Comments on: Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:21:30 +0000

The christian couple where operating a business that was open to the public, they had adds and website advertising their services. The laws in New Mexico state that a business open to the public cannot discriminate on the ground of race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. The christian couple violated the law by refusing to provide their services based on the sexual orientation of someone seeking their services. If the reason for their refusal was because they where booked or because they where away on vacation at that time it they wouldn’t have broken the law as such reasons if genuine and not simply an excuse would apply to everyone gay or straight, black or white. A public business may put up a sign that says the have the right to refuse their service and may even apply it in case like no shirt, no shoes, no service as such reasons apply to everyone but cannot apply it in respect to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If a gay person refuses to wear a shirt while patronizing a business they can be refused service on the grounds that they aren’t wearing a shirt and thats not hygienic and that would apply a straight person equally.

The people that argue that a person operating a public business has the right to turn people away because of their race, religion, gender, etc, seem to have a short memory when it comes to history. It was tried to blacks in the pre-civil rights era and it was deemed unconstitutional and illegal. This same protection was expanded in respect to sexual orientation. If you don’t like it move to somewhere that hasn’t expanded protection, or make your pubic business a private business (i.e) not open to the public but by invitation only. Otherwise if you have a customer who’s race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation that you may not agree with, hold you nose, serve the customer, and the get on with your life. Being hired to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony does not mean you endorse it or agree with it. You are not participating in the wedding simply performing a service, just as any musician or caterer is performing a service.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:52:43 +0000

Sounds to me like the gay couple targeted the Christian couple so they could take them to task. People are easily offended! When did it become the law to never be an offended American? What if the the Christian Couple asked a homosexual photographer to shoot their wedding in a church that openly preaches against homosexuality on Television and the Photohrapher turned them down? Should the Christians get paid thier $6000 fine?

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:07:18 +0000

When you chose to profit from offering the public a service; you no longer get to choose who benefits from that service. Would it also be okay for this same photographer to decide that she did not want to shoot the ceremony of an interracial couple, a black couple, or what if she just felt that the two people were so ugly they should procreate? Who gets to decide when it is okay to discriminate? If you rely on the public to support your business you shold not get to decide who that public is. If you want to advertise only at your church or church events and limit your clientel to only those who share your point of view then you are also limiting your earning potential.Oh no! Can’t do that can ya!

By: Fed(eral government) Up

Fed(eral government) Up — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:37:24 +0000

Two Questions,

Why is it ok to be Christian phobic or religious phobic and not ok to be homophobic or any other phobic?

Why is it ok and great according to mainstream media to have African Americans only buying from African Americans , but as soon as someone white only buys from white Americans (I’m sorry All the colors of the rainbow prism American) it is a travesty of justice? (Not a racist of any kind, like people of all race, just don’t like how people who use race for there own agendas.

America stands for Freedom, but there comes a cost for that freedom. Are you willing to pay the cost? Or are you a lazy, give it too me because its mine, whining, never said no to, I want that so it is my Mother Nature given right to take it from you even if you are the nicest people on the planet, but don’t believe the same way I do type of person. The whiney, never said no to, babies, I like what you have so I am going to take it away from you, and if you don’t I am going to run to every authority I can and tattle tale on you ARE BEGINNING TO RUN OUR COUNTRY AND IT IS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE STOOD UP.

By: Danny

Danny — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:31:36 +0000

Should the United Negro College fund deny giving grants to a student because he/she is white? Should an employer be forced to hire someone of a specific gender, race, sexual preference over a qualified candidate that is white, to adhere to some stupid law that forces them to?

We as Americans are “free” to hold our own opinions, and speak openly about them. We are granted that freedom in the First Amendment. Since homosexuality is a moral issue with Christian believers, and since it is taught as such in the bible, it falls under the freedom of religion portion of that amendment. And as Christian’s they are free to exercise their religious freedom as directed by their beliefs. The bible tells them to turn away from things that are “detestable” to God, and one of MANY things in that list is homosexuality. They are in their rights to refuse to support an act which by their moral compass is sinful.

The government cannot simply apply a law that forces a moral viewpoint that is established in a person’s faith, no matter how “unpopular” that view point is. This is the fundamental flaw in most discrimination legislation. It’s one sided and does not provide equal protection for the “perceived” perpetrator of the crime.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:23:48 +0000

http://www.dmphotogallery.com

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:22:58 +0000

This is beyond ridiculous. Religious views aside, why couldn’t the couple just find another photographer that was comfortable shooting their wedding? Why go on a crusade to legally compel a private business to act against its owners’ personal beliefs? No doubt the couple believed they were fighting intolerance, although what they were blind to was the fact that they were being intolerant of the photographers’ beliefs. The photographers were not asking the lesbian couple to do anything contrary to what the couple believed, but the couple was asking the photographers to violate what the photographers believed. How can any court in its right mind rule against the photographers? Utterly ridiculous. And madening.

Aaron
DM Photo

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:59:46 +0000

The law should be re-written so that you cannot refuse essential services like food, housing, etc..
But a conflict of interest class should be common sense.

Can a 18 year old rent a apartment in senior housing?
Can a satanist teach over others In a Christian church?
Can a republican manage democrats?
Can millitant vegan be a spokesman for a steakhouse ?
Can a man be a hostess at Hooters?

This is common sense guys,
The harm that would befall the photographers would be worse then
The couple having to find a willing photographer.

They could be ousted from their church, lose clients, lose friends, suffer emotional harm from being a part of the ceremony. It’s not a vital necessity to have a photographer, and I’m sure there are thousands of photogs in NM.
It’s not the same as food or housing.

I wouldn’t refuse, but I would calmly explain to them my views and how
Uncomfortable it would make me, also the harm it would cause me, and I would see if I could
Find them a willing photog from my network of friends. Surely this would suffice. If they persisted in
Forcing me to shoot it that’s basically the same as pushing their beliefs in my face.
I would use every opportunity to read scripture out loud to anyone who engaged me in conversation and also
To the couple themselves. If they can deal with hearing hours of scripture then it’s worth me shooting it.

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:11:07 +0000

these photographers should have shot the wedding, and then subsequently loose the photos for the couple.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:15:00 +0000

The argument of "would it be ok to not do the shoot because they are black or ..." is a lie on its face.
They are not choosing based on a ethnicity or other circumstance beyond the subjects control. They are basing their decision on there moral/religious beliefs as opposed to the subjects CHOSEN lifestyle.
The subjects have CHOSEN a lifestyle that is totally against their beliefs, can we as photographers then have the right to CHOOSE not to support that?
So what you are saying is that discrimination based on color etc.. (Which all Christians should find deplorable) is equal to that which is based on thought/choice?
I am a pro photographer, should i go look for a "married" gay couple that used a gay photog for their ceremony and sue them for discrimination?
This is wrong, and scary - as the government has know decided to force by (by gunpoint if needed) to control what is acceptable thinking, and who can think what.
Welcome to Amerika, the thought police are listening.