A New Law Allows Indiana Photographers to Refuse Same-Sex Clients
Mar 27, 2015
Share:
A bill called ‘Religious Freedom Restoration’, recently approved by Indiana’s Senate Judiciary Committee, was signed earlier today by governor Mike Pence. The bill’s authors stated its aim is to protect business owners whose religious beliefs prevent them from providing services to gays and lesbians.
“Christian bakers, florists and photographers” were given as examples of businesses that are said to benefit from the new law, adding that they “should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!”.
Opponents, however, claim the law will legalize discriminations against homosexuals.
Below is part of Senate Bill 101 as it was submitted to the Indiana general assembly, and signed by the governor today:
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
The bill was modeled on a 1993 federal law that passed with bipartisan support, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The law was intended to protect religious minorities when a federal law impeded their religious practices, and 19 states have since adopted similar legislation.
However, it seems that social conservatives in Indiana have taken the law in a completely different direction. Instead of the law protecting the LGBT minority group, albeit not a religious one, it was promoted as a means for the majority to discriminate against the minority.
Conservative Christian groups have been pushing for the bill to be passed since last year’s failed attempt to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana’s constitution, and the court’s decision to effectively legalize it.
Senator Scott Schneider, one of the bill’s three authors, confirmed the bill will protect Christian business owners from being punished, as described above.
Shortly after signing the bill, Pence defended the new law and denied it being a consolation prize for conservative groups following their previously mentioned failed efforts to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana.
“I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding,” said the governor, adding that the law “has never undermined anti-discrimination laws”.
Pence mentioned in his speech that the federal law was signed by then-President Bill Clinton and other top Democrats, though he failed to mention that the motive behind the 1993 law was very different than that of the conservative supporters who rallied for Bill 101, or the author’s clear statement on the same matter. He also reminded that President Barack Obama supported a similar law when he was an Illinois legislator.
While I tend to take any politician’s word with a grain of salt, Pence provided further reason to question his motives to sign the bill. During the news conference following the signing of the law, a reporter asked the governor if he thinks sexual orientation should be a protected class (same as race, religion, color, sex and national origin) and if he would support matching Illinois by adding it to the state’s civil rights law. His response was “That’s not on my agenda. I won’t be pursuing that”.
While the signing of the bill was closed to the public and the press, it was reported that 75 to 80 people, all supporting the bill of course, had attended the private ceremony.
It is also reported that during the ceremony, which took place in the governor’s Statehouse office, the press was even asked to leave the waiting area and that the governor’s office declined to provide a list of the people who had attended. Not the most trust-inspiring move if you ask me.
“This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it,” said Pence in a statement. “In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana”.
Jane Henegar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, responded:
“We are deeply disappointed that the governor and state lawmakers have been tone-deaf to the cries of legions of Hoosiers—including businesses, convention leaders, faith communities and more than 10,000 people who signed petitions against the bill—who say they don’t want this harmful legislation to impair the reputation of our state and harm our ability to attract the best and brightest to Indiana”.
Pence might have a point there, though, much to the disappointment of the bill’s supporters. As sixteen legal scholars stated in a joined letter to the Senate’s Judiciary Chairman, “it is not at all clear that the proposed Indiana RFRA would lead courts to recognize such an exemption”. They were referring of course to businesses being exempt from offering their services to same-sex couples.
According to the Indianapolis Star, there has only been one case discussed in court in the 19 states that already have a religious freedom law. A Christian wedding photographer from New Mexico was sued following his refusal to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. The photographer lost the case, despite the state’s RFRA.
“Opponents of the legislation may make unsupported claims about the extreme results that it would produce, but they have no examples of judicial decisions actually reaching such results,” added the legal experts in their letter.
“There’s been exaggeration on both sides about what this law would do in particular settings”, said Daniel Conkle, a law professor at Indiana University and one of the letter’s authors.
While that might be the case, and the judges’ role in religious freedom laws is being overlooked by both sides, this law leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth due to the intentions of its authors and supporters.
Proving that intentions (even if they won’t end up being supported in court) carry just as much weight as the law itself, gaming convention Gen Con threatened to pull its convention, and its estimated $50 million economic impact, out of the state should the governor decide to sign the bill.
After the bill was formally signed, George Takei posted the following message on Facebook:
“I am outraged that Gov. Pence would sign such a divisive measure into law. He has made it clear that LGBT couples, like Brad and me, are now unwelcome in his state. The notion that this bill was not driven by animus against our community is belied by the record and frankly insulting. I will join many in demanding that socially responsible companies withdraw their business, conferences and support from his state and that LGBTs and our friends and supporters refuse to visit or do business with Indiana. It is a sad day for the Hoosier state, and indeed for the many good people of Indiana, for whom this law now stands as a terrible blight upon that state’s reputation”.
Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff was quick to follow, writing on Twitter that “Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination”.
The NCAA, whose Final Four will be played this year in Indiana, and PayPal co-founder Max Levchin were also amongst those who raised their concerns over the new law.
Despite Indiana photographers now being “protected”, hopefully none of them will feel the need to take advantage of the new law.
[via The Indianapolis Star | Lead Image: DonkeyHotey]
Liron Samuels
Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.
Related Posts
Indiana Amends Law Allowing Photographers to Refuse Same-Sex Clients After Being Blasted By the White House
Kentucky photographer sues city for her religious right to refuse photographing same-sex weddings
Virginia photographer can refuse same-sex weddings, says judge
Justice Department supports Christian photographer who sued the city because law could force her to shoot same-sex weddings
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
219 responses to “A New Law Allows Indiana Photographers to Refuse Same-Sex Clients”
Should I be able to go into a Muslim restaurant and demand they serve me a pulled pork sandwich?
They don’t even have pork in their restaurant. Why don’t you go to a proper restaurant that serve that thing?
Wait, they have Muslim food? I guess it would just be sort of a mix of Mediterranean food, but Greece is predominantly Christian. Either way I’m going to be on the lookout for that. Sounds really good. And really, who goes to a Mediterranean place and tries to order pulled pork? Youd be way better off at a southern BBQ joint.
You are right Rob Reeves, if I want pulled pork, I go to a BBQ joint. That’s kind of my point.
If it isn’t on the menu, your request would be ridiculous. If it IS on the menu, I’m sure they’d have no problem serving it to you. Unless you’re with your wife who has her hair visible… then they can refuse and you’d have to go somewhere else.
The menu thing is an interesting point, and one that I had planned on making. I haven’t done wedding photography for a few years, but when I did, I knew what to expect. I knew who was giving who away. I knew the sequence of events. I could plan on being in the place I needed to be at the right time.
For instance, I would have declined an Indian wedding if offered the job. I wouldn’t have been the right photographer. I don’t know what is significant. I don’t know that culture or ceremony. I guess you could say that is discrimination based on their religion, but in reality, I would have declined because I’m just not the best person out there to do the job. It’s not discrimination. It’s just plain common sense.
My wife happens to be black and I’m a white. We don’t go to the same barber/hairdresser. You know why? Well, one, because I cut my hair myself, but because her hairdresser has very little experience with my style of hair. And just because I can cut my hair doesn’t mean I can cut hers. It’s different.
This notion that we all need to be equal and serve everyone equally is silly. When we got married, our photography was fairly poor. Do you know why? Because it was the first mixed marriage our photographer had done. She had no idea how to balance a black complexition with a white complextion. I would have prefered she had just denied it based on her lack of experience. I wouldn’t have called it racism. I would have called it a favor.
aside from the fact that laws like this have consistently been proven unconstitutional, by your own logic you should never have been allowed to marry your wife. interracial marriage was illegal, you know, complete with laws preventing you from buying goods or services exactly like what is happening in Indiana.
this law is just Jim Crow all over again
No it’s not. Our parts work together and have produced two beautiful kids helping to further the ponzi scheme that the U.S. government is so dependent upon, but I digress.
By my own logic, I say that with today’s ability for information to travel to all reaches of the world, I think all restrictions should be lifted.
If someone wants to create a ‘whites only’ business, I fully support them. I will also fully support the customers who choose not to shop there and will gladly watch them go out of business.
In this case, we are talking about a different type of ceremony. One that I don’t have experience with. Why would someone ever hire someone who was inexperienced with a job? Why would someone ever compel someone to do a job they didn’t know how to do?
Best case scenario, it’s half assed. Why would anyone hire someone who wasn’t excited about an assignment? It just doesn’t make sense.
I’m sorry but your points are nonsense. Muslim and Jewish restaurants don’t carry pork products. You’re trying to make them sell products and services they don’t carry. If people were trying to make wedding photographers fix transmissions you’d have a point. Do you think gay people are an alien culture? A gay wedding is just a wedding. If a couple doesn’t have confidence the photographer will be able to properly photograph their wedding, they won’t hire them. You hired a bad photographer, that’s not a reason to legalize discrimination.
Why don’t Muslim and Jewish restaurant carry pork product? Because it is against their religion.
And FWIW, I’m not religious. I don’t care who sleeps with who in the privacy of their own bedroom. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
The way I see it is the first kiss after marriage is a once in a lifetime event. Something that should be cherrished and remembered for the rest of their lives. Do you really want a photographer who has been compelled to be there in charge of making sure that picture is perfect?
George,
In most places the LBGTA community supports businesses that don’t discriminate by word of mouth, but it’s not usually possible to tell whether or not a business owner is a bigot unless they have a reputation. And in some locations you don’t have many photographers to choose from, and their schedules fill up fast.
If I were gay, and I hired a photographer to shoot my wedding, I would expect them to be professional enough to get that perfect shot regardless of whether or not they have been compelled. Photographers are often compelled to work with couples they don’t like, because money.
If I were still shooting weddings, I would have gone out of my way to appear LBGTA friendly as soon as gay marriage was legalized in my state. Huge surge of business and an opportunity to be part of something historic. Capturing the first kiss of a couple who are celebrating not only love, but also a special moment in history would be an honor.
I don’t, but I also don’t want bigots to determine where I am and am not allowed to go.
And I am just fine with racists determining where I go. My situation is a bit more visually obvious. If I don’t like the way a business treats me or my family, I go elsewhere. I can’t even imagine a mentality where I would want to force a business that doesn’t agree with my lifestyle to take my money. That’s just absurd.
And I can’t imagine being fine with discrimination. Have a good day.
Business: “I hate you and you will burn in HELL!”
Customer: “Screw you, I have rights. Take my money”
How does that even make sense?
Samuel, what you don’t understand is discrimation will always be there. Heck, I discriminate and I am also prejudiced. When I am selling something, I discriminate against people who don’t have enough money. When I am walking down the street, I look differently at people who represent themselves as thugs than I do as those who represent themselves as Bankers(although who is more dangerous might be in doubt).
We all do. The solution isn’t to force unwilling people to perform a service they don’t want to do. The solution is to go elsewhere and let them lose business. I can’t imagine a more backwards solution than to force people to make money off people they don’t like.
Better would be to allow them to realize how much money and business they are losing by not serving people they don’t like.
Haha once again, nonsense. Of course it doesn’t make sense because it’s a nonexistent exchange you made up in your head.
It’s not nonsense. It’s this exact situation. Why would you want to give your hard earned money to someone that you consider a bigot? Much more, why would you want to force them to accept it?
I’ve already answered that question. And now I’m done.
No, you didn’t. Whether you are done or not is of your own free choice. I won’t compel you to answer.
As I said before “I don’t, but I also don’t want bigots to determine where I am and am not allowed to go.”
I read that comment and I completely understand the sentiment. What I don’t understand is that a law won’t change people’s feelings. I find that to be self-evident. So, even if people were forced to provide you service against their will, why would you want to contribute to their profit?
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse and I have too much to do to play games with you. Goodbye.
a public business benefits from public utilities which are paid for by everyone’s taxes. same sex couples are ALREADY giving their money to bigoted businesses.
by opening a public business you agree to abide by the laws that govern those businesses, which include nondiscrimimation.
as i said before: this exact law has been determined unconstitutional. it is only a matter of time until this law disappears as well. but, until then, it will be doing real damage to real people. imagine if you had been forced to move your wedding out of state. now imagine that half the country had laws like this, because that is the reality that you need to understand
No, I’m not. And I am not playing games. I literally don’t understand your point of view. The thought of giving my money to people who hate me for my choices is reprehensible. I would refuse to do it. I can’t even imagine wanting a law forcing them to accept it.
Or do you want a law forcing them to feel differently? If so, I think you may be the one being deliberately obtuse.
You do understand how taxes work, right?
This isn’t some abstract idea, & it’s not confined to photography studios. LGBT people make up around 7% of the population, but they make up about 40% of the homeless youth population, BECAUSE of ideas like yours.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/new-study-confirms-40-percent-of-homeless-youth-are-gay/
Bad lifestyle choices lead to bad results. It is not at all new that you are trying to put the blame for these results other than on those who made the bad choices that caused them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/youth-homelessness-raped-assaulted_n_6031212.html
I, myself, make less than half of the salary I should be making. I’ll never be able to afford to retire.
Hell, I haven’t even been allowed to live in the country of my birth for more than a decade, because of people with your philosophy.
All of this is because of laws like Indiana’s new unconstitutional law.
George, it would be perfectly fine and legal for a Muslim restaurant to refuse to serve you pork because that not something they serve there. It is okay to decide your business will not produce specific goods or services for any reason, religious or not. What would be illegal is if they refuse you service because of your race, gender and in many states sexual orientation. Is it really that hard to see the difference?
we need that here in Maryland as well. I don’t do it anyway, but still…
Wow
God said Man shall not lay with another man the way he lays with woman, and nor shall woman. I don’t support it I don’t condone it, I am against it and that’s how it’s gonna be.
God said a lot of things, but Christians pick and choose what they won’t tolerate. Pathetic.
Interesting that you know a whole lot of what God said yet use it only when it suits you.
sorry, Messianic Jew, try again.
now that that is cleared up, We are all human beings, we all have our own beliefs whatever they maybe, I respect the rights of others even if I myself don’t condone it or tolerate it, you wouldn’t catch me in your face about it.
secondly MOST Nations support freedom, although the US is a prison right now we still have rights and some freedoms and I choose not to do those types of weddings. if you want too, that is your right.
Jews, Christians, heck even Muslims have been martyred, ridiculed, and hated. I’m use to it, so even though I am standing up for my freedom to speech, and my God Given Freedom to choose to follow HIS ways and HIS teachings. and speak out about this SIN, I am ready for anyone and everyone who wants to mock me, make fun of me, it doesn’t matter because you can’t get to me, I have My Father God and my brother Jesus on my side.
What if your religion said that left-handed people sinners – would you not provide a service to left-handed people?
First of all we are all sinners, that is why God sent his only begotten son, that he be beaten and punished for all our sins, He died for you, He died for me, the most perfect human being in the world, someone who knew no sin bore it upon himself and the cross so that we can live eternally in the kingdom of heaven.
so your whole sentence is flawed. but I will still answer it to the best of my ability.
If right handed people were not sinners in God’s eyes and Left handed people were, then there would be a definite reason as to why, the bible would speak on it to a caliber of proof that would be undeniable, and seeing as I follow the bible and it’s teachings, both old and new testament then yes I would deny my services to left handed people, because I would have the proof, written in black and white and probably again in red and white. but seeing as God does not Condemn left handed people there is no need for this discussion. and yes My father and one of my brothers and my sister are all left handed. and seeing as they are all followers of a faith they would understand as well.
but the day Jesus Died on that cross is the day we were all redeemed in God’s eyes, We may not agree with what others do but that doesn’t mean we can’t respect everyone’s right to do the things they do.
Respect and agreeing are way two different things all together, so although I don’t agree, and I don’t feel it’s right, I still respect their choices. just like I am showing you respect now and taking time to answer a very thought provoking question.
Isn’t it weird how you don’t stone adulterers to death, huh? Yeah, we should start doing that again. Good times!
Also, bible says we have to, so yeah. Let’s make it law!
Did Jesus deny salvation to sinners? Did he only offer eternal life to those without sin? If Jesus was willing to die for sinners, and offer unconditional love to them, is there a reason why you shouldn’t do business with them? Are you saying that even though Jesus ate, drank and surrounded himself with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers and other sinners, WE as humans should withhold doing business with them? We should be more critical than Jesus himself? I don’t follows that logic.
Jesus didn’t endorse their sinful behavior by eating with them. He did not engage in the behavior they were accused of.
Likewise, we can eat with and partake in business with sinners. However, to expect that we would partake in their behaviors would be dishonoring to the God who made us and knows what we need to live a life full of beauty.
Again, My Right, My Freedom Don’t Like then stop responding, Now I have been polite I have answered questions as they come but in the End I feel Homosexuals should not be allowed to exist. that is my Right. just like you have the right to say anything you want. and for your information the bible says right there in the new testament 1 corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Homosexuals don’t go to heaven.. God’s own words, if God doesn’t like them then I don’t have too either. plain simple black and white.
The Taliban called, they want their Sharia Law back
Maryland needs a lot more stuff first. Plus, there are already heightened protections from Circuit court precedent.
They aren’t God’s words, they are Paul’s words. These words were written over 1,900 years ago in a language that has been translated from one language into another and into another. Depending on your translation of the Bible, Paul is talking about anything from boy prostitutes to perverts to male prostitutes to homosexuals. It also specifies just men, so I guess a lesbian couple would be OK, depending on your translation. The Catholic Bible used “masturbator” up until it was changed in 1967 to “homosexual”. So if you were homosexual up until 1967 you’d still go to heaven, but not after according to the Catholic bible. But luckily you won’t go to hell now if you masturbate. See how silly this all sounds? Is God so narrow that he only allows people into Heaven if they follow the NIV instead of the NKJV? No, God is bigger than that, which is why we aren’t to decide who goes to heaven and who doesn’t. We are to love God and honor him, and treat all people with love and the way you wanted to be treated. i.e. the greatest commandment. By the way, there are lots of other “types” of sinners on your list above that you seemingly have no trouble with; for some reason you want to discriminate against just homosexuals. You probably have no trouble hanging out with people who like their cars, drink a little too much on a Saturday, not fill out their taxes honestly, etc.
I hope those who use the bible as their way of life honour it completely. It’s a tough battle to live pure but by the looks of it heaven is for all mankind and animals. Oh except for gay animals as they must be sinners too lol. Man may hold a grudge but whoever greats us after this life has more respect to fellow man.
actually no I don’t hang out with people who drink to get drunk, I don’t like people who do drugs, or sell them mary jane included, I can’t stand homosexuals to the point that if there is any gay reference in a show or movie I won’t watch it, my girls like frozen, it’s not allowed in my house because the store owner is gay. it’s not said in the movie but they can watch at grandma’s and grandpa’s house, not in mine, which is funny cause my father feels the same way I do, I was brought up in a house that was taught PROPER. now my beliefs are my own and yeah ok, I probably go a little more extreme than people in my family. but it’s disgusting, and wrong, an NOTHING you say will ever change my mind. like I said keep the shit coming because I’m use to it,
Do you shoot weddings with people who live together before marriage or have been divorced? What about those with children from prior relationships. Sex before marriage is considered a sin? What about if the bride is menstruating on the wedding day? She would be considered unclean and thus you would not be able to shoot her because of your beliefs.
I will do Hetero Weddings I will not do Gay and Lesbian weddings pure and simple you got a problem with that, burn with them like they should OK :) have a nice day.
I’ll run my business as I see fit, and you run yours as you see fit.
I think it’s a disgrace. Very sad days for the world of equality
It should be forced! Send them to re-education camp! Send me too! Force me to teach there!!!
People aren’t equally skiled. I personally have never done and Indian wedding. I would be remiss if I accepted such a gig. I would have to say no, but it wouldn’t be religous discrimation. It would be simply that I wasn’t the right guy for the job…
James go away at once. That’s absolute rubbish.
George I think you make a fair point if you feel you couldn’t capture the magic of their day but in fairness I don’t think it would really be any different I know mine wasn’t.
Forcing someone to take a job they are not comfortable with is wrong for whatever reason. This is NOT equal rights.. it i SPECIAL rights. because a person has a right to refuse service.
I bet it would be different if it was a Muslim photographer refusing to take photos for a gay wedding?
Why the need to force things on people? When people start pushing an agenda on me.. IT IS a TOTAL turn off.
thanks.
http://www.picshare.co.il
what a waste of time!!!
Isn’t the US a secular state? If it is, this law is in clear contradiction with that.
Majoritary religions obviously doesn’t need any sort of law in place for “protection”. This is a closed door reunion a la KKK style to force beliefs of said politicians upon a minority that has always been target to discrimination.
It is exactly when you have swiping overreaching laws like that, made by representatives of the people, that citizens will feel that their discriminatory actions are justified in some way, since they have support of the law itself.
One could just as well create a “minoritary religion” that uses some ancient book or scripture to consider people from other races or genders to be “inferior” thus being able to refuse service to them. How does that sound? They also shouldn’t be punished? Because there is basically no difference in what I’m saying, is there?
I love how those preaching tolerance and acceptance want those who follow their religious beliefs to be punished ????
Anyone who discriminates against someone based on who they are should be punished. Religion is no excuse for bigotry. If you provide a service in our society, you cannot deny someone that service because of who they are. I am all for the right to believe whatever you want, but your religious freedom stops where the law begins… And I do believe this state law will either get struck down by the Supreme Court or changed once the people of Indiana come to their senses.
It’s not based on “who they are”, but on “what they do”. Exactly as with any other sin, crime or however you want to call it.
On what are your claims based? “You can do this”, “you can’t do that”, “your religious freedom stops where the law begins” etc? Who are you to came with such “laws”? Some people CAN do anything they want because of the ridiculous reason “I feel like that”, but other people can’t, because…. you “feel” so.
You are ridiculous, talking about “law”, then wanting to change it to support YOUR beliefs.
You are also confused on what a belief implies. You think “believing” and “living” are to things that can be separated. “You are free to believe what you want, but you must disregard that in business”. To believe implies to live accordingly. Otherwise it’s useless.
Good thing MLK didn’t believe as you advocate that his freedoms and those of the black community stopped where the separate but equal Plessy v. Ferguson LAW began. Good thing he ignored all that in 1964 and fought for and won civil rights. Good thing he changed the LAW for the better.
As a result, religion is a protected class. Sexual preference is not a wholly protected class; it appears to be morphing into such before our eyes. Hence, one protected class is being pitted against another budding potential protected class. The resonable solution is reasonable compromise, rather than actively stamping out the existence of one class in preference of the other. Your solution is unreasonable as you would FORCE people to act against their conscience. Your words lead me to believe that you especially discriminate against those whose beliefs are grounded in religion. Do you also discriminate against secularist people who have differing beliefs and opinons? Do you actively force them to think and act like you believe because of the LAW, whether it be good or bad law?
On the contrary, we do not want anyone to be punished because of their believes. ISIS behaviors are part of the religious belief, Thus we should not punish them because f these believes. Citing Christianity, Christ was the most Tolerant person on Earth, when religious believes forbade people to talk, or have anything to do with the Samaritans, He talked to one, and accepted dink from her… when they were ready to stone a woman He forbade such behavior. When his followers offer to defend him when the roman cm to arrest him, he refused to let them, because God does not need protection. I wish people who disguise heir hatred and bigotry behind the veil of religious righteousness to study Jesus’ teaching and understand what he meant, and ot how Taliban, ISIS, and their Christian counterpart want to interpret it.
Jesus was tolerant? Let’s look at this a little more deeply.
He did ask the woman at the well for a drink, which was against all traditions. This was because she was a woman, she was a Samaritan (considered unclean by Jews) and because she was an outcast of even her own people because of her promiscuous lifestyle. Yes, Jesus showed her compassion and love by meeting with her in he loneliest time.
Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”
Was that a “tolerant” statement? That was pretty confrontational! Please read about Jesus from the Bible if you are going to talk about him. It would do you well to learn about the man who was important enough to you to use as a reference in your argument.
religious freedom goes both ways – be a religious dick, lose business…
That’s the wrong-wing version of “tolerance”; which rather misses the point of genuine tolerance, doesn’t it?
I would love to have a public photography business, but I would be afraid of being sued by choosing not to do a same sex wedding because of my conscientious objection. I wouldn’t want to support that or do work for any church that I believe supports false religion. It’s my personal choice, but that wouldn’t matter in the court. I’m not judging anyone, but I will follow what the Bible says, and will not support those who practice sin, regardless of sexual orientation.
So many things in the bible that would be considered illegal though. You can’t go outside and stone someone for committing adultery. Are you saying people should be able to do that?
No, he’s not saying that. The Bible RECORDS, but does not ENDORSE the act of men who stoned as a consequence for sin or behaviour considered unacceptable. BUT what did Jesus say, “He without sin, may cast the first stone.” No one threw stones, especially not Jesus, who is in fact, without sin.
It is not for me to judge. Can you give me an example with the full context of the scripture when that happened? I’d be more than happy to discuss it.
If you refuse to support those who practice sin, your photography business would dry up in a matter of months.
No it wouldnt, and I do fine with my photography as it is. I gave you an example, being weddings. But for portraits, and other creative photography, I have no quarrels, but if I owned a painting business, I wouldn’t take up a job painting a church that I believed to support a false religion. The double standards on these situations speak for themself. I’m not surprised by any of this, because the Bible told of such times. But I am personally effected, and just wanted to give my thoughts. It’s cool if you don’t agree.
So if you were Baptist and happened to think that Catholicism was a false religion because they practice reconciliation, you would refuse painting the rectory?
Lol, not sure what that is, but I would have no part in painting any Catholic building if I owned the painting business. But if I was an employee of a painting business, than thats a different matter.
And therein lies the problem – you let your personal bias and what you consider to be ‘false religions’ dictate who you allow to hire you. That, my friend, is discrimination and that is why there are laws against that. If everyone decided who they are willing to sell to or be hired by based on their personal prejudices, there would be whole classes of people that won’t have access to good or services because of their beliefs, ethnicity, cultural heritage, gender, etc. I guess we haven’t moved beyond Jim Crow yet…
You really missed the point. I have my standards that I have set for my Bible trained conscience. I’m not asking anyone to have my same views. And it’s not what I determine to be false, but what the Bible says to be false. And they prove to be false by their works. You don’t have to have these standards, but as for me, I’ll let my works speak for themselves and shouldn’t have to worry about being sued for the lack of consideration of their feelings by completely disregarding things that would hurt my conscience to do.
And you missed the point even more. Everyone doesn’t believe in your Bible or your God. But they can’t deny you service because of that. As a world we can’t just sell to people who follow our own interpretation of religion. That’s discrimination. Besides, I doubt Jesus would expect you to not sell to people who may not believe in what you do. As a matter of fact, he’d probably encourage you to do business with them.
I agree with Ranus. You HAVE missed the point. We ALL discriminate daily, continuously. Simple discrimination, choosing one thing over another, a choice, a path, is totally acceptable.
You chose to go to college A versus colleges B – Z, by doing so, you have discriminated against colleges B-Z.
You are a gay baker, let’s say, who has refused to bake a cake for a customer who wants the cake to be boldly decorated with the slogan, “Gay Marriage is a Sin Against God,” by doing so, you have discriminated based on the content message the cake will bear. Have you also discriminated against the customer you’ve turned away? Yes and no, but you have every right to do so….to discriminate based upon your closely held personal beliefs, which are not even religious in nature, but have everything to do with your right to free expression/speech.
Did you even read the article? Would you also force a Muslim photographer, who refuses to photograph a gay couple’s wedding because he/she conscientiously objects for religious reasons, to photograph the wedding anyway or suffer legal consequences, including civil actions, like being sued or criminal penalties, like being jailed? Seriously?
No, you don’t get that I’m not discriminating. That Jesus would not support me glorifying the marriage of 2 people who practice fornication or homosexuality. But keep to his example, and do my best not to conform to the air of this system of things but follow his example and keep to the standards that he supported by his Father.
Let’s just agree to disagree. I’m not down for arguing. Not much point in that bud. Take care!
“It’s not for you to judge”
Good, then sell your services equally to all people.
So you would serve only Christians? By the way, where does the bible say you should not support those who sin? Doesn’t everyone sin? That’s why Catholics go to confession, right? I don’t feel sorry for your situation. You are making a choice. It seems like your only alternatives are to either move to a country where Christianity is the state religion and homosexuality is outlawed, or you can find a more liberal Christian Church. I know some Protestant ministers and a couple of Episcopal priests who know the Bible pretty well, and they would all tell you that it is okay to be a Christian and still provide services for, or work with, homosexuals and people of other religions.
It’s one thing to sin and another to say that what you do is not a sin, it’s normal, you are proud of it and you have the “right” to force somebody else to participate at the celebration of your sin.
” I know some Protestant ministers and a couple of Episcopal priests who
know the Bible pretty well, and they would all tell you that it is okay
to be a Christian and still provide services for, or work with,
homosexuals and people of other religions.”
Each with his own knowledge, understanding and conscience.
The First Amendment explicitly identifies religious practice as a right.
There is no reason way any American should be obligated to accept any of the alternatives which you enumerate. The obligation is on our society and a whole to respect each individual’s right to religious beliefs and practice; and not on any individual to alter his religious beliefs or practices to conform to what society wants.
If you want to live in a nation where the rights of sick perverts to force others to participate in their perversions is held higher than the rights of religious people to practice their religion in peace, then why don’t you move to another nation, where such inverted values are the norm? As long as the First Amendment stands, the U.S. will never be that nation.
So you never shoot any weddings in which the groom nor bride has been divorced?
That doesn’t even make sense.
How do you check if the bride is a virgin?
False religions?!? It’s all false you fools! No religion is based on scientific fact it’s all made up, no one has ever turned bread into fish not even David Copperfield or Houdini!
You’re a jumped up biggot Mr Anus and you should be ashamed of your views.
Biggots! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Forrest Anus you are a sinner because you don’t love thy neighbour – does that mean you’ll go to hell?! See you at the bar , I heard Hell is like a hot hooters with AC/DC playing live every night!
Idiots!!
Wait, wait. so you would have an application prior to doing a photo shoot based on your beliefs? What would that look like, something like this I guess.
1. Do you worship any other gods?
2. Do you make any idols?
3. Have you misused the name of god?
4. Have you kept the sabbath holy?
5. Do you honor your mother and father?
6. Have you murdered any one?
7. Have you committed adultery?
8. Have you stolen anything?
9. Have you lied?
10. Have you coveted anything?
I guess that you’ll be sticking to taking pictures that do not involve people.
In fact it’s very simple. Nobody ask these questions (or questions about sexual preferences). But if you come telling me that you are going to commit adultery, to murder, to steal, to dishonor your parents, etc etc and you want me to participate as a photographer, I will politely refuse.
Jesus said nothing to condemn homosexuality explicitly. He did say to some Pharisees those who are without sin cast the first stone.
“Jesus said nothing to condemn homosexuality explicitly.”
Matthew 19,4: ““Haven’t you read,” He (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.””
So it’s clear what sex and marriage is and how God designed men and women to become a couple. If He said that, why do you think He should cover every possible case of perversion and of negative examples of what sex and marriage shouldn’t be ? Especially when some of those (homosexuality, bestiality etc) were already covered in other places?
“He did say to some Pharisees those who are without sin cast the first stone.”
Why do you think God gave any laws then, since no one is without sin to enforce those laws?
The Bible is very clear on matters of marriage and of sexual intimacy. There was no need for Jesus himself to repeat every detail of what the Bible had already made very clear, and his silence on any such matter can certainly not be rationally taken as a repudiation of what had already been established in scripture.
Regarding the woman who was caught in adultery, after her accusers left, what is the last thing he is recorded as having said to her? Did he tell her that it was OK to continue sleeping around with men who were not her husband? Do you suppose he might have offered to even set her up with trysts with other men for that purpose, or otherwise have acted to support and endorse that behavior?
No, he did not and would not say or do any such thing. “…go and sin no more.” That’s what he told her. He did not endorse, condone, or support her sin. He told her to repent, and turn away from it.
“He who discriminates against those whom he believes to be a discriminator is, himself, a discriminator.”
I believe Mr. Ranus’ point is not about denying photography services at large to the LGBT community but rather a simple matter of conscience in denying to commemorate a ceremony that he believes to be expressly wrong. It’s more about the specific event than about the people involved.
For those who oppose Mr. Ranus on this issue,I have a gig you might be up for. I have a friend overseas who is marrying a ten-year-old girl he fell in love with. (He has the bride’s father’s permission and all, and it’s not illegal by local laws, so it’s good to go in that culture.) He is really wanting an American photographer to shoot the wedding ceremony, but I can’t actually make the date. Would any of you be interested? The pay is good, and I can get you my friend’s contact info if you are potentially interested!
Notice all these people volunteering to not be bigots? I’ve got another one, how about photographing female circumcision? Or an even simpler one. How about pornographic material? I assume every photographer on here that is against this law is willing to take pictures of a couple having sex right? They’re professionals and HAVE to serve EVERYBODY!
More excellent examples of activities I would not want to be FORCED to photograph simply because I entered the free market and hung out a shingle.
Excellent point.
Establishing a business under the protection of government and benefiting from public infrastructure is a privilege, not a right. Along with that privilege comes the requirement that you not operate your business in such a way as to discriminate against the public that allows your business to operate.
I pay taxes for that “privilege”. The government is paid from those taxes. I invest money in my business and I work for that business, not the “public”. Why should “the public” have any right upon me and my private property?
If I want to drive on the opposite lane (because “I feel so”) and the police stops me, is that “discrimination”? And I could make a long list of similar cases.
“I pay taxes for that “privilege”.
So you agree that it is a privilege.
“Why should “the public” have any right upon me and my private property?”
They don’t, as long as you are not operating a public business under the legal protection of a government which is funded by people you choose to discriminate against.
“Only homosexuals have ‘rights’?”
Try not to look more ignorant than necessary.
I agree you don’t understand what quotes mark stand for in this case.
I fund the government as well, so that isn’t an argument.
“Try not to look more ignorant than necessary.”
Obviously I can’t beat you on that, so I wont even try.
I know what quote marks mean in normal cases. I have no idea what misuse you might apply to them.
“I fund the government as well, so that isn’t an argument.”
They fund the government too, so it is an argument.
“Obviously I can’t beat you on that, so I wont even try.”
You’re doing fine.
Oh, baloney. You got it backwards. Mankind existed BEFORE Government and its out of control bureaucracy. The Rights of the People preempt the Rights of Government. Government exists for the benefit of the People, not vice versa.
So would you shoot couples that live together before marriage or those that one of the parties have been divorced? Sex before marriage and divorce are considered sins in the church.
Yes, but getting married is the right thing to do. What do you want them to do? To continue to live unmarried?
If you say “because the Bible says” -people will became crazy. Instead, say that you “feel like this” and that you were born so. Those seem to be much more legit reasons.
Such a backwards law. This can easily bleed into so many different areas. Whatever happened to separating business and personal. If they want to bring their personal beliefs into it, they should not be protected under business tax laws either. Make it all personal.
How is it more backward than the one Clinton signed into law in 1993 or the 19 identical state laws enacted since 1997 when Boerne v Flores determined that the Federal RFRA didn’t apply to states?
your behind on your info, all of those laws are unconstitutional and have been struck down by the courts
You mean the ones that are being overturned, just like the gay marriage laws that are being struck down?
Overturned? Funny, since the ACLU uses those dozens of times annually as successful defense in cases involving Jewish, Muslim, and Native American people. SCOTUS handed down a unanimous decision in January of this year involving a Muslim inmate being allowed to wear a beard for religious purposes on the back of RFRA.
Not sure what you’re talking about, but those laws are very much alive.
End of the world!
No, it really doesn’t. No more than the Federal RFRA or any of the 19 other states with identical laws. I’m disappointed to see so many people buy the bullshit narrative.
You ought to be able to refuse anyone a service.
You can as long as you don’t base your decision on the fact they belong to a protected class. “No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a legal policy. Even refusing service to Republicans is a legal policy. Someone chooses to be a Republican, but they do not choose their race or sexual orientation. Refusing service based on someone belonging to a protected class is not legal nor is it civilized. Sexual orientation is not a protected class in every state yet, but it will be. Just as it was during the Civil Rights era, some folks (like those who support this type of legislation) are just determined to find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Said the whites of the South before Civil Rights laws called them on that bullshit.
Come on sir. Big difference here. One is race, the other is not
The difference being… what? Bigotry doesn’t start and stop at skin color.
Who said its because they hate them? That’s your assumption. It’s because they love God. He doesn’t tell us to hate anyone. We just do not participate in things clearly laid out in scripture that are an abomination to a Holy God.
Yeah earh is flat and whiches should be buened!
So, you follow every law as written in Leviticus? Do you also advocate stoning women and beating children, keeping slaves, and beheading infidels?
I bet you just pick and choose the ones you want to follow, and ignore the ones that you don’t.
If your religion prevents you from treating everyone equally, then you have no business opening a business in a country that demands through Civil Rights laws that you serve ALL citizens equally. Go open a church instead.
Do we have to justify to you the decisions we make? What justification do gays provide for their behavior? “Because we feel like this”. If you think that is a good reason, why don’t you accept it when coming from other people as well? “We feel like this”. Especially when we also have biology on our side.
Then you talk about “cherry picking” while discarding what Paul said, and every verse concerning marriage and sex. Ridiculous.
The argument with “Civil rights” is completely stupid. At the time civil rights were written, and long after, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.
I don’t think you understand the Bible.
I understand it quite well after about 50 years of studying it, including all my formative years in parochial schools.
You pick and choose. It’s okay to admit it.
Those were a people who rejected God. It wasn’t supposed to be that way.
Ahh so you’re a studied fellow and know everything there is to know about God. Sir, I hate no persons. In fact, being a Christian enables me to love people in a way not possible apart from Christ. However, I will not make comprises in order to please anyone and their lifestyle if it conflicts with my Faith.
You keep using the word “hate” as though I said it. Why is that?
Who did Jesus turn away?
Who are you talking about when you say “those were a people who rejected God”?
You pick and choose which laws proscribed by God you want to follow, and you ignore the ones you don’t want to follow. It’s simple as that.
All mankind has rejected God. It was His chosen people. Do you realize that cultures outside of the Israelites at the time we’re doing far worse things.
Anyways this isn’t going anywhere. You have your belief and as do I.
So, are you trying to say that God’s laws only apply to the Israelites, and not to you? LOL!
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.”
Oops!
It’s ok for you to cherry pick scripture out of context?
“Accomplish their purpose”.
That’s why I don’t have to sacrifice animals any longer etc etc. I believe it might be you who is cherry picking scriptures. If you’re really good you can make the bible say all kinds of things. The Lord Jesus however is quite clear on sin.
Where did God give Paul the authority to tell people they could ignore the laws God put down? Why would God even have those laws if he didn’t want people to follow them? Why would Jesus go out of his way to say specifically that he was not there to abolish them?
In fact, Pual perverted nearly EVERYTHING Jesus actually said, if we’re to believe the quotes attributed to him in the New Testament.
And in the end, if you can ignore the laws “abomination” about eating shellfish and bacon and cutting your hair and wearing mixed clothing, and all the rest, why can’t you also ignore the “abomination” of gays?
Oh, that’s right… Because you pick and choose which to follow and which to ignore.
What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn away gays, prostitutes, or anyone else? Sure doesn’t seem like it from what HE said, rather than what PAUL said and what current pick-and-choose Christians say. So, where does JESUS say to turn them away?
He would tell them to repent and believe in the Gospel
That wasn’t the question. Would he turn them away? Simple question.
He wouldn’t justify din because He hates sin. He’d say go and sin no more.
Sin*
Sir, God loves you. If you haven’t gotten right with God by repentance it’s not too late. Good night.
Again, not the question. I didn’t ask if he’d justify it. I didn’t ask if he’d tell them to repent. I asked WOULD HE TURN THEM AWAY.
Why can’t you just answer that simple question directly?
Also, you say, “being a Christian enables me to love people in a way not possible apart from Christ”. Please describe that “love” for others.
Jesus said we are to love others as we love ourselves. Do you love gays as you love yourself? Would you turn yourself away? Would you not help yourself?
It’s not enough just to mouth the words that you “love” others. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Will you now pervert the turning away of others as one of your “fruits”?
Jesus also said, “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”
Gays ask to have their photos taken. According to Jesus, you should give them what they ask for. Will you ignore Jesus on this point as well?
If you’re going to ignore the ACTUAL teachings and advice of Jesus, why call yourself a Christian? Why not call yourself a Paulite or something like that?
I think any artist should be able to refuse any client for any reason. I also think those clients should be free to take their business elsewhere. Is the governor a total POS for not vetoing this garbage? Absolutely. This is a market education problem, not a legislative problem. Educate the community on which businesses are bigoted, and let the market sort itself out. Once you shine a bright light on the behavior and give it a face and a name, you’ll watch them change their tune or go out of business.
Because that worked so well in the South before Civil Rights laws were enacted, right?
Poignant, but irrelevant. This law effectively pits one protected class against another. I think it will be immediately challenged, struck down, and ultimately be just a huge waste of time and Indiana tax dollars.
Yes the law does pit one against another. Freedom of Religion/Expression/Speech is protected. Sexual Preference per se is not a protected class, such as Race, Creed, Religion, Gender, etc. Not yet anyway.
More to the point, freedom of religion and freedom of expression are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, with freedoms of conscience and association being very strongly implied. Freedom to be a sick, immoral pervert might, by a great stretchm, be extrapolated from the Ninth Amendment, but you just cannot get, out of the Constitution, a right to force decent people to take any part in your sick, immoral perversions; especially in conflict with the rights found in the First Amendment.
horse-shit
From my experience, I have found that I can use the same settings on my camera no matter what the sexual orientation of the subject may or may not be.
No, you should use the camera backwards for gays.
The world be so much better if people if people actually acted like Jesus and ignored everything else in the Bible.
No, it would be so much better if people stopped pretending and just used their wallets to buy services with people that they agreed with.
Trying to force people who disagree with you to take your money is absurd.
Your taking their picture not having sex with them. What the heck is there to disagree about?
Deuteronomy 23:1 “Jesus said ‘don’t be a twat’
Only that Jesus quoted the Bible and said the Bible is His word.
Also He said that:
“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his
commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his
commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps
his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:3-6)
So Jesus said you are a liar.
That guy has a weird shaped head
And twenty steps back… o my, how embarrasing for the state. And how embarrasing for the bigots. Souch a small and worhtless god they must have. A real god would not be threathen by who a person love! But as i allways have said.. A small mind takes a small god ;)
If you are going to insult people based on their small minds you may find it prudent to make sure that your misunderstanding of the English language is not on parade.
I think it’s better to allow someone to refuse the work (for whatever shitty reason it may be) than to force them to do it, which might result in crappy job (or spitting in the cake). You’re probably better of looking for somebody else anyway.
Good Decision…. A Muslim owner can now refuse openly to hire women because of his religious belief. This owner can also require women to sit in the back of his shop, or even refuse to serve them unless accompanied by a father, brother, or husband…. Now he can “discriminate” legally by citing his religious belief…. Where do we draw the line.
You have the right to go to other shop/business/whatever. Nobody forces you to go there. Or you can open one yourself – more money for you.
Nope. Wrong. Gender is a protected class. The line is drawn. Not to say the line may change.
in true democracy you can pick an choose whatever you want … you don’t need law to support you choices
people saying that this law is not ok are just as hypocritical as people who created this legislation
If you don’t need a law t support your choices, then why pass one that support the choices o extremists
How can they possibly allow this in 2015? Absolutely ridiculous and very sad that people are STILL so narrow minded. I think a big fuck you is in order here.
living in the dark ages means you don’t evolve, so the world will leave you behind. Indiana looks to be a place to avoid.
Surely, in order to evolve, you have to have the ability to reproduce? Or am I missing something?
are you saying that there isn’t enough…reproduction in the world as it is? And is that all we were made for? Evolution doesn’t mean popping kids left right and center.
This law is shameful!
I got a bad news and a good news, first bad news is that all LGBT should wear a yellow star with LGBT when they are outside rheir home. The good news is that it makes more job oportunities for the open minded
Photographers are artists.
As an artist I have 1st amendment rights to produce whatever art I feel like producing. There are a few restrictions (child porn, for example) that constrain my art choices but there has never a law requiring that I produce a certain kind of art. In Nazi Germany writers were required to write pro-Nazi propaganda; If I accept money to create art I now have to create whatever art anybody wants or I am breaking the law. Mother-in-law a witch? Have to work for her because I cannot deny service for any reason. A KKK member wants me to photograph a cross burning I have to do it. Porn – gotta do it because I shoot portraits. Animal sacrifice – I guess I need to do it or I am closed minded. But why stop there? Writers claim to be be artists but they take money to write so no rights there. Liron Samuels writes blog posting for a living, I’ll pay Liron to write an editorial demanding the banning of landscape photography and a prison sentence for Nikon shooters; I am paying so he has to do it! Freedom? Bah – my rights are more important than your freedom! Freedom is slavery!
If you’re a wedding photographer then you are a service provider as well as an artist. If you define your business as taking photos of happy couples on their wedding day then you cannot deny anyone this service because they are a member of a protected class. That doesn’t mean you have to take whatever kind of photo they want you to take. You can refuse to photograph them standing in front of a burning cross because you find the message offensive and you don’t want a reputation that might harm your business. Your refusal is not discrimination because you are not refusing to shoot the burning cross based on the race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. of your clients. Anti-discrimination laws vary from state to state, but they are generally concerned with intent. Mother-in-law a witch? Define witch? If you mean she is a mean person and threatened you with verbal abuse, you can refuse to work with her at your own risk (losing the business of the couple getting married). If you mean she is a Wiccan (and she never verbally assaulted you or impeded your job), then refusing to work with her would be discrimination. It’s really not that hard to understand the difference.
OK – So photographers are not artists when they photograph gay weddings but are artists when the mother in law is a bitch. I guess all my copyrights are invalid…
You are twisting my words to fit your narrative of the poor misunderstood artist. If you just want to be an artist, take photos and sell them. Wedding photography is a service no matter who the client is. It just happens to have a creative aspect to it. So does mixing drinks or cooking the food. You aren’t the only artist at the wedding.
Wedding photography it’s a service I provide once I agree to provide it through a signed contract. Until I sign that contract I am not obliged to anything. Simple.
To a person with morals, homosexuality is offensive; and homosexual mockeries of weddings are offensive. No moral person should be willing to participate in any such thing, and no moral person should be compelled by law to do so.
Shame on you, Indiana politicians.
As the US, leaders of the free world and still living in the dark ages, they could be witches better burn them to make sure……
I’m sure most Photographers can afford to turn down business…
Two points: First, if a couple (same sex or not) goes into a photographer (or baker or whatever) and they act like total asses, the business owner should be able to refuse to do business with them. However, if it IS a same sex couple, they are likely to scream “discrimination” and sue the business owner on those grounds. Second, If some idiot dresses up in his KKK robes and goes into a soul food restaurant, should the own be forced to serve them? You can’t give one class of people more tights than any other….it’s called the equal protection clause…
Good, no one should be forced to do anything they don’t want to do.
I think the world has bigger problems than these small minded people turning away business being one of them. Two men holding hands or loving each other is considered unnatural yet a German pilot took 150 lives with him and he would’ve been photographed before this tragedy because he was heterosexual? The world is very messed up.
No, you are messed up. If that pilot comes to me saying “I will suicide by crashing a plane with 150 passengers, it’s perfectly normal, I am very proud of it and I want you to come and photograph me” – I will refuse and call the police. Is that simple.
U. S.tupid A.assholes
The arguments supporting this type of discriminatory legislation are all fallacies:
” if I have to photograph gay couples against my religion, then Muslim restaurants should have to serve pork to non-Muslim customers.” False. You are free to define and limit the goods and services you provide. You just can’t deny your goods or services to anyone based on their membership in a protected class.
“My religion says I should discriminate against a protected class (homosexuals, women, people of other religions, etc.), and I should be free to practice my religion.” False. Ever heard the phrase,”Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?” Well your freedom to practice your religion ends where it conflicts with your federal, state or local laws.
“If I refuse to serve someone because they are unreasonable customers, and they happen to be gay, they will sue me for discrimination.” Possible, but unlikely. Do you feel the same when you turn down customers of another race? Few people go around trying to entrap small businesses this way. It costs money to file a lawsuit, and wedding photographers and bakers aren’t usually with suing. Besides, they have to prove that you refused them based on their membership in a protected class. That will be a tough case to make unless they have evidence. As long as you have had other customers of their race, sexual preference, etc. you would they wouldn’t even find a lawyer willing to take the case. The bigger risk would be bad social media reviews, but that would open them up to being sued by you. Look, most couples just want to hire a photographer, a caterer, a baker, etc. They aren’t looking to add drama to their wedding plan in process, so just be professional. Professionals know how to manage expectations, write contract and deal with difficult customers.
“Anti-discrimination laws stink. I should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” Yes it stinks that we need anti-discrimination laws, but history shows that they have been and still are necessary. Letting the market decide leads to a lot of businesses in some parts of the country getting away with blatant bigotry. Imagine you are hired to photograph a couple’s destination wedding. You arrive at the resort and are refused a room because you are a race they have a policy against serving or because you are gay. Sadly, we still need anti-discrimination laws… and these laws are quickly expanding to include protection for sexual orientation. Which side of history do you want to be on?
Rev up the boycotts
Now it would be legal for people of different religious beliefs, to discriminating each other. WAY TO GO ‘MURICA!
From what I understand, Indiana isn’t the only state with this law, it’s just the latest one to sign it into law. I am from Indiana and all the businesses I deal with are all ready and willing to serve everyone of all walks of life. If you are in Indiana, and you are LGBT and need your photo taken, I have no problem photographing you. I am affiliated with a large group of photographers here in Indiana and every one of us has no problem doing photo shoots for LGBT, big, tall, short, fat, skinny, Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, whatever, one of us will do it!
Basic bottom line; we don’t get to decide who eats at the lunch counter. Simple.
Religious freedom covers not participating in a sacrament you don’t agree with. But, here’s a news flash, baking a cake or taking a picture is not a sacrament!
You can’t legally let your beliefs impede anyone else’s exercise of their lawful rights. Even under this law, as the governor and all those legal scholars were at some pains to point out.
If you really can’t photograph a gay wedding, then you are obliged to have a photographer you can refer people to for that service. If you can’t even do that, then you deserve to lose your business.
“Basic bottom line; we don’t get to decide who eats at the lunch counter. Simple.”
We don’t. You neither. You don’t decide if I go to the lunch counter (of a gay wedding) or not. Very simple. Maybe I am not hungry. Maybe I don’t like the food. Maybe I don’t like you. It’s MY right to decide, not yours. Your “right” is unaltered, you can do what you want. But not with me.
“Religious freedom covers not participating in a sacrament you don’t
agree with. But, here’s a news flash, baking a cake or taking a picture
is not a sacrament!”
Decide that FOR YOURSELF. Not for me.
“You can’t legally let your beliefs impede anyone else’s exercise of their lawful rights.”
And how exactly you do that? They are still free to marry, to be photographed, to eat cakes etc.
And why is it MY “beliefs” and THEIR “lawful rights”? Why isn’t the other way around? “Their beliefs” and “my lawful rights”?? Why do you think the abnormal sexual preferences of someone are the most important thing in the world, and my preferences/beliefs/freedom are not?
“If you really can’t photograph a gay wedding, then you are obliged to have a photographer you can refer people to for that service. If you can’t even do that, then you deserve to lose your business.”
Really? Because you say so? I can invent such “laws”, too: If you really can’t think, you should shut up.
You have no legal, moral or Constitutional right to discriminate. Period. You can still do it if you want to and are willing to pay the consequences. But don’t whine about those consequences effecting your religious beliefs. Jesus said “go with them two (miles)” not “refuse because they are icky”
“Really? Because you say so?” No, because that’s the law. That’s why there is a cake baker crying about losing her business, because she refused to believe that was the law.
I have zero sympathy for people who flout the law and then whine that it isn’t fair. If you want to protest the law by violating it then you have to have the backbone to accept the consequences. Or else you are just a jerk with entitlement issues.
You don’t have any right to force me to do something I don’t want. Keep your beliefs for yourself, don’t force them on me. Period.
“Jesus said “go with them two (miles)” not “refuse because they are icky””
It’s obvious that anything against the moral law Jesus gave it’s not included. Otherwise you can use that as an excuse to participate to any perversion or crime.
Since you brought religion into discussion, Jesus also said “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6). So a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Any other arrangements are excluded.
No “moral” right? According to which objective moral standard? To force somebody to accept your beliefs is moral?
No “constitutional right”? When the Constitution was made, homosexuality was considered a deviation. They didn’t imagine the world will became so perverted.
“No, because that’s the law.” – the law WASN’T SO, until you/they change it. You appeal to the law only when it’s convenient for you. If the law can be changed one way, it can be changed the other way, too. When states like Indiana issue bills to correct this situation, you whine and you threaten people and businesses.
“I have zero sympathy for people who flout the law and then whine that it isn’t fair”
Tell that to your homosexual friends. They whined and lied and pressed until they changed the law in their favor. Now they have all their “rights”, but they still cry “discrimination” and whine every-time someone has the “audacity” to disagree with them or to refuse to participate to their phony marriages.
Freedom of association and freedom of conscience,while not explicitly enumerated in the First Amendment, are very strongly implied therein, and have consistently been upheld as such in court rulings.
Freedom of association certainly includes the right to choose with whom one will or will not engage in any kind of personal or business interaction; in other words, to discriminate.
You speak of having no sympathy for those who flout the law, while openly defending those who flout the First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution which is this nation’s highest law.
” while openly defending those who flout the First Amendment” it is not flouting the First Amendment to defend the Fourteenth. Apparently they did not teach Civics in your high school.
How about a law so that on groundhog day white bus drivers can refuse seats for black passengers? I mean, not to discriminate them, just to protect the drivers from punishment (for discrimination)? Common governor, wake up, it’s 2015!
I can refuse to work for anyone, but they can’t. Right?
Be white and go to Harlem restaurant and see if you get served.. LOL
What happened to the good old days where we were smart enough to tell people we didn’t want to work for that we were to busy? Or just charge them a lot more?
Whether or not you agree with the law, at least familiarize yourself with it and the federal law it is based on.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts
If I don’t want to shoot a wedding.. FOR WHATEVER REASON.. I shouldn’t have to shoot the wedding.. If I don’t want to bake a cake.. who thinks that here in America a free country I should be forced to do so so that some activist group can make a huge stink and file lawsuits? The gay community is all about equal rights and non discrimination… were is the equal rights and non discrimination against the Christians who are just minding their own business trying to live their lives like the rest of us? If you go into a shop.. and you are refused service.. GO TO ANOTHER SHOP… It’s kinda a no brainer.. But somehow now we have this entitlement attitude bullshit that people think they can force others to do their bidding against their will. The hypocrisy and reverse discrimination that is rampant in the gay community is MIND BLOWING.
Your lack of logic, reasoning and common deceny is what’s mind blowing. So a bakery can refuse service to someone because they are gay, Asian or Muslim… What happens when the only hotel with a vacancy does the same? Have you no shame?
What happens when we give up the freedom to make our own business decisions? What slippery slope do we slide down when we give up control of our own business to the government. Have you never seen the signs that say. No Shirt – No Shoes – No Service? where was your outrage then? If some Homosexual refused service to a christian there would be no uproar. The christian would say okay and find another service. But because Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong the gay community has waged war against them.. Not the other way around. For all their rambling and boisterous outrage about tolerance. They have zero tolerance for anyone who does not agree with them or their cause. Isn’t that the definition of bigotry.. Hmmm.. Funny, that’s what they accuse everybody else of? I would not shoot a Homosexuals wedding, and i do not believe the government should have a right to force me to shoot it. I wouldn’t shoot a straight couples wedding either. Why, I don’t like shooting weddings. Should somebody be able to sue me and force me to do it? Where do you draw the line?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been in effect for half a century. Please tell me how that has impacted your freedom to make your own business decisions. Where is the slippery slope you speak of? All that is happening now is that states are adding LBGTA people to the list of protected classes. If you are gay then 50 years probably feels more like a slow moving glacier than a slippery slope. “No shirt, no shoes, no service” does not discriminate against a class of people. It applies to all classes equally. Your fear of someone making you, someone who is not a wedding photographer, shoot a wedding is a ridiculous argument and I think you know that. You are suggesting that someone should be allowed to discriminate against a class of people because their religion says it is okay, and you’re afraid of slippery slopes? Ever heard the phrase,”Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?” Well your right to practice whatever religion you prefer ends where the law begins. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean you are free to commit crimes because you have a religious exemption.
In 1964 homosexuality was considered a deviation, so stop bringing “the Civil Rights Act” into this.
What you’re saying is “you can believe whatever you want as long as you do what I want”.
“Ever heard the phrase,”Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?””
And why do you think YOU should establish where MY nose begins? Mind your own nose.
It’s not “a class of people” who are discriminated. It’s any abnormal behavior and any behavior against my worldview.
The ridiculous and outrageous thing is that you make yourself “a protected class” based on reasons like “this is how I like, this is how I am” and you demand “rights”, but you don’t allow other people to refuse you for THE SAME REASON (“this is how I am”). You call them “homosphobes”, you sue them and you make them pay thousands of dollars or going out of business because YOU RIGHT to be like you want to be is more important than their right.
Fascinating. You assume that I am gay because I speak up for gay rights. You are so close minded that you can’t fathom a straight person caring about such an issue. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and not simply the way someone is. I take it you don’t actually know any gay people? You should get to know some. They aren’t scary. Being friends with them won’t give you AIDS. They won’t come after you’re children to turn them gay. Stop hiding behind your religion to justify your own prejudice.
And your response to my nose and fist example makes no sense. Please, explain to me what you mean. I’m very curious.
It doesn’t matter if the attraction to persons of the same sex is a choice or not. It’s exactly the same as with any improper attractions. Maybe one didn’t choose to be attracted, but HE CHOOSES TO HAVE GAY SEX or not. Nobody is condemned for what he thinks or feels, but for what he does. If you are a kleptomaniac, stealing is still not right, regardless the fact that you didn’t choose to become like that.
You are so closed minded that you assume I am scared by gays or I hate them. It doesn’t matter how “cute” or funny some gays appear to be. What is wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of your feelings.
“They won’t come after you’re children to turn them gay.”
Yes, they are. Look what are the children taught in primary schools and kindergartens, in some places. Under the mask of “sexual education”, they are “prepared” to embrace sexual “diversity”.
“Stop hiding behind your religion to justify your own prejudice.”
Stop hiding your inability to come with sound arguments behind personal attacks and stupid clichees.
“And your response to my nose and fist example makes no sense.”
Read it again. Slowly this time.
And you mockingly assume Robert knows no one who is gay, has never befriended a gay, thinks gays are scary, will get AIDS if he gets too close, that gays will turn his children gay, and that he is religiously prejudiced.
I know lots of gays, many are my friends/family. I love them like I love all my friends and family. There are aspects of all my friends/family that I recognize as acceptable, or not, based upon God’s laws. As people, I accept them as human, flaws and all, but acknowledge their flaws as wrong and their attributes as beautiful and superb.
Of course, being gay is a CHOICE. Yes, some of us are born with gay tendencies. Sexuality is a continuum. Some are born more to one side or the other of the continuum, whether they are born with male/female apparatus. BUT, those born gay still reserve the choice as to whether to act upon their gay tendencies.
Should a person born with alcholic tendencies, who has inherited the “alcoholic gene,” be encouraged to reason, “I was born this way, so embrace me as I am? I have no other choice to be anything but an alcoholic. Do not discriminate against me because I cannot remain sober.” The answer is NO in my consideration. I encourage and help them to turn away from alcohol, to eliminate it from their life, so it will no longer be a disability.
I ask you the same question: Do you have any religious friends? Get to know them. Befriend some of them. They aren’t scary.
You are known by the company that you keep. If you consistently take the side of sick perverts against that of decent people, then don’t be surprised when rational people assume you are a sick pervert.
The Civil Rights Acts, 1964 or otherwise, are irrelevant and have nothing to do with this discussion.
Religion is a protected class, as is, Gender, Race, Creed, etc. Sexual Preference is NOT a protected class, not yet.
So a Muslim baker must bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and a Muslim photographer must photograph a gay wedding and a gay baker must bake a cake that bears the slogan “Gay Marriage is Against God’s Law” and a secular, non-religious photographer must photograph (borrowing from an example stated above) a female circumcision, if legally performed, by Muslim advocates of such a procedure? Really? Seriously? This is America. We have 1st Amendment Freedoms, still. Stop attacking them, lest your freedoms be taken away and erased too.
Someone who takes the side of immoral perverts against that of decent people who want no part of that perversion, is in no position to accuse anyone of indecency.
This law has nothing to do with stores, restaurants, etc. It is a religious freedom law. It means if someone wants to hire someone to do something, and that business says no, they can’t run screeching to an attorney, sue the business, harass the business owner, etc. The reason gay persons are unendingly bringing this up is because of the lawsuits some were bringing against businesses regarding declining to provide services for same sex weddings. All they had to do is hire someone who didn’t have an objection. It has zero to do with discrimination. Gay persons, though they very obviously like to think so, are not the only people on earth and the only situations covered by the law. People need to get over themselves and realize not everybody wants your gay wedding business and choose someone who does.
If it’s illegal to refuse service, couldn’t a wedding photographer, for example, simply charge more? If they have set prices now, take them down and start doing business by bid. If the photographer doesn’t want to be at an event, they simply bid higher. Most likely they wouldn’t get the job, but if they did, they could simply contract the work out. In other words, hire someone to be present at the event.
To me, this would not be discrimination since they did service the client. But they didn’t personally have to participate.
No it doesn’t
No this bill just gives standing so you can have your day in court
Many people are revulsed by homosexuality and consider it a perversion whether homosexuals or liberals want to believe that or not. They do not buy into gay ‘pride’ and are not manipulated or embarrassed by liberals and gays calling them ‘homophobes’. Same with many other lgbt ‘issues’ .Yesterday a story about a man who declares he’s actually a woman and should use the ladies restroom and if your 6 year old girl is in there ‘oh well’. Of course liberal males (especially) ‘support’ this and are fine with it. My take is that you should have a right to decline doing business as there are plenty of other places who will welcome the chance to do business and so let the market decide.
Liron, this new law isn’t for persecution of gay minority, it’s only for protecting believers from gay persecution. You have said that they are now “protected” even if they don’t need protection. You also know that’s pathetic statement. And you also know about dear Christian lady, the florist that was sued by her long term customer because she didn’t want to participate in his gay wedding. In spite she showed him much love through the years before in spite knowing he is homosexual. Well, that’s disrespect Liron and that’s persecution in spite obvious love. And there are much more examples and you know that also. Shame on you Liron, shame on you for participating in something like that.
A solution: photograph them with the camera turned with the back towards them. If asked, tell them that you feel like that, that it’s normal, that you are proud of it and that you should not be discriminated for having other photographing preferences. LoL.
It is absurd that our society has degraded to the point that such a law as this is even necessary.
It is one thing for immoral perverts of all sorts to demand the right to be allowed to practice their perversions in privacy. It is another thing entirely to demand that others who want no part in their sickness must provide services in support of and participation in these perversions; and for the force of law to be used to enforce these demands.
One who has moral standards should not be subject to being forced by law to violate them, or be punished for refusing to do so.
On another front, just as the First Amendment protects the right of an artist to express what he wishes to express, I take it as a given that it also protects equally his right not to be forced to express that which he does not want to express.