The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[dianaiad]

Services like photographers, however, are not (even though New Mexico says so) They are artists, and as such they depend upon their own convictions and beliefs than someone who owns a McDonalds does.

By this case, New Mexico has said that if you are a photographer...or anybody else who offers a service, you have no say in who you work for; if someone wants you to take their picture, then you have to take their picture, no matter what.

...................you can't say no because you don't want to go to a dangerous area. You can't say no because you don't feel experienced enough to do the job properly. You cannot, in other words, say no, period. You especially can't say 'no' because your religion says you can't.

This is simply not true. Walk into any contractor's office and ask for work to be done and you know what they say? They have to schedule you in... if you need the work done on a specific day that they are already busy? They say no... and they refer you to someone else. That is all the photographers had to do in New Mexico is refer them to someone else and state that they were not able to do the wedding ceremony.

This is not a lie. they are not able to do the shoot because of their religious convictions but they do not have to explain themselves if they act professionally and refer the couple to other photographers and keep their real reasons to themselves. They choose to voice their discriminatory position and as such deserve to be sued.

I suggest that you review the case before you make more statements like the above. This photographer was specifically targeted by the woman who sued her. She WAS referred to other photographers with experience in shooting gay weddings. There is nothing that the photographer could have said to have avoided the suit, except 'sure, I'll do your wedding."

..............and even then it is possible that she would have been sued, using something she did during the photo shoot as an excuse. This incident was specifically about 'getting' this photographer, and doing so because of her religious convictions. I find this problematic on several levels.

.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Yeah, right.

Churches may have to make a decision on how they handle their business is all. As I linked earlier in this thread, if a church operates a hall or outside meeting place that is open to the public then they may very well be forced by the government to not discriminate against the minority and allow people they do not agree with to use their space. All the Churches need to to is start limiting the use to members only and poof, the problem goes away.

Basically if the Church offers a public service they cannot discriminate. If they keep those services private then they can do whatever they please. But if they choose to discriminate and they offer a public space then they will likely lose their tax exempt status for the property in question...

One could hope.

However, I keep channeling the ghost of George Santayana here. History...and fairly recent history, shows that such stuff has happened. Therefore it can happen...and as long as there are folks out there who want it to happen (and quite obviously there are) it would be rather foolish to assume that it 'can't happen here.'

[Board]

I suggest that you review the case before you make more statements like the above. This photographer was specifically targeted by the woman who sued her. She WAS referred to other photographers with experience in shooting gay weddings. There is nothing that the photographer could have said to have avoided the suit, except 'sure, I'll do your wedding."

..............and even then it is possible that she would have been sued, using something she did during the photo shoot as an excuse. This incident was specifically about 'getting' this photographer, and doing so because of her religious convictions. I find this problematic on several levels.
'

I have read several articles regarding this case and not one of them mentions your claims. Do you have a source?

[dianaiad]

I suggest that you review the case before you make more statements like the above. This photographer was specifically targeted by the woman who sued her. She WAS referred to other photographers with experience in shooting gay weddings. There is nothing that the photographer could have said to have avoided the suit, except 'sure, I'll do your wedding."

..............and even then it is possible that she would have been sued, using something she did during the photo shoot as an excuse. This incident was specifically about 'getting' this photographer, and doing so because of her religious convictions. I find this problematic on several levels.
'

I have read several articles regarding this case and not one of them mentions your claims. Do you have a source?

Here is a copy of the actual court finding:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

Here is some information about the plaintiff--she works for the University of New Mexico (or at least she did at the time) and was a member of their diversity commitee. True, almost everybody ELSE on staff at UNM was a member of the diversity committee...it looks a little like it's a required membership, like a union shop...but Ms. Vanessa Willock is/was also an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity. I.E, her JOB was to sue people for discriminating against others for whatever reason.

Looking at the lawsuit, it seems obvious that yes, Elaine photography discriminated against Willock because she was gay...or rather, not because she was gay, but because the ceremony she wanted photographed was a specifically gay event. There is no evidence that Elaine Photography would have refused to shoot Willock's graduation, birthday or other event; it was this specific event that was very much against the photographer's religious beliefs that was the problem. According to the lawsuit filing, Willock (in my opinion) was deceitful, where Elaine was not. The term 'traditional weddings" is rather specifically referenced in the list of events sent to Willock.

When requested to clarify..."Are you saying that your company does not offer your pohtography services to same-sex couples?" To which the reply was: "Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings..." Which is not quite the same, please notice, as saying that they do not 'offer photography services to same sex couples." Just that they didn't photograph same sex weddings.

Tell me....If someone comes to me and asks me to photograph his alligator wrestling contest, and I say no...does that mean that I have just refused to photograph his kid's birthday party? Am I discriminating against him because of who he is, or am I simply refusing to participate in an event I want nothing to do with?

I just read an article in which a law professor (not named) was supposed to have posed this question regarding this specific issue: if, instead of a photographer, Elaine was a writer, and a same sex couple had come to her to ask her to write their wedding vows for them, and she refused on the same grounds---because of her religious beliefs....would that lawsuit still have happened, and if so, would Willock have prevailed?

Elaine Photography was set up, deliberately, by a woman who was searching for someone to set up. That's obvious in the lawsuit itself, and because of who the plaintiff is. Not that she's gay, but what her job is, and how long it took her to guide Elaine into the trap.

[Board]

Here is a copy of the actual court finding:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

Here is some information about the plaintiff--she works for the University of New Mexico (or at least she did at the time) and was a member of their diversity commitee. True, almost everybody ELSE on staff at UNM was a member of the diversity committee...it looks a little like it's a required membership, like a union shop...but Ms. Vanessa Willock is/was also an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity. I.E, her JOB was to sue people for discriminating against others for whatever reason.

Wait... I'm sorry.... where is any of the above presented anywhere?

Looking at the lawsuit, it seems obvious that yes, Elaine photography discriminated against Willock because she was gay...or rather, not because she was gay, but because the ceremony she wanted photographed was a specifically gay event. There is no evidence that Elaine Photography would have refused to shoot Willock's graduation, birthday or other event; it was this specific event that was very much against the photographer's religious beliefs that was the problem. According to the lawsuit filing, Willock (in my opinion) was deceitful, where Elaine was not. The term 'traditional weddings" is rather specifically referenced in the list of events sent to Willock.

It is not obvious... the email exchange is clear and to the point. There is evidence that Elaine would have chosen to not shoot any same-sex event.

From your source:

15. Elane Photography also had an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its
co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not
photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.
[Testimony of Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin]

When requested to clarify..."Are you saying that your company does not offer your pohtography services to same-sex couples?" To which the reply was: "Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings..." Which is not quite the same, please notice, as saying that they do not 'offer photography services to same sex couples." Just that they didn't photograph same sex weddings.

Wait what? Are you seriously saying that they are two different things? They were asked straight up if they do not offer their services to same-sex couples and the answer was yes. They have a company policy to not shoot anything against their religious beliefs... I think you are trying to read too much into this to support your side of the argument. The facts simply do not support your case.

Tell me....If someone comes to me and asks me to photograph his alligator wrestling contest, and I say no...does that mean that I have just refused to photograph his kid's birthday party? Am I discriminating against him because of who he is, or am I simply refusing to participate in an event I want nothing to do with?

Bad analogy... it would be more similar to ask if you were request to photograph an alligator and say in reply that you do not photograph alligator birthday parties. They were asked if they provided their services to a specific group and the response was that no, they do not provide that service for weddings... which is of course the event they were talking about in the first place.

I just read an article in which a law professor (not named) was supposed to have posed this question regarding this specific issue: if, instead of a photographer, Elaine was a writer, and a same sex couple had come to her to ask her to write their wedding vows for them, and she refused on the same grounds---because of her religious beliefs....would that lawsuit still have happened, and if so, would Willock have prevailed?

Do you have the article to present? If the writer provided their service as a company and responded with the same emails and had the unwritten company rule (that was provided via testimony by the defenders mind you...) then yes, they should be sued.

Elaine Photography was set up, deliberately, by a woman who was searching for someone to set up. That's obvious in the lawsuit itself, and because of who the plaintiff is. Not that she's gay, but what her job is, and how long it took her to guide Elaine into the trap.

I simply do not see any support for this in any of the details you have presented. Can you site specifically where in the case it says that the plaintiff deliberately was looking for someone to sue? Can you site anywhere that her job was specifically to find people and sue them? How many cases has she been involved?

There was no guiding of anyone into a trap... this rings of paranoia...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

...However, as is well illustrated by this situation with the photographer (who was sought out and set up by a gay rights activist for the express purpose of causing a lawsuit...and that's not paranoia, that's the frank admission of the woman who sued the photographer)

I must say that after reading the case document, the above is quite typical of those who consider the "homosexual agenda" to be all about "attacking" folks.

I'm appalled that this sort of language was used, but consider it par for the course for those who reject the notion that homosexuals are deserving of their rights.

Shame, shame, shame

Frankly, it's damnable that :censored: would worry their "rights are being trampled", when that's the exact same damn thing they wanna do to others.

"I'm just scared to death if I give 'em their right to live as peaceful, loving people, it's gonna infringe on my right to hate them to my core."

DOWN WITH THE OPPRESSOR!

OPPRESS THE OPPRESSOR!

RUN THE OPPRESSOR OUT OF TOWN!

MAKE THE OPPRESSOR FEAR HIMSELF!

TO HELL WITH THE OPPRESSOR!

[dianaiad]

Here is a copy of the actual court finding:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvalu ... hycase.pdf

Here is some information about the plaintiff--she works for the University of New Mexico (or at least she did at the time) and was a member of their diversity commitee. True, almost everybody ELSE on staff at UNM was a member of the diversity committee...it looks a little like it's a required membership, like a union shop...but Ms. Vanessa Willock is/was also an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity. I.E, her JOB was to sue people for discriminating against others for whatever reason.

Wait... I'm sorry.... where is any of the above presented anywhere?

This was acknowledged in several articles about this case. You said you read a few. I'm sure that included in those you also came across the fact that Willock worked as an EEO compliance representative. It wasn't a secret and she made no attempt to keep it so. Being a member of the UNM diversity committee is a non-issue, I think, since almost everybody who works for UNM is on a diversity committee.
There is a clarification I need to make here, though. Her job for UNM was, evidently, to be the EEO compliance rep, to make certain that the university complied with EEO rules and regulations. AS such, her job wasn't to seek out and sue...but rather to seek out and keep the university from BEING sued; she had/has to be very sensitive to the least hint of discrimination. My apologies for the hasty conclusions I was jumping to in regard to this.

Looking at the lawsuit, it seems obvious that yes, Elaine photography discriminated against Willock because she was gay...or rather, not because she was gay, but because the ceremony she wanted photographed was a specifically gay event. There is no evidence that Elaine Photography would have refused to shoot Willock's graduation, birthday or other event; it was this specific event that was very much against the photographer's religious beliefs that was the problem. According to the lawsuit filing, Willock (in my opinion) was deceitful, where Elaine was not. The term 'traditional weddings" is rather specifically referenced in the list of events sent to Willock.

It is not obvious... the email exchange is clear and to the point. There is evidence that Elaine would have chosen to not shoot any same-sex event.

From your source:

15. Elane Photography also had an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its
co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not
photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.
[Testimony of Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin]

When requested to clarify..."Are you saying that your company does not offer your pohtography services to same-sex couples?" To which the reply was: "Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings..." Which is not quite the same, please notice, as saying that they do not 'offer photography services to same sex couples." Just that they didn't photograph same sex weddings.

Wait what? Are you seriously saying that they are two different things? They were asked straight up if they do not offer their services to same-sex couples and the answer was yes. They have a company policy to not shoot anything against their religious beliefs... I think you are trying to read too much into this to support your side of the argument. The facts simply do not support your case.

They are two different things. Please note the very specific language used. They would not photograph 'any image or event contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.,' followed by a very clear response saying that they would not photograph same-sex weddings.

THose are very specific things; an event is not the person. An image is not the whole of the person. Elaine did not write back that she wouldn't photograph any event held by a gay person; she said she wouldn't photograph a gay wedding. As well, there is nothing about a birthday party, a graduation, a portfolio (well, most of 'em, anyway) that would be contrary to their religious beliefs. A birthday party doesn't become immoral simply and only because the celebrant is gay; a college graduation doesn't change its nature because the graduate is gay...and there is no indication that Elaine would have refused to photograph any of those events. In fact, even the court paperwork, as well as the e-mails, were pretty specific to events and images, not people. Language really is important.

Tell me....If someone comes to me and asks me to photograph his alligator wrestling contest, and I say no...does that mean that I have just refused to photograph his kid's birthday party? Am I discriminating against him because of who he is, or am I simply refusing to participate in an event I want nothing to do with?

Bad analogy... it would be more similar to ask if you were request to photograph an alligator and say in reply that you do not photograph alligator birthday parties. They were asked if they provided their services to a specific group and the response was that no, they do not provide that service for weddings... which is of course the event they were talking about in the first place.

Sorry, but that analogy is not a bad one. The original inquiry was about a wedding. The response mentioned, very specifically, "Traditional Weddings." The question for clarification was 'do you provide services for same sex couples?" and the final response, very properly, went back to the original inquiry, the wedding...namely, that no, they didn't photograph same sex weddings. That very specificity leaves wide open the probability that they would photograph other events for same sex couples.

Elaine's problem wasn't so much discrimination as it was her honesty; her very complete and specific honesty. I believe that she wrote precisely what she meant to write; to the question 'do you provide services to same sex couples?" she said that she wouldn't photograph a same sex wedding.

There is no way you can, given the wording, assume that this means that no, she won't take a camera any where near a gay person. IT means what it means; she wouldn't photograph a same sex wedding, because the idea of a same sex wedding is against her religious beliefs.

Shoot, I know a Catholic photographer who feels the same way: he won't shoot any wedding if the bride or groom has been divorced, for the same reason. Should someone sue him?

I just read an article in which a law professor (not named) was supposed to have posed this question regarding this specific issue: if, instead of a photographer, Elaine was a writer, and a same sex couple had come to her to ask her to write their wedding vows for them, and she refused on the same grounds---because of her religious beliefs....would that lawsuit still have happened, and if so, would Willock have prevailed?

Do you have the article to present? If the writer provided their service as a company and responded with the same emails and had the unwritten company rule (that was provided via testimony by the defenders mind you...) then yes, they should be sued.

You are, quite frankly, scaring me spitless.

Here's the thing; if I were the photographer and someone asked me to shoot their same sex wedding, I would. My daughter does. I think that Elaine, from a certain standpoint, should have shot the wedding if she felt professionally up to doing so...that is, knowing the different requirements that a gay wedding would need, so that it would be done well.

The problem here is the reason that I am so adamantly AGAINST the government making gay MARRIAGE legal. (as opposed to making all marriage civil unions, and making marriage in a religious sense strictly up to the religions). It is this very attitude you exhibit here, of government interference in freedom of religion. It doesn't matter whether a religion is nutty or not, or whether it approves of someone else's lifestyles or not. We are constitutionally protected, so that we can believe, and worship, as we want. The Government is supposed to stay OUT.

Here we have, not only a state that is ramming its opinions down the throat of someone who is practicing her religion as she sees fit (and by doing so NOT harming or interfering with Wollick's freedom to marry, by the way), we have people like you who think that this is just fine and dandy.

Separation of church and state, in other words, meaning only that the church has to stay out of government...it's just fine for the government to force the religious to toe the line, even when it means going against their deepest beliefs.

It's not just in this case, either. Can you imagine that San Francisco and Santa Monica, here in California, are attempting to pass laws against circumcision until the kid is at least 18? In SANTA MONICA? Western Jewish capital of the USA?

Same sort of thing; government interfering in religion because..well..they don't like the religion. Too bad; we have the first amendment, not to protect the speech and religion with which we agree, but to protect the stuff we DON"T like, so that someday, when people decide they don't like us, we will be protected, too.

Elaine Photography was set up, deliberately, by a woman who was searching for someone to set up. That's obvious in the lawsuit itself, and because of who the plaintiff is. Not that she's gay, but what her job is, and how long it took her to guide Elaine into the trap.

I simply do not see any support for this in any of the details you have presented. Can you site specifically where in the case it says that the plaintiff deliberately was looking for someone to sue?

That is obvious in a: Wollick's job, and b; in how long it took her to get Elaine to say something actionable; a full year. Did you notice that?

Can you site anywhere that her job was specifically to find people and sue them? How many cases has she been involved?

See my second paragraph, above.

OH, here is a site that does a good job of presenting my case...if I were smart enough to use the right words: http://volokh.com/tag/elane-photography-v-willock/

[dianaiad]

From Post 75:

...However, as is well illustrated by this situation with the photographer (who was sought out and set up by a gay rights activist for the express purpose of causing a lawsuit...and that's not paranoia, that's the frank admission of the woman who sued the photographer)

I must say that after reading the case document, the above is quite typical of those who consider the "homosexual agenda" to be all about "attacking" folks.

I'm appalled that this sort of language was used, but consider it par for the course for those who reject the notion that homosexuals are deserving of their rights.

Shame, shame, shame

Frankly, it's damnable that :censored: would worry their "rights are being trampled", when that's the exact same damn thing they wanna do to others.

"I'm just scared to death if I give 'em their right to live as peaceful, loving people, it's gonna infringe on my right to hate them to my core."

DOWN WITH THE OPPRESSOR!

OPPRESS THE OPPRESSOR!

RUN THE OPPRESSOR OUT OF TOWN!

MAKE THE OPPRESSOR FEAR HIMSELF!

TO HELL WITH THE OPPRESSOR!

Uhm, Joey? (timidly raising hand)

Bringing this to some level of normalcy....

Elane didn't want to stop the wedding
Or lynch the participants
Or publish pamphlets about how they were all going to hell
'
Or whip them out of town on a rail
Or tar and feather them
Or oppress them.

Or do anything at all to them
Or about them.

She just didn't want to take pictures at their wedding, which, by the way
New Mexico doesn't think is a wedding because
Gay couples in New Mexico don't get the same rights that married couples in New Mexico get.

And THAT is the more important issue, seems to me.

[JohnPaul]

When requested to clarify..."Are you saying that your company does not offer your pohtography services to same-sex couples?" To which the reply was: "Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings..." Which is not quite the same, please notice, as saying that they do not 'offer photography services to same sex couples." Just that they didn't photograph same sex weddings.

Wait what? Are you seriously saying that they are two different things? They were asked straight up if they do not offer their services to same-sex couples and the answer was yes. They have a company policy to not shoot anything against their religious beliefs... I think you are trying to read too much into this to support your side of the argument. The facts simply do not support your case.

Board, I generally support equal rights for gays, but what does "equal rights" mean? I believe your attitude here is unreasonable and makes a farce of legitimate offorts of gays to achieve equal rights.

Are you seriously saying that acceptance of a person's "sexual orientation" and actual physical participation in a specifically gay ritual are one and the same thing? Certainly, gays should be allowed to conduct their own wedding ceremonies, but to demand that others participate in those ceremonies is a very different thing.

I believe that such a demand goes far beyond "equal rights." For example, if the plaintiff were a Roman Catholic, that would be one thing. But to demand that others physically participate in a Catholic Mass would be quite another. Would you also demand that others participate in gay sex to demonstrate a committment to "equal rights"?

John

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 87:

Uhm, Joey? (timidly raising hand)

Feigned timidity in the face of your slanderous accusation.

Elane didn't want to stop the wedding
Or lynch the participants
Or publish pamphlets about how they were all going to hell
...

I was referring to your deceitful tactic of, "...who was sought out and set up by a gay rights activist for the express purpose of causing a lawsuit..."

She just didn't want to take pictures at their wedding, which, by the way
New Mexico doesn't think is a wedding because
Gay couples in New Mexico don't get the same rights that married couples in New Mexico get.

And THAT is the more important issue, seems to me.

Exactly. This woman runs a public business and turns around and refuses to work for someone in that very public.

Frankly, I'm fed up with hearing this talk of "your rights infringe on mine", especially when it's stone-age mindsets that are trying to limit people's freedoms.

All y'all gay haters can crawl back under the rocks from which you came.

When we reserve for ourselves what we deny others, we are OPPRESSORS, we are BIGOTS, we are the very thing so many of our brave men and women fight and die to protect us against.

I'm sick and tired of seeing religious zealots spit on these good folks memories in the name of a "loving" god. And here they'll do it on Memorial Day.

"But, but, but if they get married..." my fourth point of contact.

If you don't like gay folks HAVING THE SAME DAMN RIGHTS YOU RESERVE FOR YOURSELF you are a HATER of FREEDOM, you are a HATER of the notion that ALL MEN ARE BORN EQUAL, you are a HATER OF THE SAME DAMN "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" YOU SPOUT IN TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR OPPRESSIVE, STONE AGE NOTIONS.

COWER OPPRESSORS!

COWER UNDER YOUR SHEETS AT NIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE LOVERS OF FREEDOM - AND WE WILL FIND YOU!

WE WILL FIND YOU AND WE WILL SPIT IN YOUR FACE THIS TIME!

MAKE EXCUSES OPPRESSOR - THEY WILL NOT STOP LOVERS OF FREEDOM!

HIDE BEHIND YOUR BIBLES OPPRESSORS - THEY WILL NOT STOP LOVERS OF FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

[dianaiad]

From Post 87:

Uhm, Joey? (timidly raising hand)

Feigned timidity in the face of your slanderous accusation.

Elane didn't want to stop the wedding
Or lynch the participants
Or publish pamphlets about how they were all going to hell
...

I was referring to your deceitful tactic of, "...who was sought out and set up by a gay rights activist for the express purpose of causing a lawsuit..."

Joey, she did. It took this woman a bloody YEAR to guide Elane into finally saying that she wouldn't photograph a gay wedding. Nor, by the way, did Elane tell the plaintiff that she wouldn't do it because it was against her religion. She simply stated that she didn't photograph same-sex weddings. The e-mails are right there in the court documents; the plaintiff knew the policy, and went after the photographer deliberately.

The purpose was twofold, also obviously, both general and personal: first, to set a precedent that would allow gay couples to force others to participate in their lifestyles whether those others want to or not, and second, to force this particular photographer to either deny her faith or give up her livelihood. Remember, that's "all" that the plaintiff wanted; her legal fees and an injunction against Elane Photography so that she cannot refuse to photograph gay weddings in the future.

Well, she can, of course, but only if she gives up her business.

As I mentioned earlier; I know a Catholic photographer who refuses to 'do' weddings where either party has been divorced, because such a wedding is not a marriage in his faith. Nobody has ever threatened to sue him over it, nor would the law support anybody who tried. So tell me; what's the difference here?

She just didn't want to take pictures at their wedding, which, by the way
New Mexico doesn't think is a wedding because
Gay couples in New Mexico don't get the same rights that married couples in New Mexico get.

And THAT is the more important issue, seems to me.

Exactly. This woman runs a public business and turns around and refuses to work for someone in that very public.

That's what New Mexico found. They were wrong. A hotel is a public accommodation. A Restaurant is. A real estate brokerage is. Shoot, A landlord is. These people, when they discriminate against gays, discriminate against them because of who they ARE, not what they do; gay people don't handle their eating utensils any differently than straight people do. They do not cook their food differently, sit on their chairs backwards, eat through their noses; They come to restaurants to eat, to hotels to sleep, to realtors to buy houses; all legal and ethically neutral activities; everybody does them.

But a photographer captures events. A photographer who doesn't want to photograph a nude wedding because nudity is against his moral code does not have to photograph that wedding; that is not being discriminatory against the people involved, it's just that he can't participate in an event that his religion says 'no' to.

Photographers, like writers and other artists, are NOT public accommodations. They are, and should remain, free to express their own creativity and speech. It is a first amendment issue on every front there is.

This was a very wrong decision. Hugely so. It sets a very, very bad precedent, and I hate it....

even though it is a perfect example of exactly the sort of thing I have been warning people would happen, and have been told over and over that it 'can't happen here."

Well, obviously it can. It has, and you are cheering.

FFrankly, I'm fed up with hearing this talk of "your rights infringe on mine", especially when it's stone-age mindsets that are trying to limit people's freedoms.

All y'all gay haters can crawl back under the rocks from which you came.

When we reserve for ourselves what we deny others, we are OPPRESSORS, we are BIGOTS, we are the very thing so many of our brave men and women fight and die to protect us against.

Whoa there, Nellie.

Exactly what right was Elane, the photographer, reserving to her self here? There is no hint that she was trying to keep the wedding from happening, or any indication that she was any sort of vocal anti-gay rights activist: she reserved to herself only her right to act according to her own religious beliefs, in HER life.

FI'm sick and tired of seeing religious zealots spit on these good folks memories in the name of a "loving" god. And here they'll do it on Memorial Day.

"But, but, but if they get married..." my fourth point of contact.

If you don't like gay folks HAVING THE SAME DAMN RIGHTS YOU RESERVE FOR YOURSELF you are a HATER of FREEDOM, you are a HATER of the notion that ALL MEN ARE BORN EQUAL, you are a HATER OF THE SAME DAMN "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" YOU SPOUT IN TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR OPPRESSIVE, STONE AGE NOTIONS.

Joey?

T'aint funny, McGee.

Stop it.