Lawsuit, Religion, Photography, Gay Couple

[Steven]

Personally, I see it as a simple legal situation.

Either they broke state/local business laws, or they didnt.

Either way, theyll be judged in the eyes of the public.

I dont deny that they have the right to not want to shoot the couple's ceremony.

I just think it wasn't very smart of them to openly refuse based on prejudicial bias. They have every right to not like lesbians, but to be a commercial business and openly say so? Not very smart. They will end up with bad press, and its a fact of life for businesses. You can live and die on press alone.

still, I admire their willingness to risk.

[Shade Everdark]

I never called you a pansy Shade.

although I do think somebody needs to suck it up.

and a Brigade speaks of numbers....its just little ol me in here.

ah....and you want a public scorning....saftey in numbers to drum this photographer out of town for having the AUDACITY for not compromising herslef because SHADE EVERDARK and Co. wants her to suffer?

you know whats probably going to happen?

Shes probably munchin on a double cheesburger and sleeping fine - because she is obviously the kind of person who does not wilt. How the public hates a person who does not embrace their role....

but hurry - catch a plane and start a media frenzy since your so impassioned about this poor couple who's lives have been SOOOOOOOOOO malicisously damaged.

I dont even know this gal and hey - she might even be an asshole. maybe even a big one.

but she should not have to yeild to anybody, and I tend to admire people who have the gumption to stand on their own feet. public scorning. I'd bake you all brownies if you tried that on me.

Ah, so bigotry should simply be allowed to happen without consequences. Hence, my 'suck it up, pansy' comment you so skillfully took completely out of context.

Maybe you don't see any damage; that does not mean that there is none present. I should think that if we were talking about a photographer who is secretly a member of the KKK and refused to photograph a couple because they were black or Jewish, you might feel a little differently. No one, I think, would really expect that photographer to be taken to court, either, but the scorn would certainly be there.

But, hey, it's all about me, and MY decision by fiat.

Edited to include: Oh, yeah, that last was sarcasm.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Oh, right, the 'suck it up, pansy' brigade has arrived.

Let me put this another way: I don't think this should go to court. The photographer has a perfectly legal right to say no to shooting the wedding. That does not mean I think there should be no consequences, however. I think said photographer should be publicly scorned to the point that she is too embarrassed to ever set foot out of her door ever again, and she should be bankrupted through lack of business, if that's the way she wants to run things. The problem with the first part of that solution is that people are progressively becoming too arrogant and/or too stupid to be moved by the scorn of their peers.

My patience for people like her and whatever perverted, hypocritical, static perversion of religion she's following is stretched quite thin. She is a dinosaur, and like the dinosaurs needs to become extinct. Period.

Wait wait wait...

I was going to stay out of this spat... but...

Shade... are you the pot or the kettle?

said photographer should be publicly scorned

You are talking about putting this person out of business because they hold specific religious views and adhere to them.

She is a dinosaur, and like the dinosaurs needs to become extinct.

Should we round them all up and put them in camps? Fucking Christians are to blame for everything. All we have to do is round them all up and get them away from the good open minded peoples of the country. We should take all thier posessions and land.. that will help fix what they have done to the economy.

fuck that. Keep your jack boots and your socialism at home.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Marc,

The Civil Rights Act should in fact be amended. I would be happy with that. Then i would like the whole thing boiled down into a slightly vague shorter version and sent to the States to be ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution.

It could be very simple. It could be a one or two line amendment. if it basically said something like:

"All Rights and guaranties outlined within the Constitution of the United States of America and it's amendments, shall apply equally to all people regardless of Age, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Religion or sexual orientation."

Now, if you can right that better or have suggestions... please.. do so. then lets get this sent to our various Reps in Congress and see if we cant get the Bill to Ratify the Constitution rolling.

[Steven]

Ah, so bigotry should simply be allowed to happen without consequences. Hence, my 'suck it up, pansy' comment you so skillfully took completely out of context.

Maybe you don't see any damage; that does not mean that there is none present. I should think that if we were talking about a photographer who is secretly a member of the KKK and refused to photograph a couple because they were black or Jewish, you might feel a little differently. No one, I think, would really expect that photographer to be taken to court, either, but the scorn would certainly be there.

But, hey, it's all about me, and MY decision by fiat.

Edited to include: Oh, yeah, that last was sarcasm.

your talking to a mexican american whos been bussed to other schools in the 70's.

and has been called a spic by white in laws.

and a bigot by DGNrs.

you really think I dont get it?

by the way - ARE WE talking about a photographer who is secretly a member of the KKK and refused to photograph a couple because they were black or Jewish?

no?

wow.

[know_buddy_kares]

I'd like to remind everyone that these are not christians we're talking about... they're Evangelicals.. and though they say they're a form of christianity... come on now.. common sense here people... steven... would you honestly want someone this closed minded, arrogant, ignorant, loud mouthed, bully of a person to be associated with you and how you follow your religious believes? I think not, I think you would be quite embarrassed to say someone like her shares the same views as you do. I've noticed something about evangelicals, they say the rest of the world is fucked up, and the rest of the world says they're fucked up. that's like a 1/100,000 ratio.

I don't see evangelicals as christians on a simple fact that they DON'T ACT LIKE CHRISTIANS. They prevent progress, individual freedoms, and try to conform everyone into a hive mind way of thinking. This photographer issue is just one of thousands of examples showing Evangelicals to be the farthest from reality out of any religious group of people... Shit, mass suicide cults make better sense. Yes, I would believe there is an alien space ship on the other side of some damned commet that'll take my spirit with them If i drink the grape cool-aid and die before I ever buy into anything an Evangelical tries to sell me in terms of religion.

The biggest issue with this i believe is more of a principal of the matter... intolerance... yes I'll say that again... intolerance... for claiming to be a part of christianity, a religeon known for preaching tolerance towards one another, they hypocritically do just the opposite. And no, I don't think they should get away with this. They're existence is an embarrasment to associated religions, and cultures. This is why most europeans I talk to tend to feel america is full of a bunch of religious nut jobs.

I want to see this being taken to court, I want to see the couple win, I want to see a change in this power struggle... I want them to loose this power that is quite frankly, extremely dangerous to the rest of us.

[Steven]

I'd like to remind everyone that these are not christians we're talking about... they're Evangelicals.. and though they say they're a form of christianity... come on now.. common sense here people... steven... would you honestly want someone this closed minded, arrogant, ignorant, loud mouthed, bully of a person to be associated with you and how you follow your religious believes? I think not, I think you would be quite embarrassed to say someone like her shares the same views as you do. I've noticed something about evangelicals, they say the rest of the world is fucked up, and the rest of the world says they're fucked up. that's like a 1/100,000 ratio.

I don't see evangelicals as christians on a simple fact that they DON'T ACT LIKE CHRISTIANS. They prevent progress, individual freedoms, and try to conform everyone into a hive mind way of thinking. This photographer issue is just one of thousands of examples showing Evangelicals to be the farthest from reality out of any religious group of people... Shit, mass suicide cults make better sense. Yes, I would believe there is an alien space ship on the other side of some damned commet that'll take my spirit with them If i drink the grape cool-aid and die before I ever buy into anything an Evangelical tries to sell me in terms of religion.

The biggest issue with this i believe is more of a principal of the matter... intolerance... yes I'll say that again... intolerance... for claiming to be a part of christianity, a religeon known for preaching tolerance towards one another, they hypocritically do just the opposite. And no, I don't think they should get away with this. They're existence is an embarrasment to associated religions, and cultures. This is why most europeans I talk to tend to feel america is full of a bunch of religious nut jobs.

I want to see this being taken to court, I want to see the couple win, I want to see a change in this power struggle... I want them to loose this power that is quite frankly, extremely dangerous to the rest of us.

good questions - honestly Dude - i dont know their story - dont know their style - and conceded that they may in effect be ass holes - I dont know. What I DO know is that I belevie they have the right to choose who they want to do business with. Nobody seems to want to recognize that they took a financial loss to make this choice.

regardless - i am against forcing anybody to do anything - and for the rights to equality here - whats being professed is that they should be forced to yeild their own ideals or suffer the consequences- and to me thats the wrong approach and is specificly why I hope they fight it to the end.

lately it seems like free speech (or expression) really only applies when you agree with the majority.

if your free speech is used in opposition to the social norm - then your the worst thign out there.

I dont buy it.

as far as association Bro - its my job to represent ME as best I can.

I get lumped in with different sorts of people all teh time. it happened a few times here tonight in this thread.

but I dont ahve to accept it just because Im told to.

if these evangelicals were to profess they were tight with Steven fromm DGN - youd have a choice to make about me - and hopefully your choices would be balanced ones.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Steven, give up. You either accept their idea of Freedom and equality... or people in jack boots stuff you into an oven when it comes time to finally get rid of those pesky Christians.

They can't seem to see that they are doing exactly what they are accusing the Evangelical Christians of doing.

Oh, KBK, 35%... Thats the portion of our population that are Evangelical Christians.

I can not believe how close some of the things said here are too Pre Holocaust Nazi party propaganda.

[Steven]

Steven, give up. You either accept their idea of Freedom and equality... or people in jack boots stuff you into an oven when it comes time to finally get rid of those pesky Christians.

They can't seem to see that they are doing exactly what they are accusing the Evangelical Christians of doing.

Oh, KBK, 35%... Thats the portion of our population that are Evangelical Christians.

I can not believe how close some of the things said here are too Pre Holocaust Nazi party propaganda.

the problem is Mark, that I just dont have an ounce of "give up" in my body, somehow I was absent that day they handed it out. Thank God. and you are dead on with the pre holocaust sentiments.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

This isnt quite the same as issues of race or gender and religion. It has similarities but its not a 1 to 1 comparison.

Trying not to invoke the huge issues surrounding this that could go on for centuries (and have been)... Assuming we are just talking about the legal ramifications. Ignoring the unrealistic version of freedom meaning 'total freedom as i personally define it' that some people hold:

First is discrimination/denial of service to gay couples by a business, based on them being gay illegal or not? Not in the context of religion, just in general, in this location? Sexual orientation has only mild support in the courts so far, its growing but its by no means universal and there is nothing directly stated as such in the constitution about it. This does not mean it isn't illegal, since there are endless things that the constitution and the supreme court are generally silent about as well they should be if we are to maintain at least some bit of the ever-increasing fairytale of state sovereignty.

But anyway... If it is not illegal than this is a "move along, nothing to see here" issue. Since as long as exercise of religion doesn't "disrupt the peace" (aka illegal) its perfectly acceptable. The ins and outs of what level of interaction and the "size" of the business would be required by the photographer muddy the waters a bit, but only from a surface level, the underlying principle still would apply.

If "discrimination" based on sexual preference is deemed illegal then , that trumps the Free Exercise of religion clause regardless of "where" or "how" this illegal act takes place particularly. The exercise clause having to do with freedom of personal religious expression in the context of denying services based on sexual preference for religious reasons in this case here. The Expression clause doesn't protect illegal acts except in very rare situations, which i doubt this would be one of, if the act itself is deemed illegal.

If my religious beliefs say that i need to never work on a Jewish persons house, and I somehow admit to that antisemitism, then claim freedom of religion, will be trumped by the rule of law and the religion hole-card wont override it.

But in actual practice this would almost never need to be applied or even discussed as it would apply in so few situations that were actually testable in court since its such a small-contract type thing with very low visibility if the photographer just says no and doesn't give the "because i don't want to support that lifestyle" reason. Again this hinges on discrimination based on sexual preference being illegal or not.

If i refuse to join the army due my religious beliefs, that's not an illegal act and would fall under the Expression clause.

This one goes in the "undecided" column. Don't fool yourself into thinking any of us has the key to absolute truth.

[sass_in_the_pants]

I have a friend who plans Catholic weddings. No protestant, no lutheran, certainly not Jewish, just Catholic. If you would like to get married anywhere but the Catholic church, she will turn you away and be very clear that it is because you aren't Catholic. She has done this for two reasons. One, she believes you should stick with what you know, and boy howdy, does that girl know Catholic. Two, she believes that as a Catholic you are not allowed to celebrate or recognize marriages from other denominations and so planning a wedding for, say, a Baptist would actually be sinning. She's wrong, mind you, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, she won't plan your wedding if you aren't Catholic. Damn shame, too, the girl's got skillz.

Is that discrimination?

Is it illegal?

I also have a friend who performs marriage ceremonies, but ONLY for gay couples. It's his schtick, and he feels that it's his way to thumb his nose at the establishment. He's wrong, too, of course. The 'establishment' doesn't particularly care about him, or his nose, or his thumb, but that, too, is neither here nor there.

Is that discrimination?

Is that illegal?

Or is all of this just working within the boundaries you have set for yourself?

By the way, these two friends are also dear friends of eachother. It turns out that being catty and bitchy trumps any sort of core value differences.

The gay one said, 'Oh my god! Did you see what she was wearing?'

The Catholic one said 'What a whore!'

And they both giggled to eachother, and that was the beginning of ten years of a beautiful friendship.

[Steven]

I have a friend who plans Catholic weddings. No protestant, no lutheran, certainly not Jewish, just Catholic. If you would like to get married anywhere but the Catholic church, she will turn you away and be very clear that it is because you aren't Catholic. She has done this for two reasons. One, she believes you should stick with what you know, and boy howdy, does that girl know Catholic. Two, she believes that as a Catholic you are not allowed to celebrate or recognize marriages from other denominations and so planning a wedding for, say, a Baptist would actually be sinning. She's wrong, mind you, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, she won't plan your wedding if you aren't Catholic. Damn shame, too, the girl's got skillz.

Is that discrimination?

Is it illegal?

I also have a friend who performs marriage ceremonies, but ONLY for gay couples. It's his schtick, and he feels that it's his way to thumb his nose at the establishment. He's wrong, too, of course. The 'establishment' doesn't particularly care about him, or his nose, or his thumb, but that, too, is neither here nor there.

Is that discrimination?

Is that illegal?

Or is all of this just working within the boundaries you have set for yourself?

By the way, these two friends are also dear friends of eachother. It turns out that being catty and bitchy trumps any sort of core value differences.

The gay one said, 'Oh my god! Did you see what she was wearing?'

The Catholic one said 'What a whore!'

And they both giggled to eachother, and that was the beginning of ten years of a beautiful friendship.

you know what?

this was the best post yet.....by far.

[jadnifer]

Oh boy...

I think that if this goes to court that no one should receive any monetary payments. I know that one side or the other will win. If the couple wins, then the photographer will either have to pay fines or give the couple monetary compensation.

However, now that this is public, a lot of people are going to choose not to use her services because of this and that is fine. That is there choice. The photographer had the choice of telling the couple that she wouldn't do the pictures because they were gay. She could have told them that she had another shoot that day.

Now, jobs aren't allowed to deny you a position if you are gay. Now if they don't want a gay person working there, they can say that they denied you the job because of another reason. If that person could prove that they were discriminated against, then it would be a legal action, but it would a hell of a time trying to prove it.

It would be the same thing if they put in the constitution that no business was allowed to deny services to gay people. The company could just say that they denied them for another reason and again that person would have a hell of a time proving the discrimination.

If this post doesn't make sense for some reason..please let me know because I'm gettin' sleepy here.

[Kit Kat P]

I'd like to remind everyone that these are not christians we're talking about... they're Evangelicals.. and though they say they're a form of christianity... come on now.. common sense here people... steven... would you honestly want someone this closed minded, arrogant, ignorant, loud mouthed, bully of a person to be associated with you and how you follow your religious believes? I think not, I think you would be quite embarrassed to say someone like her shares the same views as you do. I've noticed something about evangelicals, they say the rest of the world is fucked up, and the rest of the world says they're fucked up. that's like a 1/100,000 ratio.

I don't see evangelicals as christians on a simple fact that they DON'T ACT LIKE CHRISTIANS. They prevent progress, individual freedoms, and try to conform everyone into a hive mind way of thinking. This photographer issue is just one of thousands of examples showing Evangelicals to be the farthest from reality out of any religious group of people... Shit, mass suicide cults make better sense. Yes, I would believe there is an alien space ship on the other side of some damned commet that'll take my spirit with them If i drink the grape cool-aid and die before I ever buy into anything an Evangelical tries to sell me in terms of religion.

Actually I was raised in an evangelical house that encouraged polictal and religous discussions. Allowed me to run around and get dirty w/ the boys. And my parents ran a foster home and showed far more christian love to others than I've seen collected in some other "christian" churches. By the way we are christian, and yes they have a problem w/ me being gay but they didn't kill me and we still talk.

[Msterbeau]

Marc,

The Civil Rights Act should in fact be amended. I would be happy with that. Then i would like the whole thing boiled down into a slightly vague shorter version and sent to the States to be ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution.

It could be very simple. It could be a one or two line amendment. if it basically said something like:

"All Rights and guaranties outlined within the Constitution of the United States of America and it's amendments, shall apply equally to all people regardless of Age, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Religion or sexual orientation."

Now, if you can right that better or have suggestions... please.. do so. then lets get this sent to our various Reps in Congress and see if we cant get the Bill to Ratify the Constitution rolling.

*Copies and pastes to letters*

It's a little annoying that the founding fathers put in the Declaration of Independence the statement that "all men are created equal" ... then going on to the bit about inalienable rights, one being the pursuit of happiness, but didn't put something similar to what you have above in the original Constitution. Which, granted, would have been interpreted differently then, but still... clearly they had that thinking in mind at the time. We shouldn't have had to amend the Constitution for some of this stuff...

[Steven]

Actually I was raised in an evangelical house that encouraged polictal and religous discussions. Allowed me to run around and get dirty w/ the boys. And my parents ran a foster home and showed far more christian love to others than I've seen collected in some other "christian" churches. By the way we are christian, and yes they have a problem w/ me being gay but they didn't kill me and we still talk.

I loved this.....

[Guest Megalicious]

Duh, if you dont want to do it, come up with a polite excuse. Dont openly admit discrimination, and then wonder why people are taking action against you.

Exactly!

[Kit Kat P]

Thank you, Steven.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

No they didn't. You need to put your self in the mind set of the of the time. I don't care what our modern day view of rights are and who gets them. At the time of the Constitution.. you had rights if you had a penis, had beige skin color and like to fuck things with vaginas.

[Steven]

Thank you, Steven.

your welcome babe.

to address Munin's quote of: :"Duh, if you dont want to do it, come up with a polite excuse. Dont openly admit discrimination, and then wonder why people are taking action against you."

I understand this.

BUT - there's always a but.....if this photography team "discriminated" openly based on what they felt they had to do to please God (and this is not me by the way - Im just against the lawsuit and thinks its crap) as opposed to yeilding to a man made mandate - can you at least understand that what they were doign in their mind (thats the key) was perhaps an act of personal reverance? And therefore coming up with a polite excuse was not consistent with their ideals?

Now I know - at least 13 of you will jump in and think that their faith should not have anything to do with their public business practices.....but thats based on your own perspectives based on your own individual value sets.

is that clearly...."right"????

and then who gets to define what is "right"???

[ttogreh]

In Ypsilanti, in 1998, Loren and Carole Hansen, who owned Standard Printing, refused to print materials for a LGBT group called Tri-Pride, of Eastern Michigan University, saying that such materials were against their Christian beliefs. This resulted in the city council enacting a civil rights ordinance that banned discrimination on 14 classification, including sexual orientation. It was upheld a year later by a referendum, 1,828 votes to 1,449. I was 17 and several months old at the time the vote was held, May 5. If I had been over the age of majority, the votes would have been 1,829 to 1,449.

Less than 24 hours after the vote was certified, The Hansens were asked if they would print a gay magazine. When they refused, they were threatened with legal action.

The Hansens eventually sold Standard Printing, and left Ypsilanti. I don't know if Tri-Pride still exists anymore. In any event, all of this is very reminiscent....

[Kit Kat P]

*Copies and pastes to letters*

It's a little annoying that the founding fathers put in the Declaration of Independence the statement that "all men are created equal" ... then going on to the bit about inalienable rights, one being the pursuit of happiness, but didn't put something similar to what you have above in the original Constitution. Which, granted, would have been interpreted differently then, but still... clearly they had that thinking in mind at the time. We shouldn't have had to amend the Constitution for some of this stuff...

Keep in mind, at that time period that is not what they believed.

[Steven]

In Ypsilanti, in 1998, Loren and Carole Hansen, who owned Standard Printing, refused to print materials for a LGBT group called Tri-Pride, of Eastern Michigan University, saying that such materials were against their Christian beliefs. This resulted in the city council enacting a civil rights ordinance that banned discrimination on 14 classification, including sexual orientation. It was upheld a year later by a referendum, 1,828 votes to 1,449. I was 17 and several months old at the time the vote was held, May 5. If I had been over the age of majority, the votes would have been 1,829 to 1,449.

Less than 24 hours after the vote was certified, The Hansens were asked if they would print a gay magazine. When they refused, they were threatened with legal action.

The Hansens eventually sold Standard Printing, and left Ypsilanti. I don't know if Tri-Pride still exists anymore. In any event, all of this is very reminiscent....

great example.

conform or be cast out.

what happened to this couple was wrong.

they lost their livelihood, when Tri-Pride could have gone elsewhere to have their business handled.

home of the free, land of the brave? Its a big machien in the end - and getting more and more mechanized.

[freydis]

Steven, no one's saying they have to do something they don't want to. All that's in jeopardy is their right to say no and specify that their public, commercial business refuses to do business for a discriminatory reason. If you have a business that operates within the law (i.e., you have storefront, and are subject to the local laws when you have a business license in the city you operate), then you have to follow the local law, or you can have your business license revoked. Reguardless of religion, everyone has to obey the law, and play the game. This means that if local law says you cant discriminate, you can, as the article specified, direct someone you don't *want* to do business with to someone who might better meet their needs. Or simply say you're booked. Or simply say you might not be a good fit. Not "OMG! A Lesbian! I cant take pictures of you, youre going to hell!". Quite simply, you're breaking the law. End of story. This is someone who has a public business licence, and is now upset because they're being held to laws that govern that license. They don't *have* to do anything they don't want to. But by law, they're not allowed to specifically refuse business because of discrimination.

[Msterbeau]

Is discrimination not discrimination because of your religion/faith?