Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."

[Inquiry]

I see you ignored other examples of things which the State can claim to take away but can’t actually take away.

Again, if the State says you aren’t human you are still human. If they make you live in a pen like an animal you are still human. The State can change how it treats you, it cannot change what you are. Is your humanity just a pipe dream?

 

[Freddy]

If taking pictures of soul damaging sins is fine then why not take pictures of murder or adultery?

Taking pictures of something consents to the very nature of it. Why would someone who holds Christian values want to make money off of taking pictures of a potential soul destroying sin?

I wasn’t aware that getting married was a sin. Ah, but now I see you qualified it as a potential sin.

Maybe the photographer can ask the happy couple if they intend to consumate the marriage. And maybe he should ask all married couples if they intend to use contraception. Or engage in ‘unatural acts’. I mean, if he can refuse on the basis on what might happen then there are a lot of bases to cover.

Should he put all these potential sins in the shop window or just email out a questionairre?

 

[RuthAnne]

I’m just in awe over this thread. Why are so many people so hell bent on controlling others? Is that what your lives are about? Controlling others? Get some rest . . .

 

[whatistrue]

Y’all can let me know when you’ve reached some sort of agreement.

But that’s just it. In the case of artists or writers or such, where the product they are commissioned to create is a form of speech, the limits are up to that particular individual and his/her belief system. Our agreement or not with those limits is irrelevant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Y’all can let me know when you’ve reached some sort of agreement.

But that’s just it. In the case of artists or writers or such, where the product they are commissioned to create is a form of speech, the limits are up to that particular individual and his/her belief system. Our agreement or not with those limits is irrelevant.

I’m afraid that it isn’t irrelevant. If you want to argue that someone can deny a service according to his or her beliefs then I want to know what you consider to be the limits. Saying that it’s a personal choice is not good enough.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

I see you ignored other examples of things which the State can claim to take away but can’t actually take away.

Since we were talking about RIGHTS, your question was irrelevant.

Oh it’s very relevant, because it shows there are things you do think are outside the State’s ability to actually change.

 

[whatistrue]

If you want to argue that someone can deny a service

That’s not what I am arguing. I am arguing that a creator of speech can decline to create speech that he or she is opposed to or finds offensive, regardless of whether someone is willing to pay for it. There is a fundamental difference between “providing services” like making sandwiches, driving a bus or taxi, or selling groceries and “producing content that is a type of speech” such as painting pictures, taking photographs, or designing posters.

Saying that it’s a personal choice is not good enough.

According to whom? It’s definitely good enough for me, and if it isn’t good enough for you then too bad.

 

[vsedriver]

Of course it can and it does. Certain Native tribes used to use some mushrooms with psychedelic properties in their religious rituals, and no one raised their voice against that prohibition.

this went to court. The Native Americans won the right to use psychedelic plants for their rituals.

And some old religions used animal and even human sacrifices, which are forbidden by law - these days.

animal sacrifice is still permitted. Unfortunately human sacrifice isn’t permitted because it violates the right to life.

And not a word (again) about making your business in the form of an exclusive members-only club, which would give you all the opportunities to restrict the membership to your preferred group of people

because it isn’t always workable.

 

[vsedriver]

Obviously this means that there is a “stronger” one, who grants the right to the “weaker” one.

the stronger one is God, not the state.

The declaration of independence talks about some “inalienable rights granted by some creator”. A nice, but naive approach, not to be taken seriously. A cute slogan, nothing more.

taken very seriously by most Americans. It was this concept that made it so vital to have the Second Amendment.

 

[Mythicalbio]

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things2c.htm

 

[Dolphin]

I wasn’t aware that getting married was a sin

Same-sex marriage is a sin… nobody is talking about heterosexual marriage, the OP specifically asked about a camera person at a same-sex wedding…

I’m assuming you haven’t read the thread?

 

[vsedriver]

In your world…of course there would be. And in the case of the local cafe I mentioned earlier we could have expected to see a sign in their window saying ‘Barista required. No blacks need apply’.

What a wonderful world.

except that this is already illegal

 

[vsedriver]

I’m afraid that it isn’t irrelevant. If you want to argue that someone can deny a service according to his or her beliefs then I want to know what you consider to be the limits.

it is not a denial of service. It is forcing a person to participate and use their talents to engage in something they believe is sinful and or don’t want to be publicly seen as supporting.

 

[vsedriver]

Wonderful. So why doesn’t he enforce those “rights”?

what does enforcement got to do with it? I don’t think you actually know what a right is.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Same-sex marriage is a sin… nobody is talking about heterosexual marriage, the OP specifically asked about a camera person at a same-sex wedding…

He’s talking about heterosexual relationships that have elements of sin in them.

 

[vsedriver]

Come on. Get down to the details.

so just how do you make your business a private club? do you tell your customers that they have to join your club before you will take them on as a customer? do you have to write up by-laws, have a board of directors? collect dues? have monthly meetings?

You see it is not that workable.

and even then, this doesn’t ensure that you won’t be sued for discrimination. Private clubs are not as private as you think they are.

 

[goout]

Just out of curiosity would it be possible to circumnavigate these laws by saying your services are for Protestant, Catholic, orthodox, etc. etc. and make it a very long list?

Also Some businesses say “no shirt no shoes no service” or “we have the right to refuse service at any time for any reason”.

You have to discern whether serious human rights are being violated.
Refusing to take pictures is nothing like refusing someone food based on some discriminating criteria.

The two subjects are completely different gravity.

A human being doesn’t have a right to a cake, or to flowers, or to pictures. A human being does have a right to work and eat and move about freely.
But we are in the twilight zone of stupidity, and those simple distinctions seem impossible to make today.
“because I feel it and want it” doesn’t make something real.

 

[Hodos]

This is just stupid. There is no sin in taking photos of a gay wedding, at least none that I know of. Neither would it be for an illicit straight one, or a bigamist straight one, etc. Or to provide clothing, catering, etc. People make a deal out of nothing. Doing such services doesn’t imply that one believes anythkng. Taking photos at an Orthodox wedding doesn’t imply schism for instance. This is not a hill to die on. A public business services the public (whoever constitutes that).

I would disagree. First of all, though the man is in business, he is in the business of artistic expression. So it is not just snapping pics, it is doing so in a manner that uses his artistic talents to glorify what he believes to be sinful. And it is sinful to glorify something as righteous and just that one knows is sinful. It would be no different if I operated a sign shop and created signs that promoted abortion.

That being said, the First Amendment guarantees the right to religious freedom of exercise. This means he has the right to act within the confines of his religious beliefs and conscience.

Finally, some would argue that this would mean that he is engaging in discrimination, and that somehow the state has a compelling interest in abridging the freedom of religion in an effort to prevent discriminatory practices. This is a false narrative. Businesses don’t have the freedom to discriminate based on protected classes. But they do have the freedom to say what goods and services they provide. So for example, Baronelle Stutzman was sued for not making flowers for a gay wedding. She had previously made floral arrangements for this couple on multiple occasions; however, she declined to make a floral arrangement for a gay wedding because of her sincerely held belief. The factor that caused her to refuse service was not due to the protected class of the plaintiffs, but due to the nature of the event. This case and others like it are currently making their way back to the Supreme Court.

 

[Inquiry]

He doesn’t have to. He gave them, the State cannot countermand Him. The State is worldly and can only do worldly things to you. Caesar can treat you in an undignified way, but he cannot take your dignity. Caesar can treat you inhumanely, but he cannot take your humanity. Caesar can kill you, but he cannot take away your life. There are many, many things that the State can inhibit, but cannot destroy. Rights are one of them.

 

[Lara]

Dolphin:

If taking pictures of soul damaging sins is fine then why not take pictures of murder or adultery?

Taking pictures of something consents to the very nature of it. Why would someone who holds Christian values want to make money off of taking pictures of a potential soul destroying sin?

I wasn’t aware that getting married was a sin. Ah, but now I see you qualified it as a potential sin.

Maybe the photographer can ask the happy couple if they intend to consumate the marriage. And maybe he should ask all married couples if they intend to use contraception. Or engage in ‘unatural acts’. I mean, if he can refuse on the basis on what might happen then there are a lot of bases to cover.

Should he put all these potential sins in the shop window or just email out a questionairre?

Email a questionairre. Just kidding. You raise a good point, that many considering marriage are in a pit of sin to begin with. However, two gay guys or two lesbian women can never emerge from that pit and redeem themselves other than by vowing to stay celibate and disavowing their legal marital status. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple can still make good by going to confession for contraception, sterilization or whatever other sin, and can still stay married.

However, I’m glad you’re starting to see just how pervasive sin is in marriage.