WYp8riot Loc: Wyoming

"Last year, New Mexico fined the local owners of a photography studio $7,000 for refusing to provide their services to a lesbian couple. "


What happened to freedom to contract?


http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=16047872429&ch=DA324FABC11FB75105B84216438E970F&h=2a5bc43a077a61f247ef03ce842b0570&ei=Wo_qYd63N

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No link, no reference, no proof, just one line out of a fundamentalist rant.

WYp8riot Loc: Wyoming

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Well, lighthouse, he provided the link. Apparently it's true and is not a fundamentalist rant (boy how you guys like to fling that word around without doing a fact check). What do you think now? What do I think? This country was based on freedom, and we're losing those. The LGBT community is forcing their agenda down our throat whether we like it or not as is evident in this case.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Steve,
Don't be in a hurry to blame LGBT groups for this. These are the type of situations that could probably be settled peacefully, if not amicably, if it were not for radical organizations like the ACLU, who have been behind every major controversy for the past twenty years.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Well, its great that he provided a link.
The article still looks like a fundamentalist rant to me.
Walks like a duck ... talks like a duck ... then it probably is a duck.
Whether the situation is true or not doesn't stop it from being a fundamentalist rant.

Seems to me someone wants to turn it into a political/religious football on both sides.

I don't appreciate having dogmatic mantra rammed down my throat from any crowd.
That includes the gay community and the christian community.
Heck, it even includes the christian gay community.

Personally I think that the photographer could have refused without giving a reason, but they chose to make it a bun fight, and they chose a reason that they knew would end up in the courts.

And of course you took offence to me using "fundamentalist" because ... well ..... walks like a duck ... talks like a duck......

Fundamentalists have been ramming their agenda down everyones necks (and stringing them up) for a very long time indeed. And they still are.
Fundamentalist bigots don't really have a lot of moral ground to stand on Steve. What they have is rhetoric and picky interpretations.

Do you realise that the fundamentalists on here actually embarass and undermine the true Christians?

And in case you really want to know - I am not necessarily in favour of gay marraige and I think any photographer should be able to turn down any work they want to without providing any reason whatsoever.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Lighthouse....You really need to back off your "rant" charge. This is a sincere post with a real concern. I also have a problem with your following statement:

Do you realise that the fundamentalists on here actually embarass and undermine the true Christians?

Can you explain this statement please?

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I too would appreciate an explanation of that statement. Are fundamentalist Christians not real Christians? On second thought, don't answer that. This is no place to debate politics or religion. It is a photography forum!

WYp8riot Loc: Wyoming

"Personally I think that the photographer could have refused without giving a reason, but they chose to make it a bun fight, and they chose a reason that they knew would end up in the courts."

You don't believe in liberty and freedom of speech?
If you believe in the right to contract then it really doesn't matter what the photographers reason is. He can choose who he wishes to contract with.

If two people can not agee on a contract, they can both go elsewhere?

Why would you be offended that the one individual stated why he chose not to contract and not be concerned of the use of police powers to force another to do something they do not wish to do?

Why is it more wrong to live your belief even if someone doesn't like them, than it is to force your values onto others?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No. I don't need to back off my "rant" charge. I am entitled to my opinion, the same as you are.
And no, I am not going to explain or elaborate or mention any names.




There are many people in the world who pretend to speak for God but in reality espouse hatred, fire and brimstone.
These people are not Christians.

Yes you are absolutely right. It is a photography forum. That is what got my back up in the first place when the OP raised the issue on sex and religious grounds. So maybe this comment should be aimed in that direction.

ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

Right on.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada

*****

Photography - Well, it is sometimes said that Christians are those who have been 'exposed' to the Bible and have 'seen the light'.

grusum

Religion has caused more deaths worldwide than any other source of conflict.

Be at peace - be an Agnostic. Believe in yourself.

tnguy Loc: Tennessee

I thought this was a photography site. Not a place to argue Christianity.

WYp8riot Loc: Wyoming

The forum is open to discussions out-side of photography, but this was a case against a photographer. The point of OP is the violation of right to contract, regardless of your beliefs.

The idea that people can wield the power of currupt government to force an individual to provide a service to another should be a concern for anyone with compassion regardless of your faith or lack thereof.