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.

 

LittleBoy:

No, they should have went to another photographer, told their friends about the first photographers and acted like adults... in other words, quit whining to the government because the infants couldn't have their petty little way.

They were dead wrong for taking it to court and the judge showed his incompetence by reinforcing their whining by taking the case at all.

This is why government officials feel empowered to treat us like children. Too many Americans insist on being treated like children.

The women had every right to have a photographer, but no one has the right to someone else's skills simply because they want them.

I was discriminated against by a double post! :~D

It is still open to subjective interpretation, though.  I'm not trying to be difficult.  My whole belief structure is based, first of all, on tolerance.  Anyone professing to have faith, of any sort, who then prove to be intolerant, only make themselves out to be hypocrits.

Wanting to be treated fairly is not acting like children. You make it sound like it's easy to find another photographer. If they can't find a photographer because every one decides to discriminate against gay/black/woman/jewish (and the past has showed us that's it's not hypothetical) then I think the government has the right to get involved.

I prefer the government to stay out the way, but discrimination and safety laws are among the things I think should be enforced. It would be nice to live in a world where everybody is nice to each other, but that's not the case. If someone is not respecting safety laws and your child is hurt because of it, you will sue them out of business. It's the same thing here, if you don't want to abide by the law, then don't start a business.

Not being available or the customer being difficult are perfectly good reasons to refuse to do business. But if your only excuse is that the customer is not the right color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, you're probably going to regret it.

If this was racist people refusing to do business with blacks (or worse, racist black people not wanting to do business with white people), I'm not sure people would have a problem with them being sued (it sure wouldn't make the news).

No, I don't mean it like you're taking it. You're leaving out the next sentence I put down.  I mean while I may not want to comply I know I have to change myself to line up with what scriptures say.  I may not want to (because of the flesh)  but because I love God, I do my best to comply even when it's hard for me to do so.  It can be a struggle sometimes. 

Yes it is an abomination both in the OT and NT. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow this behavior.  I never said that.  I said, as a Christian we are not to enable, condone or accept this as ok or any other behaviors not glorifying to God.  We can't NOT allow it.  It's going to happen regardless but we don't have to take part in it. 

I never said I was ok with not doing what the scriptures say.  You're putting words in my mouth all over the place here. 

I think Ted made a good point and I agree with him.  They couldn't settle it, and take care of it themselves so they went to an authority figure, in this case this judge.  They had to go to a third party (court system) to have it settled for them.  To me, that is saying they are running to the government to take care of what they most certainly could have done themselves.  They could have boycotted this photographer getting the news out to their friends not to use their services.  Word of mouth is the best advertisment and what many business thrive on. 

I think this Christian couple in the photography business were the victims here, not the lesbian couple. 

I know you're not....but how is it still open to subjectivism tho?  I really want to know exactly what you mean here and I'm not trying to be difficult either. 

Christians were never called to be tolerant.  Never.  We were called to be witnesses to the truth.  Christ was about as intolerant as one could be.  I mean he came out and said....it's my way or the highway.  He said there is only one way and that way was thru him.  Many look at his statements as being very intolerant. 

There are two diff types of tolerance.  The old way is when one would tolerate another's behavior or lifestyle and go on his way not agreeing or accepting of this but being able to co-exist with one another peacefully. 

The new way is we HAVE to accept one another regardless if we agree or not. We are being forced to accept this.  If we don't accept their lifestyle or behavior,  then we are labeled intolerant.  But where is the tolerance for the intolerable?