82% of Americans Believe Photographers Should Have Right to Refuse Service to LGBT Community

Aug 12, 2015

Allen Mowery

Allen Mowery is a Nationally-published Commercial & Editorial Photographer with over 20 years of experience. He has shot for major brands as well small clients. When not shooting client work or chasing overgrown wildlife from his yard, he loves to capture the stories of the people and culture around him.

Aug 12, 2015

Allen Mowery

Allen Mowery is a Nationally-published Commercial & Editorial Photographer with over 20 years of experience. He has shot for major brands as well small clients. When not shooting client work or chasing overgrown wildlife from his yard, he loves to capture the stories of the people and culture around him.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

photographer-lgbt-rights

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states brought with it quite a stir in the photography community.  One group was cheering in victory, calling for further legislation making it illegal for photographers and wedding vendors to refuse clients based on religious beliefs.  Another group was crying out that their religious freedoms were now in jeopardy and their businesses could face extinction.  And still others were indifferent.  (We gotta have the indifferent ones…)

While a small minority seemed to have made their voices heard loud and clear, a recent poll conducted by Caddell Associates indicates that more than 80% of Americans still believe a photographer should have the right to decline a wedding based on religious beliefs.

Respondents were posed a simple question:

“Suppose a Christian wedding photographer has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same sex marriage. If a same sex couple wanted to hire the photographer for their wedding, should the photographer have the right to say no?”

Surprisingly, 82% sided with the religious freedom of the photographer over the cries of discrimination from the LGBT community.

Additionally, as Patrick Caddell says, “More than two thirds (68 percent) disagreed that the federal and state government should be able to require by law a private citizen to provide a service or their property for an event that is contrary to their religious beliefs. Only 18 percent agreed. Indeed, 51 percent strongly disagreed with this.”  This comes after lawmakers in Indiana had to backpedal on a state law allowing photographers the right to refuse service on religious grounds.

“But, those are the opinions coming from political conservatives and Evangelical Christians!”, you might say.  Here are a few facts to consider:

  • 72% of Democrats polled believed that a photographer should have the right to refuse service.
  • 74% of those with no religious preference or affiliation agreed as well.
  • 79% of those who do not attend church agreed.
  • 22% of Democrats polled believe that protecting religious freedom is more important than protecting LGBT rights (14%).

For those interested, the entire poll’s findings are below:

What does this mean for photographers?

It could honestly mean nothing.  But, it could also mean that, as the waters settle, Christian photographers (and those from other religious groups, i.e. Muslims) opposing same-sex marriage will have increased support when faced with lawsuits, personal attacks, and death threats.

Or, perhaps a general sense of “live and let live” will settle upon the nation when all the indignation clears.  Who knows…

If nothing else, I believe this is indicative that this fight is not yet over for photographers.  As we continue to see the bitter struggle between religious freedom and gay rights, let us bear one important fact in mind:  Beneath ideology, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs, each individual is a human being, just like us.  And, as our dear editor has to constantly remind me, “Poison will get you nowhere.”

[via Washington Examiner]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Allen Mowery

Allen Mowery

Allen Mowery is a Nationally-published Commercial & Editorial Photographer with over 20 years of experience. He has shot for major brands as well small clients. When not shooting client work or chasing overgrown wildlife from his yard, he loves to capture the stories of the people and culture around him.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

101 responses to “82% of Americans Believe Photographers Should Have Right to Refuse Service to LGBT Community”

  1. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    I no longer shoot weddings but if I did I would refuse to photograph a homosexual wedding. I must follow the clear teachings of the Bible, as a Christian. To be forced to participate would be like forcing a black man to participate in a kkk event, or forcing a woman to participate in an event that degrades women. There are plenty of photographers willing to serve this demographic. Christians should not be targeted for litigation and coercion.

    Most Americans don’t want the government to force people to violate their beliefs.

    1. aleroe Avatar
      aleroe

      My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. We are not married in the eyes of God. The Catholic Church (and many Protestant churches) won’t come out and say this, but according to their theology, my wife and I are living in sin. Would you not photograph our wedding?

      1. Steve Avatar
        Steve

        Many pastors are happy to officiate a wedding of two people who have been living together (living in sin) and have decided to marry. I would suggest marital counseling even in that case.

    2. Michael Goolsby Avatar
      Michael Goolsby

      Your analogies are really messed up, but I do 100% support your right to decline any job you don’t wish to perform for any reason. Having said that, I am genuinely stumped as to understand why any couple would possibly want to give their business to anyone who is openly intolerant of who they are and what they believe.

      1. Steve Avatar
        Steve

        I agree. Find someone who can celebrate your wedding with you. It won’t be me.

        1. Michael Goolsby Avatar
          Michael Goolsby

          Thanks. That’ll leave you with more time to sit at home and sing praise songs with your family.

          1. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            That is an awesome way to spend your time.

          2. Michael Goolsby Avatar
            Michael Goolsby

            No, that is an awesome way for YOU to spend YOUR time. I don’t praise imaginary gods that encourage intolerance of innocent people.

          3. Bob Blaylock Avatar
            Bob Blaylock

              Psalms 53:1:  “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

  2. Baldor Avatar
    Baldor

    It’s easy to decline jobs you don’t wish to perform. Don’t run a public busines.

    If you don’t want to serve meals to black people, don’t run a restaurant, is easy.

    But if you run a busines, you are forced to follow the laws about how you can run the busines.

    1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
      Bob Blaylock

        Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment; and freedom of conscience and freedom of association are strongly implied therein.

        There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any authority on the part of government to compel anyone to waive any of these rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living in his chosen profession.

  • Ao Avatar
    Ao

    So you believe love between same sex is like KKK. Nice one.

    1. Steve Avatar
      Steve

      This is taken out of context. The point is a person should not be forced to participate in an event that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

      1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
        Bob Blaylock

          It shouldn’t even need to be a religious belief.  Any reasonable, deeply-held moral or ethical belief should apply just as well.

          If one of the various scattered groups that now claims a connection to the historical Ku Klux Klan wanted to hold a big event, exemplifying the principles which defined the KKK; and they wanted to hire a photographer to cover the event, who among is would want to accept that job?

          Should a photographer who has a moral objection to the Ky Klux Klan not have every right to refuse to support such an event with his time and talents?  And how should this be any different than a photographer refusing on moral grounds to similarly support as sick homosexual mockery of a wedding?

  • Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Nowhere in your bible does it say ‘…go forth my children and deny your business services…’ WWJD, he’s be the first to support the LGBT community, probably overturn the ‘money traders’ tables in the US House as well…

    1. Steve Avatar
      Steve

      Jesus defined marriage very clearly in Matthew chapter 19. Maybe you should actually read what He said rather than imagining Him accepting modern cultural phenomena. Jesus is an historical figure and we have His actual words recorded for us. He lived in a culture that condemned homosexuality as sin. He studied the Torah which condemned homosexuality as sin. It does not take a genius to figure out His views.

      1. Roger Lambert Avatar
        Roger Lambert

        You really know nothing about the Bible if you think it records Jesus’ actual words! Good grief – why is it always always the folks who know nothing about their own religion who use the Bible to justify their bigotry?!?

  • Morgan Glassco Avatar
    Morgan Glassco

    You’re picking and choosing what to abide by and that is a shame. When was the last time you stoned a divorced woman? Bet you wear mixed fabrics.

    1. Steve Avatar
      Steve

      This is a common error, to take unrelated Bible verses and throw them together. Let’s keep similar verses together. For example, the Scriptures condemn incest, adultery and beastiality. Those laws fit well with homosexuality. Should we throw out verses condemning sex with animals?

      1. Morgan Glassco Avatar
        Morgan Glassco

        An error, to take as you say unrelated verses? What the heck does that mean? Unrelated? Is that your way of bending the ‘rule’ you’re buying into and feeling okay about it? If you’re going to pretend this book is a manual on the do’s and don’ts of life, nothing in it is ‘unrelated’.

        Bet many ‘Christian’ photographers work on Sundays too. We don’t see them being persecuted for that. Hypocrites.

  • Roger Lambert Avatar
    Roger Lambert

    Guess I missed the part in the Bible that informs on what type of wedding a photographer may shoot. Is it the part about forgiving sinners, or he who is without sin should cast the first stone?

    Maybe you mean the part about homosexuality being “an abomination”? That’s pretty clear – and it says (since you say you MUST follow it teachings) that the penalty is not a refusal to shoot a wedding, but death. You must kill them.

    Lots of other “abominations, too: No doubt you are not a complete hypocrite who just plain hates gays, and you follow the teachings of the bible on these, also, right?

    List of “Abominations”:

    Unclean things (Lev. 7:21)
    Customs of pagans (Lev. 18:30)
    Idols (2 Chr. 15:8; 1 Pet. 4:3)
    Sins of men (Ps. 14:1; 53:1)
    Cheating (Mic. 6:10)
    Lost souls (Rev. 21:8)
    A froward man (perverse; one who turns aside (Pro. 3:32; 11:20)
    A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17)
    A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
    Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
    A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
    Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
    A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
    A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
    Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
    A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
    Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)
    The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9)
    The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26)
    The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
    Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
    Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
    Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23)
    Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10)
    Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
    Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
    Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
    Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)
    Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)
    Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)
    Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)
    Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12)
    Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5)
    Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God’s house (Dt.
    23:18)
    Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
    Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
    Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
    Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)
    Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13)
    Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)
    Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
    Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
    Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
    Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18:
    6-13)
    Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev.
    13)
    Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)
    Things highly esteemed by man
    .

  • aleroe Avatar
    aleroe

    Why is this so “surprising”? Liberals have spent decades promoting “pro-choice” as a alternative phrase to “pro-abortion”. Well, why can’t people be pro-choice about gay marriage? Gays are free to marry, and people who don’t want to participate are free not to.

    All these fights over gay marriage are overblown. Conservatives opposed gay marriage because it offends them, even though it doesn’t hurt them in the least. Now liberals are opposed to letting photographers, caterers, etc. choose not to serve gay couples because the refusal offends them, when in reality, a very small number are going to refuse, there will be plenty of others who are happy to take the work, and you really don’t want the success of your wedding party relying on someone who doesn’t want to be there anyway.

    1. Steve Avatar
      Steve

      I must disagree. Marriage is hardly a private matter that only affects a couple of people. The definition of marriage influences everything from tax law to adoption policy. They are even trying to strike certain words from public use (such as husband, wife, mother, father). The definition of marriage affects all of us, some more than others. For me, the redefinition of marriage emboldens homosexuals to attack those who disagree with them. It affects how I teach my children about relationships and the Word of God. It affects what I see in commercials and billboards. It affects what children hear in school.

      1. Kay O. Sweaver Avatar
        Kay O. Sweaver

        I’d love to hear more about these “homosexual attacks.”

        1. Steve Avatar
          Steve

          Targeting bakers, photographers, caterers and venues that hold to Christian beliefs seems like an attack to me. Why not just walk away and find another provider? No, they want to ruin people’s businesses and livelihood. Oregon baker was fined $135,000 dollars for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Could you pay that kind of money and continue your business? And what if someone else comes along with a similar complaint and hopes to cash in as well?

      2. Morgan Glassco Avatar
        Morgan Glassco

        The only attacking going on is what the ‘Religious’ community does to the LGBT community. Standing up for yourself is not attacking anyone else.

        My mom, was not allowed to be in the hospital room with my birth mom after she was in an accident because they were not legally married. Tell your kids whatever you want but the bigots that think my moms who have been together for 25+ years shouldn’t get to be there for each other when they need them most can’t also pretend to be about family values.

        1. Steve Avatar
          Steve

          Nobody has two moms. That is pure fiction. It is a biological impossibility. Where is your dad? I hope you had some interaction him. I loved my dad and love being a dad myself. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that a dad is not essential in the raising of children.

          1. Morgan Glassco Avatar
            Morgan Glassco

            You can keep wishing for your perfect situations but that won’t change reality. I do absolutely have two moms, period. Your statement is so naive it is hard to comprehend. Are you saying parents who adopt children shouldn’t be called mom or dad because they weren’t the birth parents? Are you suggesting that step-parents should not be referred to as mom and dad? Or are you just being a bigot and saying I can’t have 2 moms cause it doesn’t fit in with your worldly picture?

      3. aleroe Avatar
        aleroe

        Steve, I support your right to refuse to work a gay wedding. But I think you’re going to lose that right and you will have been hoisted by your own petard. When you politically opposed gay marriage – which is different from morally opposing it in that you called upon the government to enforce your preference – you rejected a “live and let live” philosophy. That means you can’t easily make a “live and let live” argument in your own defense now.

        1. Steve Avatar
          Steve

          I have never been a libertarian. I believe the laws of men should be based upon the laws of God, which are infinitely better than anything we can come up with. Traditional laws regarding marriage were consistent with the laws of God, the revelation of God, the character of God, nature, tradition, biology, psychology, and 2000 years of church teaching. This generation has thrown all of that out in the name of tolerance and political correctness. What a shame.

          1. aleroe Avatar
            aleroe

            Steve, the Founding Fathers would disagree with you. Of the Bible’s 10 Commandments, six of them are unenforceable under the Constitution, two others have never been enforced by the Federal government, and only 3 are commonly enforced by any state or federal government today.

            The commandments in the Bible are almost entirely directed at people, teaching them how to behave. I’m not aware of any commandments that you must make your neighbor behave. Your idea that the government should implement God’s law is a Muslim concept (e.g. sharia law), not a Judeo-Christian one.

          2. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            I said that the laws should be based upon God’s laws, not just copies of them. God commanded capital punishment for murder. I think the government should fulfill that instruction. The government is free to institute whatever safeguards they see fit to ensure that innocent people are not executed.

            I mean that the laws of man should be consistent with the laws of God and not violate them. We are not a theocracy, therefore blasphemy laws are not appropriate. Idolatry, a sin very common in America and Europe, is most often a matter of the heart and not prosecutable in a court.

            However there are so many principles in the Word of God that governed the spirit of the constitution and should likewise continue to inspire our leaders.

            Redefining marriage is so far from the spirit of God’s and man’s law that it seems totally divorced from all of history, not to mention logic and good will.

          3. panimus Avatar
            panimus

            Who’s GOD, Steve, should all the laws be based on? Yours? You do want a religious dictatorship in every word you utter, and of course, of all the religions in the world, YOURS is the one to base it on. That point of view of yours is precisely why we need Civil Rights laws.

      4. aleroe Avatar
        aleroe

        Oh, and if you’re not a libertarian, i.e. your philosophy is not grounded in individual liberty, you really have no grounds for objecting to the government forcing you to shoot a gay wedding. After all, if you don’t have individual liberty, the government can legitimately force you to do what it wants.

      5. Steve Avatar
        Steve

        My view of libertarianism is perhaps tainted. I think of pot smoking and abortion as liberties championed by libertarians. To me it is a live-and-let-live mentality that does not jive at all with a Biblical mindset. The Bible condemns things that are wrong just because God has declared them wrong. He is holy. He created all things. He has every right to define the terms.

        America has abandoned the notion that God defines what is right and wrong. America has embraced the idea that if no one gets hurt, all is well. This is especially true of bedroom dynamics. Two (or more) consenting adults can do anything they please in the privacy of their bedroom.

        But the Bible makes clear that nothing is truly private and some acts are evil just because they are unnatural and offensive to God Himself. The perfect illustration is when God commanded the Israelites to take Jericho and not take anything for themselves. However one man took something from the city and hid it under his tent. God judged the whole nation for the private sin of one man until the sin was revealed and God’s wrath turned to focus on that one man.

        Individual liberty is great but freedom in Christ is better.

      6. aleroe Avatar
        aleroe

        I’m a libertarian, and not only have I never tried pot, but I’ve never taken any illegal drugs (despite multiple opportunities) and I don’t even drink alcohol. My libertarian friends are more straight-laced than my non-libertarian friends. As for abortion: that’s a metaphysical issue rather than a political one. That’s why there are both Democrats and libertarians who are pro-life.

        God enforced His own law in Sodom and Gomorrah and in the Jericho example and in the many punishments he meted out in the Bible. He doesn’t need the US government’s help to punish sinners. Moreover, when humans try to implement God’s law, it invariably leads to more injustice. You gave capital punishment as an example. The US has executed many people who were later determined to be innocent. God also prescribes death for homosexual acts, but it would be a nightmare for our government – or any government – to carry that out (not only the death of the gays themselves, but the deaths of people falsely accused).

        The government must be limited to prosecuting acts where one person harms another, because it can’t be trusted to prosecute acts where a person offends God. That requires a human court to determine if God was offended. That would be arrogant, presumptuous, and a rich source of corruption.

        So you don’t have to accept that “if no one gets hurt, all is well.” But I would urge you to consider that if no one gets hurt, then judgement should be left to God, not to men.

  • Michael Goolsby Avatar
    Michael Goolsby

    I’m a proud atheist. And I’ve photographed all sorts of weddings, for all types of religions, creeds, orientations and backgrounds. I love the diversity. For those who don’t want to photograph a wedding that is contrary to their religious beliefs, I have no objection. More business for me. Funny, though, that the “godless” atheist is more accepting than those who supposedly follow a man who preached love, tolerance, and forgiveness.

    1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
      Bob Blaylock

        Tolerance of perversion and evil is no virtue.

      1. Michael Goolsby Avatar
        Michael Goolsby

        And thus begins the precarious road to intolerance and persecution against those whose only crime is their diversity, a road that is its own evil.

        I have often observed that those who decry homosexuality live in fear and denial of what lies within their own being. Guard against “evils and perversions” of your own before looking for it within others.

        1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
          Bob Blaylock

            Sell your crocodile tears somewhere else.  I’m not buying them.  Why should I care that a disgusting, immoral pervert, feels that he’s being persecuted, because decent people don’t want to take part in his sick perversion?

            I certainly do not claim to be perfect.  I have plenty of faults and shortcomings of my own,and when I finally stand before my maker to be judged, I will be held to account for what I have done with them.  But nothing about this obligates me to embrace other evils, that are not part of my own character, or to give support and “tolerance” to them.

            As Einstein observed, it is not so much those who do evil that are a danger to the world, but those who passively allow and tolerate evil; which is the least of what those of you on the pervert-rights side want to force everyone to do.

          1. Michael Goolsby Avatar
            Michael Goolsby

            You are so obviously a homosexual in the closet. And an unintelligent one at that. Both are a part of your genes, though, so don’t be hard on yourself. It’s all perfectly natural. Just let go of your primitive, superstitious belief in Bronze Age gods and you won’t feel compelled to hate others whom you only think are different from yourself.

          2. Bob Blaylock Avatar
            Bob Blaylock

              Of course you somehow believe that your own raw bigotry against religion makes you superior to those of us who adhere to basic standards of morality and decency.

              You seem to be exactly as those described in Romans 1:21-27, who, rejecting the wisdom of God, proclaimed themselves to be wise, while becoming fools, given over to the wickedness of the world.

          3. Michael Goolsby Avatar
            Michael Goolsby

            Please stop with the goddam bible quotes! You’really sounding like a religious psychopath!

          4. Bob Blaylock Avatar
            Bob Blaylock

              Exodus 20:7:  “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

          5. Michael Goolsby Avatar
            Michael Goolsby

            Your words have no power over us atheistic servants of Satan!

          6. Michael Goolsby Avatar
            Michael Goolsby

            I am the Lord of Spirits,
            Oridimbai, Sonadir, Episghes,
            I am Ubaste, Ptho born of Binui Sphe, Phas;
            In the name of Auebothiabathabaithobeuee
            Give power to my spell O Nasira Oapkis Shfe,
            Give power Chons-in-Thebes-Nefer-hotep, Ophois,
            Give power! O Bakaxikhekh!

  • mike Avatar
    mike

    Why would someone want a bigot to photograph their wedding?

    I bet christians would be just as offended if a homosexual couple declined to hire them for a job because of their religious bias.

  • Melanie Knoll Avatar
    Melanie Knoll

    I strongly support the LGBT community. Having said that a photographer should always have the right to turn away any client. Their orientation should be irrelevant.

    1. Morgan Glassco Avatar
      Morgan Glassco

      I agree, just leave your religion out of it. You know the person ‘defending’ their beliefs would cry up a storm if they roles we turned and they were denied a service because they’re Christian. They would scream about being persecuted etc.

      “I am unavailable for your event” Is a polite way to refuse business.

  • Ivan Camilo Ospina Avatar
    Ivan Camilo Ospina

    I guess ‘gay money’ has less value

  • Steve Avatar
    Steve

    For decades the gay community asked others to acknowledge and respect their beliefs, yet today many in that same community ignore and disrespect the beliefs of others.

    It’s a page directly taken out of the liberal handbook.

    Of course like any good liberal, if someone chooses not to agree with your thinking, call them names.

    1. Ao Avatar
      Ao

      Problem is being gay is not a belief, just like being black or a woman. Your argument is insulting. Especially considering that a bigot may get called names, but LGBT people out there get real violence and pain.

      1. Michael Goolsby Avatar
        Michael Goolsby

        Absolutely. I hear plenty of name-calling against gays, but nobody much even says “honkey” or “cracker” much any more. Folks like Steve just come across more as if they have a chip on their shoulder rather than any real oppression on their back.

      2. Steve Avatar
        Steve

        How do you explain all the x-gays out there. They do exist. There is a video out there called “And such were some of you” (a quote from I Corinthians 6) which features several people who are now heterosexual after leaving homosexuality behind. God can heal and change anyone.

        1. Ao Avatar
          Ao

          Exgays are either delusional liers or scammers, or even just bisexual people that is hiding homosexual tastes.

          I had myself relationships with both sexes, and I’m now in a heterosexual one with a girl.

          Stop deluding yourself (or trolling) and let people live the life they want. You are not even being a good Christian at all, being an hateful individual toward people who just want to be left alone by other and recognized by the state they are born in and funded by their taxes. Even Catholics are usually more tolerant than you and accept the reality that people is born in multiple ways and not just straight heterosexual – as religious people say, God’s ways are infinite.

          Your ostracism is what will drive people away from church, not gay marriage. Here in my country we say “who cultivates wind, will harvest storm”. Enjoy your farming.

          1. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            Let me get this straight. A person claims they are born gay and we are to take it as gospel truth, but someone claims that they are no longer gay and they are liars. I thought we were trying to honor a person’s self identification. I guess it’s a one way street.

            Here is the hypocrisy of the LGBTect folks. If a man claims he should have been born a woman you applaud him if he undergoes surgery and extensive hormonal treatments to try to conform his body to his self image. But, if a person has a spiritual encounter that transforms them from a homosexual to a heterosexual, you pretend they don’t exist or call them liars.

            A man who thinks he is a woman should see a psychiatrist and his friends and family should not pat him on the back and encourage him to have surgery. Biology matters. Sometimes people lose touch with reality and they need help. Sometimes people get help and repent of their sins and those people should be praised. Bruce is Bruce and will always be Bruce, even though he has humiliated himself.

            I love my x-gay brothers and sisters and applaud them for speaking out.

          2. Ao Avatar
            Ao

            You can’t ungay. Being gay is like being white. You can’t suddenly declare you don’t have attractions to have them disappear.. It just does not work. So there is no hypocrity about this at all. Stop being delusional.

          3. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            Have you ever heard of miracles, redemption, repentance, healing? The belief that gays cannot change is a dogmatic position that comes from drinking the Kool-aid way too much.

            Stop watching so much television. It will be good for you.

          4. Ao Avatar
            Ao

            A) I have no television at home and also stop imposing your goddamn lifestyle on me, as I do not ask you to go parading for lgbt.

            B) This “dogma” is pure reality that comes from experience being a person that likes guys, girls and in-between, as your mindset of “gays are sinners and wrong” has been taught since young to me and was great source of confusion and pain until I accepted myself for who I am. Stop spreading lies.. Stop hurting people..Roman church documented very few miracles and most were about people who really needed them, not some pretentious conversion that was not being documented at all by indipendent scientific studies. God made me like this. Accept reality.

          5. Steve Avatar
            Steve

            The reality is that God has spoken. His words matter. He calls homosexuality an abomination. He has provided a sacrifice to atone for every sin, even the ones He uses strong language to condemn. However, there must be repentance.

          6. Ao Avatar
            Ao

            Lol.. It is your God that says so maybe. But I don’t give a damn about it. Reality is that you are either delusional or a troll

          7. Ao Avatar
            Ao

            He may have spoken, but you must have not listened then.

          8. Ao Avatar
            Ao

            Your. Not mine.

  • Michael Goolsby Avatar
    Michael Goolsby

    What type of beliefs do you so commonly see gays in particular ignoring and disrespecting? It’s not unusual for opposing beliefs to clash, but I’m completely unaware of what “many” in the gay community are doing to which you refer. Please enlighten.

    While you’re at it, where can pick up a copy of this “handbook” I hear so much about? I’m beginning to suspect that I might be a “liberal”, because, when I watched that presidential debate last week, there was only one who didn’t come across as either bigoted or incompetent.

    1. raceviper13 Avatar
      raceviper13

      Michael: “What type of beliefs do you so commonly see gays in particular ignoring and disrespecting?”

      We have all rejected the belief that God created all of us for his purposes. We have all violated the purposes God has made us for. Now, it’s not just LGBT who do that, we ALL have done that. God wants each of us to realize we have violated his purposes for us and then come to him on his terms so we can be made whole by his power, not ours.

      1. Ao Avatar
        Ao

        God does not know the Occam’s razor he created apparently.

  • Morgan Glassco Avatar
    Morgan Glassco

    Another one of those claiming “we’re the prosecuted because we can’t force others to conform to our beliefs”

  • Bob Blaylock Avatar
    Bob Blaylock

      Like I said before, in a generation, the perverts have gone from crying “Do not force your morality on me!” to forcing their immorality on everyone else.

  • Toby Vandevelde Avatar
    Toby Vandevelde

    What if a Tog turns the LGBT wedding down because of their religious beliefs but pretends it is because of another reason? Is that an enforceable law? Can it be proven that a law has been broken?

    1. Morgan Glassco Avatar
      Morgan Glassco

      Today, plenty of people are denied jobs because of their race, ethnicity or religious beliefs. But since it is illegal to do so, they’re just told “we found a better candidate”.

      This would fall into that category and should be the acceptable way of declining clients not inline with your beliefs. To anyone who thinks their beliefs should prevent them from working with a client, I promise I can find at least one way they are a hypocrite.

    2. Christopher R Field Avatar
      Christopher R Field

      I would think that if they turn it down for religions beliefs they should just say they are already overbooked and recommend somebody else. It is not the photogs business to lecture the couple about how his/her religion is against the happy couples union.

    3. Rob Morris Avatar
      Rob Morris

      And its not the happy couples job to tell the photog that their sexual preference overrides the constitution.

      “free excercise thereof” means, quite simply, that you can practice your religion as you see fit – which INCLUDES running your business in accords with your religious views.

      And why in the WORLD would a couple want to find a photog who is strongly opposed to what they want pictures of, and bully him and FORCE him into doing a job he doesnt want to do??

  • Galonii August Avatar
    Galonii August

    I think a photographer should be able to refuse service to any one they want to, regardless of the fact if they’re gay, straight, pink, purple, black or white. I turn argumentative or demanding people away. If you can’t see a person’s vision on a subject how can you do your best to photograph it. For example, I had a client who wanted photos at noon in the summer on the beach or their Christmas cards. They wouldn’t book any other time of the day. I knew the shots would be bad because of the harsh light and the sweltering heat, they were set to have them their way, so I referred them to someone who would do they’re shots their way. I don’t believe you should turn someone away because of their sexual orientation or beliefs, but some out there can’t get around that, I say we just leave them in their bubble, and go on with our lives.

    1. TByte Avatar
      TByte

      It’s a different legal standard, though. Argumentative and demanding people are not a “protected class”.
      This is a really gray area, balancing the rights of one individual against those of another. Government employees should certainly not be allowed to discriminate. As for private businesses, if they would not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, then they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religions or sexual orientation.
      We have to remember that operating a business under the protection of the government is not a right, but a privilege. It is not unreasonable to attach some requirements to that privilege.

      1. Kevin Crosby Avatar
        Kevin Crosby

        It should not matter if it’s a protected class or not. If you’re not accepting funding, government or other wise, you should not be “forced” to accept clients that are not to your liking, for whatever reason.

        1. TByte Avatar
          TByte

          So you believe that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and religion as well? You have not problem with restaurants denying service to black people? While receiving the protection of the United States and local governments and enjoying the benefits of the public infrastructure that makes their business possible?
          No, the government has the right to insist that businesses that operate under its protection follow the principles of civility it promotes.

          1. Kevin Crosby Avatar
            Kevin Crosby

            The fast and quick answer, No. Now the explanation. I believe in the free market. When services are denied by one individual/organization, it opens up a opportunity for another to step up and offer goods and services and by process of natural selection, the others go away. Problem solved without legislation. People have lost sight of their own power. Word of mouth is alive and well and IMHO has more power than any legislation sent down from the marble halls. So, back to the question on hand, Should Photographers have the right to refuse, Yes. There are many others that will gladly step in and take the business.

          2. TByte Avatar
            TByte

            The Free Market works fine for the majority, but not for the minority. Witness the “separate and unequal” civic opportunities afforded to African Americans in the South. Thus is born the concept of a “protected class”.

            The government DOES have the right to impose requirements on businesses, and SHOULD do so to protect the rights of discriminated groups.
            For the record then, you do favor allowing businesses to discriminate against black people. That is sad, but that is where our difference lies.

  • Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Not really surprizing for Americans! Where as, in the rest of the world we considers any business obligated to serve customers without ‘politics’ or ‘bigotry’ entering their minds…

  •  Avatar
    Anonymous

    If someone is gay – and happens to also happens to be a pain to deal with – does that mean you should be forced to worked for them regardless?

    Legislation is a blunt instrument best used sparingly.

  • Bon Vader Avatar
    Bon Vader

    You should have the right to refuse service to anyone regardless of the reason… No person is a slave to another.

    1. Anette Du Preez Avatar
      Anette Du Preez

      exactly

  • Burt Johnson Avatar
    Burt Johnson

    Or if they are black, or mormon, or asian, or…? We didn’t allow such attitude after the 60’s, so why now? Allowing such business discrimination is a definite case of “separate is not equal” as the Supreme Court rules many decades ago.

  • Andrew Jordan Avatar
    Andrew Jordan

    I think this whole gay business should be behind us. But having been a business owner I agree with the right to refuse. It doesn’t matter whether are aliens from space I’m only going to work with them if we can get a relationship going. As Galonii August said there is always other reasons to sort it out. But document it because a lawsuit will ruin you.

  • Don Althaus Avatar
    Don Althaus

    Okay, as with anything like this, we must first look at who is doing the polling. Caddell & Associates is a right-wing-leaning pollster well known for asking leading questions designed to elicit the answers they want and designed to support the position of the poll commissioner. This is especially true when it comes to social issues. They are notorious for including all kinds of catch phrases in their poll questions to influence the outcome and as such, the poll results are realistically invalid. The on-line survey design is even more questionable. One person answering 150 times is the same as 150 people answering once.

    1. panimus Avatar
      panimus

      Thanks for the info on Caddell–makes total sense. See my post (rant!) about the biased nature of this “study.”

  • Xavier Raul Marañón Avatar
    Xavier Raul Marañón

    What I wonder is, would a gay couple want their wedding photographed by someone who doesn’t like them? I think photos turn out better if the shooter is enjoying his work.

    1. Spoonie Avatar
      Spoonie

      So, what do you do when no one will take your photos because everyone is discriminating against you?

      Its like saying why would black people want to use the same toilets as white people. if all the white peooe are going to be mean to them when then try to go in?

  • Anette Du Preez Avatar
    Anette Du Preez

    …are there no homosexual photographers?

    1. TByte Avatar
      TByte

      No.
      There are no gay photographers.
      Now excuse me while I go polish my big black 150-500mm zoom lens until it glistens.

  • Anette Du Preez Avatar
    Anette Du Preez

    …you can’t force anybody to deliver a service to you – are homosexuals the only people who have rights now? My sympathy for their cause is slowly moving out the door – sick of this idiotic arguments over everything. You’re gay, congratulations and I’m happy for you – next!

    1. TByte Avatar
      TByte

      “are homosexuals the only people who have rights now”
      Huh? This recent legislation does not grant homosexuals any rights that heterosexuals do not already enjoy.

    2. Spoonie Avatar
      Spoonie

      You can’t force someone to take on your business because you are gay, they just can’t turn you away because you are. How do you prove that is going to be your next statement I guess, well sometimes you can’t, but sometimes its really obvious, like I have 10 wedding cakes for sale bit I cant sell YOU one.

      This is the same conversation america had about black people century. Substitute black for LGBTI in this story and it has a context hopefully you can understand and have more empathy for.

  • Christopher R Field Avatar
    Christopher R Field

    Big supporter of LBGT, but not a supporter that the govt can force businesses to do business. I think turning somebody down because they are gay is a bigoted and dirtbag thing to do, but these sorts of laws open people up for a lawsuit simply because they are busy. If a gay couple asks a photographer for a shoot, and the photog is just overbooked as it is, and the gay couple gets upset they COULD claim they were discriminated against for being gay and the photog could end up in hot water.

    1. Spoonie Avatar
      Spoonie

      No. That’s not true. They would need to prove the photographer had turned them away for being LBGTI, so have evidence of a statement, or show the photographer had turned away other LGBTI clients. Without something to backup the claim it would go no where.

  • James P Avatar
    James P

    In the creative arts, I think that you should be able to chose who you work with period, whether the limitations be gender, location, orientation, identity, whatever. It is their portfolio, their vision. Like a fashion designer who only designs for size 0s, if a photographer wants their vision to be limited, then that is their choice.

  • Spoonie Avatar
    Spoonie

    Part of the problem hee e is the question. If you asked the same people again the question should the photographer have the right to say no to photgrapghing

  • panimus Avatar
    panimus

    This study is based on a false comparison. Asking questions that pit “religious freedom” against “civil rights,” as if they are mutually exclusive is just plain wrong.

    “22% of Democrats polled believe that protecting religious freedom is more important than protecting LGBT rights (14%).” This is an example of the completely wrong headed and very biased frame of the issue, as if religious freedom and LGBT rights are mutually exclusive. THEY ARE NOT !!

    It is NOT religious freedom to force one’s religions beliefs (ACTIONS) on another. If your religion says being LGBT is wrong, then YOU are FREE to believe that way and not be LGBT yourself—and you have the religious freedom to do so. You CANNOT tell me to behave/believe the way you do and that is Civil Rights. This country is NOT a religious monarchy, and that means we have to get along. That means tolerance for others beliefs and ways of living. Having the religious freedom to believe and act how you want while getting along with others who believe and act differently is having BOTH religious freedom AND civil rights. If you can force others to act and believe as you want then you have a religious dictatorship. Is that what you want? They go together and are complimentary.

    This kind of “study” promotes the conservative agenda in it’s very biased QUESTIONS and PRESENTATION of the answers, never mind what the answers are !!

    I get so angry reading dishonest questions like these! The answers don’t matter when the question is an unchallenged dishonest frame! And the authors of the study get their publicity that, no matter the disagreements of content, silently promote their FALSE FRAMING of the situation inherent in their questions! Makes me crazy!! I would like to see the author of this piece include some challenges of this study on these grounds.

    So here we are, all talking about the content (should photographers be allowed to . . . ) under the the completely biased and subconsciously accepted framework posed by the pollsters, “Caddell & Associates, a right-wing-leaning pollster well known for asking leading questions designed to elicit the answers they want and designed to support the position of the poll commissioner” who did this so called “study.” WAKE UP People!

    Thanks to Don Althaus for the quote on “Caddell.”

    1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
      Bob Blaylock

      It is NOT religious freedom to force one’s religions beliefs (ACTIONS) on another. If your religion says being LGBT is wrong, then YOU are FREE to believe that way and not be LGBT yourself—and you have the religious freedom to do so. You CANNOT tell me to behave/believe the way you do and that is Civil Rights. … If you can force others to act and believe as you want then you have a religious dictatorship. Is that what you want? They go together and are complimentary.

        Do you really not see the blatant hypocrisy in your own position, here?

        If you want to conduct a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, then I have no power to stop you.  But as a person with morals, I will not willingly have anything to do with it; and you have no right to force me to participate in this evil against my will.  I am not forcing anything on you, nor depriving you of any rights, if I refuse to take part in your sick perversions.  On the other hand, to compel me to take part in it is a clear violation of my own rights.

        I can remember when the cry of the wicked was “Do not force your morality on me!”  Foolishly, we as a society gave you an inch, and with the mile that you sick, disgusting perverts have taken, you have no qualms at all about forcing your immorality on others who want no part of it.

      1. panimus Avatar
        panimus

        So here we are, all talking about the content (should photographers be allowed to . . . ) under the the completely biased and subconsciously accepted framework posed by the pollsters. I am referencing the framework, not the question. Sorry you are not understanding my post. I am trying to make clear that religious freedom and civil rights are not mutually exclusive, and to present *any* question as if they are is dishonest, or more gently put, misguided, though given the particular pollsters in this case it is likely more dishonest.

        1. Bob Blaylock Avatar
          Bob Blaylock

            In this case, the term “civil rights” is being rather blatantly abused, to mean the “right” to force decent people to take part in that which is obviously immoral and evil, on the grounds that refusing to do so constitutes “discrimination”.  Certainly, this twisted meaning of “civil rights” is entirely irreconcilable with the genuine rights of expression, religion, association, and conscience that are stated and implied in the First Amendment.