I understand. But their claim to being persecuted is about as valid as most American Christians' claim to being persecuted. Now, I will grant you, there are the Matthew Sheppards and the Teena Brandons of this world, and those cases are appalling, disgusting displays of American behaviour. But, like so many other things in our contemporary society, this is another example of "cry wolf" syndrome, and it's more likely in the long run to HURT their cause rather than help it, in my opinion.

You are right, though. If the judge ruled according to the law, then it is the law that needs changing, not the messenger who needs shooting.

I certainly don't read it like you say, but again, this is open to individual, subjective interpretation. I doubt 'many homosexuals' would admit this, despite what you might think. Again, I will contend what might have been called 'an abomination' by the men who wrote the bible (and remember, it was men who wrote it), may well be considered part of sexuality as a whole now. Our understanding of such things has grown greatly since then.



I hardly think taking photos is 'participating in their sin', but each to their own, I guess. And I hope that when you say 'we', you are, in fact, referring to yourself. I am not part of that 'we'.

 

When did they claim they were being persecuted?  They claimed they were being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, and pretty much everyone agrees on that part.  The photog denied services based solely on their sexual orientation.  They were discriminated against.  What's in question is whether or not a business has a right to do that.  Since the New Mexico law wasn't written by any God, it doesn't really pay much attention to questions about whether this or that is "right" in a moral sense.  Nor should it.  Because if it it did, it would be supporting the adherants of one God at the expense of the adherants of other Gods, or perish the thought, those of us horrible vile heathens that assign a high probability to the chance that there isn't one at all.  In a society that believes in freedom of religion, that would sort of be unconstitutional.

 

When I started writing about this particular subject, I spent a good amount of time reading other articles about this particular case.  And I think some of you have gotten the wrong idea that I'm just defending this whole thing from some contrary standpoint.  Not so.  I'm just trying to convey that I understand *why* things happened the way they did.  To be honest, I couldn't care less about either side of it.  I wrote because a lot of the comments indicated to me that people didn't or couldn't (or wouldn't?) understand the *why* of it all.

you think so?  From what I understand gay couples usually have a much higher income than traditional couples.  I'm sure they had money/resources/friends that could have helped them find another photographer easily enough.  Right now, it seems as tho everyone wants to be the one to break into new hero territory with all these new laws coming on the books.  The Christian couple really have been in the lose/lose situation monatarily from the get go. 

We should never allow our emotions to influence our decisions.  When we do, quite often we regret it. 

I honestly don't see it that way.  After reading and studying this book extensiviely I find myself saying all the time...."there's just no way, man wrote this."  Yes, they were instruments used by God, inspired by God, but these words are coming from God himself.  Not much different than saying your pen wrote your words for you.  It's not the pen (the instrument) who wrote the words but comes from your mind just as scriptures come from the mind of God thru men. 

When I say "we" I'm saying Christians. 

 

 

 

 

See, this is where you and I differ completely.  I believe the Bible, like the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita etc., to be the writings of men who have dedicated themselves to a particular religion.  But they are men, nonetheless and therefore subjected to influences and opinions.  But more power to you for believing otherwise.

Of course you do.  I was having a 'duh' moment.

ParaTed2k: maybe you live in a black and white world, but I sure don't. Had you actually tried to read the rest of the comment, you would have found out that's it's not that simple.

Safety laws are another example of the government imposing things on business. Do you oppose those too? Is it ok for a private business to disregard security? Can groceries sell whatever they want even if the lives of their clients might be endangered?

I sure don't want to wonder every time I'm buying food if I'm going to be alive in a week, just because the manufacturer didn't respect safety measures.

Yawn!

If you can't make your point staying on point, why bother. We aren't talking about safety or security here, we are talking about a photographer's right to decide what kinds of events they are willing to shoot.

I was responding to that. You want me to stay on point? Explain to me how that kind of snarky comment is relevant to the discussion.

and their right to discriminate based on race, religion and sexual orientation. You seem to consider that it's exactly the same thing and the government should have nothing to do with it; I don't. And I think my example is perfectly on point because it's the same underlying idea: "protect" people, be it against crooked businesses or discrimination.

It's a fine line to walk, especially as you have to make sure not to infringe on the rights of the opposing party. It's all about where you put the cursor and unfortunately, they is no right answer.

What on earth is "crooked" or even wrong about a photographer's right to decide what events they choose to shoot?

You can't seem to get it that there is a difference between institutionalized discrimination and individual rights. "White's Only" wasn't just a matter of a business owner's policy, it was the law. Even if a restaurant owner (for example) wanted to serve Black people in the dining room, they couldn't.

Those women had every right to go to a different photographer. Back in the days of institutionalized discrimination it would have been illegal for ANY photographer to shoot their event.

I have a question for you, if a photographer chose to ONLY shoot gay events, would you consider that discrimination, or the photographer's right?

I think it's as valid a hypothesis as any.  If it makes anyone feel better, I'll also postulate that this particular lesbian couple were just a couple of gay radicals that wanted to make a stink.  That's an equally valid postulation and is equally likely with the evidence we have.

 

But that latter postulation is pretty common on this thread already.  I offered the other postulate to show that there could be another reason.  And there could be.

 

 

I wasn't making decisions.  I was musing and expounding upon a possible explanation for why the complaint was filed.  ParaTed suggested that the judge made a decision based on the same emotion, but he has yet to provide any evidence to support that "feelings" and "emotions" had anything to do with it.  Nor will he.  My opinion is that Ted and others just want it to be that based on their own emotions and feelings, but of course when they think emotionally, it isn't quickly pointed out by KFC because she agrees with that emotion.  She's biased, and that's ok.  It's her blog.

 

I provided argument that such emotion wasn't necessary to decide the case, which, if nothing else, establishes in the Realm of Possibility that the judge may have made his decision based on the law itself.  No one has successfully refuted this, nor will they until the judge is quoted as saying something that supports that line of reasoning.  Since it would be suicidal for his career to do so, I'm thinking he won't if it is in fact the case.  If he IS that much of a retard, then maybe he will and we'll all have an answer.  Until then, suggesting such a thing without fact is slanderous, and if you're going to admonish things, that would certainly be worthy of admonishment.

 

If people are going to argue this, they need to look at the law first.  I think you'll find that you pretty much just disagree with the law, and there is precedent for you doing so, for what it's worth.  In Kentucky, around the year 2000, House Bill 70 was created due to a similar public accomodation problem.  Apparently a Christian church had leased a camp ground they owned to a secular humanist group.  In a subsequent year, after finding out that the group wasn't Christian, the secular humanist group was denied access to the same service on similar grounds to what the photographer had.  Representative Tom Kerr introduced HB 70 for the purpose of excusing religious organizations from laws governing public accomodation.  The bill was passed by both houses of the local Kentucky legislature and was then vetoed by the Governor.  The legislature then passed it again, anyway.  Supposedly there were plans on the part of Civil liberties groups to try and overturn it at a federal level.  I don't know if this is in progress or ever happened at all.  I sent an email to one fellow inquiring further information and will post it if he replies.

 

 

I'll tell you my answer.  I would definitely consider it discrimination based on New Mexico law.  It's the same thing.  I think if that WERE the case, YOU would have a different viewpoint.  My opinion is that the very question you ask is an implication that those of us who understand why the judge made the decision he did do so from an anti-christian standpoint.  For me, at least, that is not the case.  I took time to study the New Mexico law on the subject instead of just spouting an emotional viewpoint, and as I see it, the judge had no choice but to decide what he did based on the evidence.  Again I say, agreeing with or disagreeing with whether it is right is an emotional viewpoint, and I'm not discussing that (because I think it's pretty clear it would be a futile discussion for both parties.)  The only constructive thing to do for New Mexicans that don't like it is to lobby for changing the law.  Us sitting here snarking back and forth at each other will not change law in New Mexico.

I didn't say the judge made the ruling based on emotion. The judge had to choose between the rights of a photographer to choose what events are in the interest of the business and which aren't, and two people who were hiring a photographer.

If a gay couple can demand the photographer's business simply because he is a photographer, then the judge can't claim any interest in the rights of anyone who isn't gay. It's not a matter of "sources" or case law or anything else.  If members of "protected groups" can make this kind of demand on businesses, then discrimination is once again the law of the land.

Actually that is the nut of it. By saying the gay couple's rights were violated, he in essence said the photographer has no rights. A very dangerous precedent.

 

Actually, what the judge had to decide was whether the photographer's business was subject to laws governing "public accomodation."  I've only pointed this out about 15 times now...I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.  Judges don't judge whether a law is a good law or not.  They just enforce what's already written because that's what was passed by the representatives in the local congresses that were elected by the people they serve.  Yay for democracy.  When the US becomes a theocracy, perhaps that will change.

 

I have to tell ya, I think the photographer should be able to just say "I don't want anything to do with gay people - it's against my belief system, so get someone else."  That isn't what the law says, however.

Okham:

Yes, you've said it 15 times now. I'm just saying why I disagree with you.

You are saying what a judge is supposed to do, however we both know that isn't what always happens.

It isn't a "theocracy" to recognise the religious rights of a business owner. In fact, the U.S. Constitution demands it.

In this case, the judge discriminated against a business owner. He was wrong for doing it. He told the photographer that he has no rights, and forced him to pay for "costs" when the couple had no costs to cover.

It's called "judicial activism"; something an honest and ethical judge doesn't do. Apparently this judge is neither.

Quite right. I call it Judicial Tyranny.

 

You say you're disagreeing with me, and all I'm doing is saying what the law IS...not that it's right.  And I wouldn't be doing that if you didn't keep implying things about the thoughts and motivations of this judge with no source to back it up.  You have no evidence (that I can find on the net, anyway) to support the claims you make of the judge's motivation.  If there is some, then please let's see it.  If there isn't any, would you mind holding off the malignance towards the guy until you have some proof?

 

 

The settlement was for their legal fees.  This is the source

Thanks Ock for the link. I hadn't seen that update. It seems tho that this doesn't look too good for the lesbian couple and I would think would give them more bad publicity than good.

The only reason, of course, there were costs to begin with was because they felt they had to run to the judge to report this Christian couple for not complying with their wishes. If they had just taken their business elsewhere, there would have been no court costs.

[qutoe]The settlement was for their legal fees.  This is the source [/quote]

The whiners wouldn't have had any legal fees if they did the adult thing and just went to photographers who were willing to accept the job.'

As for the rest, If the judge's judicial activism, of course there isn't a "source", it's not like the judge makes it a point to post his justifications on the net.  Sorry to say, but not everything can be "sourced" on the internet.

My source for why I say he violated the rights of the photographer is the U.S. Constitution.  Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.  Whatever case law the judge could come up with to back his activism is subordinate to the 1st Amendment rights.

If a photographer decided that they were only going to shoot gay events, would that be illegal?

 

 

It's actually a shame that the whole argument is religiously based.  There are lots of cases waiting in the wings that *I* see coming that have nothing to do with religion but where some judge is going to have to rule against a defendant because of the laws in place.

 

My wife's brother used to be a CompUSA exec, and apparently, it's either already happened, or it's in the process of happening, that CompUSA is closing it's doors and going strictly web based.  Now the interesting question is, if CompUSA doesn't include things in their website that makes it possible for blind people to shop there (such as auditory explanations of the products) will they be in violation of public accommodation laws or will they get out of it because it's a website?  Not saying this is a similar case at all...just that it's an interesting subject to consider.

 

I'll be interested to see if the decision holds up to an appeal.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it will because the law is objective, and a badly written law will still be objectively adjudicated.

Yes, don't even get met started on how unconstitutional many of our "public accommodation" laws are. In fact, I'm still trying to find the Constituitonal backing for most of the laws creating "protected groups" of people.

We'll agree to disagree on how well a lot of our judges stick to the laws as they are written. When I hear Supreme Court justices cite "the way they do it in Europe" and the 9th Circus Court of Appeals tell a city that they have no right to stop a guy from sitting in a public park naked, well, sorry, but that tells me that some judges don't give a flying fig about the law, the consitution, rights, or anything other than their pathetic little agendas.

The word is actually INCOMPETENCE.

Where's the line?

As a photographer, can I decide not to shoot a commitment ceremony because I only shoot weddings? Or do I have to do both to offer any services?

What if they wanted to be naked in the photos? Can the photographer say no then? What can you decide as a business owner? Where is the line?

If a law is so vague that one can't tell if they're breaking it, or a law is such that someone's constitutional rights are being infringed on (ie, freedom of religion in this case, while the freedom to receive services from a particular photographer is NOT in the Constitution at all) then the judge needs to strike the law. That's what judicial review is for - not to add new law, but to make sure the law fits with the constitution and can be understood by a reasonable person.