Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony

[Xenia]

State hits couple with $6,600 penalty for violating anti-discrimination law
Posted: April 11, 2008
11:30 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61342

Soooo, basically the State is punishing the owner for not being a victim! Being fined for not doing the shoot is equivalent to saying "sorry but if you won't go at gun-point then pay up!"

[kluchar70]

Nobody wants us to force our beliefs on them, but it's o.k. for them to force their beliefs on us. It's the same old argument: is homosexuality a choice or are you born that way. It's a choice, plain and simple. You want to live that way? That's fine. I support their right to live that way, but don't ask me to agree with it.

[Phy]

All discrimination isn't bad. I use discrimination to choose what and when to eat, and how much, and to know when to stop. It's a judgment call.

This is another case of the government getting in the way of the rights of individuals. As I read it, the photographer said they didn't want to shoot the ceremony, not that /nobody/ should. If it were me, I would have declined without explaining why. The photographer did open herself up to this charge when she gave her reasoning for refusing. I wonder if this suit would have been brought if she simply declined without bringing her own belief system into it. If she simply didn't give a reason, there might not have been 'a preponderance of evidence.'

(And btw, if WorldNetDaily wants to be taken seriously, they really need somebody to proofread their stories. 'There' should be 'their' and 'believes' should be 'beliefs.')

[jacks girl]

removed because i didn't think of how it would sound.

[PattyU]

I agree with Phy. She didn't need to bring her beliefs into it, but should have simply declined. I do not believe that we should lie and make up excuses even if it means discrimination against us. Lying is a sin. We shouldn't deny our beliefs no matter how bad the political climate. Americans don't have it as bad as some of our Christian brothers and sisters.

[jacks girl]

I see what you were saying. I have to admit those were just a few ideas that came to mind. I didn't see how it would sound. I in now way meant to say she should lie. As much as to find a way to get out of the job. i personally would drop my camera and break it before i would do what they were asking. Also i would me spiritually sick to do such a thing. So as you see I wasn't not in any way telling anyone to lie.

Sometimes when people say things on here they are joking. I guess it's hard to tell when you're poking fun at a stupid situation that people can manage to get into when trying to do what they think is right.

Jacks

[Rebecca]

Wow, last time I checked, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech were all protected rights under our constitution. While I agree the photographer should've simply declined (without explaining) she was still within her rights to give reason.

As Phy said, this is another case of the government getting in the way of the rights of individuals. A private business owner should never be forced by the gov't to perform duties outside the dictates of his/her conscience.

Rebecca

[jacks girl]

I heard on the news that they are going to ... what is it called. Apeal the decision of the judge in this matter.

[Lookin^Up]

I bet this would never have come up if they refused to support a runaway marrying her biker beau who cares nothing about her, and she's 6 months pregnant. The photographers should be able to refuse for any reason, whether it's given or not. But these days, there's an agenda to support ...

[ProfessorAlan]

Wow, last time I checked, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech were all protected rights under our constitution.
No right is absolute. All our rights exist in balance with other, contradicting rights.

A private business owner should never be forced by the gov't to perform duties outside the dictates of his/her conscience.

Yeah, unless as part of the business-licensing process in that jurisdiction, they've agreed to abide by certain principles.

[Rebecca]

No right is absolute. All our rights exist in balance with other, contradicting rights.

True, but in this case the homosexual couple was not denied any rights. They could've simply chosen a different photographer, since this one was unavailable (for whatever reason). No one stopped them from doing that.


Yeah, unless as part of the business-licensing process in that jurisdiction, they've agreed to abide by certain principles.

Very true; that's necessary from a safety and ethics standpoint in many areas of business. Still, objection on grounds of moral conscience isn't a safety issue in this case. If anything, the photographer is being targeted because her ethical standards are too high--not because they are lacking.

What chaps me most about this is the thought police aspect of it. It really does boil down to punishing those of us who refuse to condone and/or glorify homosexual behavior. We're expected to embrace their beliefs, while they thumb their noses up and persecute us for our beliefs. Seems the modern definition of "tolerance" only works one way.

Rebecca

[righter1]

You know...

I thought most businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason... Rebecca, you do this in a way when we have spammers come onto the site.

If these photographers didn't want to do it, that's their right (although I think some of the laws in NM are screwy anyway). It would have been more poetic, however, if they'd gone ahead and 'photographed' said 'event' and either 'forgotten' to put a card in their camera or film in it. That would have stated their exact point of what they thought of said 'ceremony' or they could have claimed camera malfunction or something... :rolleyes:

Okay, maybe I need a nap, I'm getting weird.

[Xenia]

Good one Righter1!!!! hahahahahaha ;).

[ProfessorAlan]

I thought most businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason...

No, we do have anti-discrimination laws -- a business that advertises its services to the public is limited in who it then can and cannot choose to serve.

[Timber Wolf]

So you're telling me that I, as a photographer, don't have the right to decide whom I will and will not take on as clients? That's so bogus. The license issued by the state to run a business doesn't say anything about making such decisions?

If I'm renting a MIL apt in my home, and I don't want to have my kids see such behavior I should have the reight to refuse to rent based upon my religious beliefs, I should have the same right to pick and choose whom I will take on as clients. If they want someone to do their "wedding," they should go to their community and find a fellow homosexual do to their photos.

YOU had to go and get me started - didn't you.

[Timber Wolf]

....

i personally would drop my camera and break it before i would do what they were asking.

....

Jacks

Yeah, that would have been cheaper than the fine. Even the most expensive digital camera (I'm talking 35 mm format) is not that expensive (not counting lenses here), unless they've come out with a new one that I haven't seen yet.


You know...

I thought most businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason... Rebecca, you do this in a way when we have spammers come onto the site.

If these photographers didn't want to do it, that's their right (although I think some of the laws in NM are screwy anyway). It would have been more poetic, however, if they'd gone ahead and 'photographed' said 'event' and either 'forgotten' to put a card in their camera or film in it. That would have stated their exact point of what they thought of said 'ceremony' or they could have claimed camera malfunction or something... :rolleyes:

Okay, maybe I need a nap, I'm getting weird.

Actually when I read Jack's above post that was the second thing I thought of - that may unfortunately cause concerns amongst legit customers about how well of a job the photog may ber able to do.


No, we do have anti-discrimination laws -- a business that advertises its services to the public is limited in who it then can and cannot choose to serve.

Yes, but you can require certain dress codes to enter certain businesses.
Why can't business discriminate based upon their beliefs? Not saying kick someone out of your photo studio because they are homosexual, you can pose them as you see fit. If they wantta have pics you are unwilling to take, then they need to find someone who takes those kinds of pics.

It would be just like if I had a studio and was known for a certain style - and a customer comes in and starts telling me they want pics taken in an entirely different style. If they want those kinds of pics, they need to go to a photog known for that style. But taking photos in a studio is not the same as going out on site and taking pics at the "ceremony." Certainly a business has the right to decide with whom they will and will not deal with.

[Phy]

It would have been more poetic, however, if they'd gone ahead and 'photographed' said 'event' and either 'forgotten' to put a card in their camera or film in it. That would have stated their exact point of what they thought of said 'ceremony' or they could have claimed camera malfunction or something... :rolleyes:

That's the sort of thing any of might think of, but I'm going to label that as 'temptation' and hope that we resist the urge to go through with it. That might qualify as 'clever as serpents' but it certainly wouldn't pass the 'and peaceful as doves' part.

Jesus still loves those people and died to give them a chance to accept Him. The way we conduct our business may make that more likely to happen or less likely to happen. I know which way I would want to err. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and I'm not standing there in the weight of the moment having to make that decision. Perhaps talking these things out in this fashion is good to help us consider what we'd do if...

[Knight of Christ]

I can't say i would have done any diffrent than the owners my self we have the right to stand up for what we belive in regardless if that side of the right is popular or not.

[Phy]

I can't say i would have done any diffrent than the owners my self we have the right to stand up for what we belive in regardless if that side of the right is popular or not.

I don't think anyone's disputing that right. The question seems to be how to find the best moral / legal way to accomplish that.

[ProfessorAlan]

Why can't business discriminate based upon their beliefs?

I'm not sure that Christians want to be endorsing belief-based discrimination -- gee, I don't see how that could turn out bad for us .........

[Timber Wolf]

Well "discriminate" may not be the correct word to use. But nonetheless we have the right to decide whom to do business with.

As far as being a witness, yes there is that - but to be sued by the "offended couple," and to be fined, that is ridiculous.

[melw]

my hubby take photos as a kind of wedding present at people's weddings. He wouldn't mind a little bit of pay, maybe goign semi-professional. but the thing is he wouldn't work on the Sabbath.

I understand and refusing to take certain photos shoudl be yoru own personal right.

MEL

[Knight of Christ]

Well fine or not , i still say kodos to them for being stedfast

[Phy]

Well fine or not , i still say kodos to them for being stedfast

We can be steadfastly wrong as believers if we don't use our heads. We're not in the Star Wars universe where everything is about trusting our feelings. Scripture is filled with examples of the opposite of that, to test all things and hold fast to that which is true. As it says in Matthew 10, be clever as serpents but as peaceful as doves. It is the latter element that was missing from the photographer's statement.

And remember, it's not just about rebuffing evil, it's also about demonstrating love, the old 'hate the sin but love the sinner' thing. I think we're far too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater in these situations, and that's not called for, either. Our battle is not with flesh and blood, etc.

[Knight of Christ]

Who said anything about hateing the sinner?

I'm just saying that it's good to here that there are stil people that will still not betray there concous.

They took a stand where many would fold for feer of punishment

[Phy]

Who said anything about hateing the sinner?

I'm just saying that it's good to here that there are stil people that will still not betray there concous.

They took a stand where many would fold for feer of punishment

You have to know where to pick your battles. In this case, my argument is that they said too much and opened themselves up to an unnecessary lawsuit when simply declining would have accomplished the same thing without all the drama.

[jacks girl]

I've been thinking about this and you know I think Jesus would haven taken the picture and took the opportunity to speak with them and try to reason with them. I could be wrong here.

We get this gay stuff pushed at us so much that it's a gut reaction to say get out of my face, you're going to pay for this some day. We hate the sin so much that we forget the sinner. But it also says to not put your pears before swine too. So this one is really hard to call.

I agree with Phy the best thing would have been to say i'll be out of town that day. hang up the phone and make plans to go see Grandma or something.

jacks