Christians to go to Gay producers and gay directors to make a Pro-life and a anti-homosexual commercial using the bible, if they refuse then sue them for discrimination.

I wonder if it's legal to have one of those "We reserve the right to refuse service" signs.

Is this going to be like the "No Coloreds" signs or something?

~Zoo

I think they are over-reacting.  It's a commitment ceremony not a porn shoot.

Should a Christian business owner have the right to refuse business they feel might compromise their personal testimony or their company policy?

Ofcourse! Just like I can have a "no blacks" or "no kids" sign. It should be your right to do business with anybody you want (and thus being able to decline anybody as well). The lesbians, gays and other strange people can go to their friends photography store.

See this is a problem, because any Christian worth his salt WOULD NOT do this.  So the homosexuals do have an advantage over the Christians here.  We are supposed to be lovers of peace and goodwill and going around suing by looking for trouble would only hurt the cause for Christ. 

There are many out there that have no qualms in this area it shouldn't be a problem.  It's tough getting business nowadays I'm sure there are many who would jump at this opportunity.   

No.  There is nothing in scripture against blacks.  I covered this when I wrote about the only race in scripture is the human race.  The whole racist belief is coming from man, not scripture. 

It's diff tho when it comes to homosexuals in that it's quite prohibited against in scripture.  It's called an abomination and if we are not to associate ourselves with that lifestyle and enabling and celebrating it would not be gloryifying to God. 

But it's taking part in a homosexual celebration that a Christian should not take part in.  To do so gives the impression that they were ok with it.   Our Christian Faith goes with us into the work place.  It's part of who we are.  We don't leave it at the door.  To do so would be hypocritical. 

 

 

 

I, as a business owner, should have the right to improve or hurt my business by setting whatever rules I want regarding service.

If I had a "No Blacks/gays/kids/ugly people" rule I would lose the {x} market and some of the the Pro-{x}, {y}market.  But I might gain the "anti-{x}" business.

In governement things all should be treated equally.  In a private business. . it should be  . .well . .  private. 

I can sort of understand this attitude but part of me can't.  If this is the Christian way, then fine.  But then why all the hype about Jesus sitting and having dinner with hookers and thieves?  I don't remember what the bible said specifically about hookers (stoning them?) but I'm fairly clear about the thieves part.  I thought it was all about Jesus loving everyone even if the person wasn't exact with the bible.  I'm sure you will find lots of quotes to contradict this. 

Also, I don't think that taking a photograph is asking anyone to participate in their homosexual relationship anymore than sitting and having a meal with a thief is condoning his thievery.  Pardon for assuming the male gender in thuevery.

Anyway, I doubt I will be back to check this post anymore.  You are welcome to your interpretations and juedgements and I really don't feel like checking back for the slog of biblical quotations.  If you want, you can delete this.

I'll go eat dinner with a homosexual (not a date though :P) but I'm not going to go to their commitment ceremony. Why? Because eating dinner is not a sin. Sex outside of marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

then it's hard to discuss this if you just want to what I call "hit and run."

But I will just in case you do come back....  

It's not about interpretations and judgments. It's absolutely clear. As Christians we are not to encourage any type or enable anyone having sex outside of marriage. Period. Doesn't matter the gender.

Jesus ate with the "non religious" of society. The Pharisees who were the religious ones, took notice of this. But Jesus said it's the sick who need the doctor and it's the spiritually sick that need him. But he never let them off the hook with their sin either. Quite often he would say to them "go and sin no more."



exactly. It's ok to show them love, it's quite another to help them in their sin.

It's also about the right of a business owner to choose whether or not they will give someone business. Frankly, I don't think I'd have made the same decision as these guys, but they should have the right to choose. This is not an essential service, this is a photography business.

You can love someone without approving of their actions. Parents do it all the time.

I completely disagree.  Subjective quoting of scriptures might work for you but as far as I am concerned, intolerance is intolerance, no matter how it's couched.

Having said this, I think if a small business makes adverse business decisions based on such matters, then it is their bad luck and they should suffer the consequences.  But it certainly doesn't call for government involvement.

Dyna, oh you are  breath of fresh air.  Kudos on the excellent comment.  This is one of the few times I'll say what he/she said

I can vouch for this.  Absolutely. 

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 don't think luck  has any part of this.  It was a choice on the part of the business owners NOT to take the business offered to them on account of their convictions.  I'm thinkin kudos to them for living up to their convictions and not just being sayers to what they believe.  They are backing it up with action, even losing monatary rewards in the process.

I agree. 

 

 

Yes, it is.  When you read something or hear something and make a judgement or a decision based on it, regardless of the rationale, it is as an individual and, therefore, subjective.  My opinion is completely subjective, based on my beliefs.  You don't have to believe ME but you, as an intelligent, thinking person, must surely see this to be true.

Well, if this part of the Bible is not subject to interpreation (and not a result of people perceptions and thoughts at that time), then surely neither are every other teachings in it. Do you respect everything the Bible says (I doubt it, that just isn't possible these days), or do you choose the parts that you feel good about?

One day you might find yourself at the other end of the stick, with people calling your way of living an abomination, telling you that you're a bad christian and a sinner. When this day come, you will soon rediscover the virtues of tolerance.

 

The judge out to be hung for this (figuratively speaking of course).  What the slime is saying is, everyone who approaches a contractor HAS to accept the customer.  Those photograhers didn't owe the couple anything (no matter what their sexual preference happened to be).

If this judge has ever refused to hear a single case.  He is a hypocrite.  He's also an incompetent ignoramous, but that has nothing to do with this unconstituitonal ruling.

Scripture tells of two types of crimes: crimes against other people and crimes against G-d. (There might also be crimes against animals or against nature, but they are really also crimes against G-d.)

G-d (presumably) forgives all crimes, especially Christians believe that.

Crimes against other people are also crimes against G-d, but they require different treatment. G-d forgives all crimes against Him but people might still be wronged. Hence all crimes against other people must be paid for independently of G-d's forgiveness.

(And in fact Jewish law states that all debts to other people must be paid before Yom Kippur as on Yom Kippur G-d is asked to forgive all crimes against Him and the three judges only grant atonement to those who have righted all wrongs they committed against other people.)

We do not have to understand crimes against G-d. I don't understand why homosexuality is a crime and I don't have to because I cannot possibly be the wronged party. I do not condemn others for what I don't understand.

G-d will sort it out. The only job we have is to show love and respect for everyone.

It should be legal, in my opinion, to refuse service to those whose actions one doesn't condone (as opposed to refusing service to those who skin colour, gender, or ethnicity one doesn't condone). But whether it is "Christian", I cannot say.

When Jesus was dining with prostitutes, he did so presumably to show what he thought the correct behaviour was. And his followers presumably tried to act like him.

Well, they do not any more, but they still call themselves "Christians". Something is wrong.

I think Christians should, before they worry whether somebody else commits a crime against G-d, worry about whether they themselves do commit a crime against Jesus.

Can you imagine Jesus turning away a prostitute because he doesn't condone her business? I cannot, and I don't even believe in Jesus' divinity. My respect for Jesus is based entirely on his words and actions and not on a special connection of his with G-d.

Perhaps Christians respect Jesus for his supposed special relationship with G-d and that is why they so often forget his teachings?

IDEALLY (that is, in a world where Christianity would be the ideal), the Christian shop owners would service the Lesbian couple even when nobody else does. That would be a shining example of the teachings of Jesus and is exactly the type of thing the historical Jesus did in Israel.

I regard as the most important Biblical law the law against idolatry. I believe that it is physically wrong to follow or pray to an idol and that doing so will always inevitably be part of the cause of something bad. I believe that the example here shows that idolising Jesus and thinking of him as a manifestation of G-d makes people forget his teachings.

Perhaps Jesus is G-d. But if he is, he should have known that the realisation of that fact might make people forget his teachings. I fail to see how G-d would not have known that.

As for the legal situation: if it is illegal not to serve Lesbian couples, the shop owners should pay whatever the law says. It is a duty of every believer, including Christians, to follow the law whether they like it or not. There is a right and duty to resist tyranny of course but being forced to serve customers one doesn't like is hardly tyranny.

As for the law: I think it is ridiculous that refusing service (which should be a right) is illegal and that the fine is so high. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

As a photographer and a Christian, I have to say I would probably choose NOT to document a "commitment" ceremony.  This choice would be done without a judgement made on those participating.  My refusal would not indicate any personal opinion about their choice...simply an unavailability to perform that service...no reason given.

 

It is one thing to have a personal belief and refuse to service those who do not abide by our standards....

It is another thing to assume that blatantly shunning someone amidst cries of "sinner" will not result in negative action in today's world.  It would be stupid to assume that promoting an "intolerant" business practice would not be jumped on by every liberal shark out there.

The couple had every right to choose not to hire these photographers because of their views. The couple had every right to tell everyone in ear shot what happened. The people in earshot have every right to decide not to hire these photographers based on what they consider "intolerant business practices".

What happened here was a judge abused his authority to tell the photographers that they HAVE to accept the couple as customers, then pissed on the U.S. Constitution by exacting punishment against them.

Apparently only the couple have rights here. No One Else.

My question to the piece of trash judge is, what costs?

I agree that my opinion is completely subjective so we're in agreement there.  But I don't believe that scripture is subjective at all.  I won't bore you with all the scripture but let me put one down and ask you where is the subjectivity here?  Isn't it straight and plain? 

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Fo their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.   And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

Yes, I respect everything the bible has to say because I believe it's God's word to mankind. No, I don't pick and choose.  Somethings I may not understand or want to comply with but I do respect the whole counsel of God and know I need to line myself up with what scripture says...not the other way around. 

Lifehappens I'm going to pick on you for a bit....hope you don't mind.....

but haven't you in your refusal stated an opinion here?  I'm taking you're saying you wouldn't give them your opinion but you have in fact an opinion on this.  Otherwise why would you refuse the job?  The only diff is you're not voicing your opinion verbally but you are making your opinion known by your actions. 

again, everytime we make a decision we make a judgment call. 

 

Private business should remain private.  Business owners should have the right to refuse service.

Gay people don't bother me.  Would I take pictures at their commitment ceremony?  Probably not...I only shoot Weddings...  Should I be forced to change my business practices because somebody wanted me to take photos of something I don't do?  That would be BS.  I shouldn't be forced to take photos of anything that I don't want to.  That would be like going to an ice cream shop and demanding that they make me a pizza.

So, there are parts you don't want to comply with? Why exactly and what's preventing you from doing so (convenience, the law...)? I'm not being sacarstic here, I honestly want to know. Note that by "pick and choose", I also meant you're taking some parts litterally and some you choose interpret.

You're telling us God says homosexuality is an abomination. Period. We should follow the Bible and not allow this behavior. On the other hand, you're ok with not doing what the bible says. See, I don't know how you can reconcile those two things.

Just one example:

Exodus 35-2: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Now that's not subjective either. We should kill people that work on sunday. Or maybe "death" might be subject to interpretation. Or maybe I should look in Jesus message and somehow correct that part. But how exactly should I do that?

Sure, but you still have to respect the law. Anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason. Some might not agree with all of those and want to change them, and that's perfectly ok. But right now, if you have a business open to the public, you will have to respect them.

If you go down that road then refusing to employ someone based on his race, age, religion or sex should be ok too. Does a business has the right to refuse to employ you because you're a woman, black, jew or gay?

In the case at hand, the two woman should have tried to ask the others businesses in the area and if nobody agreed to shoot their marriage, then sue. But I understand how they want to make some kind of example.