Exactly! I agree, oh, and have a cookie. It's pretty hard to live life when everywhere you go (or darn near) you have a big target on you.

Ironically (right term?), I hear the same claim from Christians (who judge and all against gays/lesbians). The whole, "Everywhere I go, I see Christianity being bashed." Turn the table 'round, and step into their shoes. You may not like what they practice, but yes, it takes a bit of emotion, compassion if you will, to realize what they go through. (Yes, I mean you KFC, and yes, I am referencing a previous discussion.)

I would know, I get enough flak for being bisexual. God only knows ( ) how bad it can get for gays.

Live and let live, that's all it should be about.

How is a photographer refusing her services "targetting her for derision". Sorry, "no, we won't take your picture" is not morally equivalent to "no blacks allowed at the swimming hole".

Live and let live? Good motto. too bad this particular couple doesn't see it as you do!

I didn't say the photographer targetted them for derision, Gid.  I was saying that what seems like such a small thing to us is more like a straw that breaks the camel's back to them.

Not all contracts are "bid" on. In fact, most aren't. The couple approached a photographer with a business proposal. The photographer didn't like the terms of the proposal, so she chose not to enter into the contract.

The way the couple and the judge think, everyone is required to accept the terms of a business deal with everyone that falls in a protected group. That's just stupid.




And this is the problem. The judge felt bad for gay folks too. This "judgment" had nothing to do with the law, or rights. So a photographer chose not to be part of their celebration... big deal.

 

Source?

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.